[HN Gopher] Apple's risky bet on CarPlay
___________________________________________________________________
Apple's risky bet on CarPlay
Author : vsdlrd
Score : 64 points
Date : 2024-04-23 17:54 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theturnsignalblog.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theturnsignalblog.com)
| daanvr wrote:
| My next car must have CarPlay...
| oldpersonintx wrote:
| Apple is a predatory partner
|
| Every partnership Apple enters must result in Apple winning and
| the other party simply being a subservient cog
|
| So, no one wants to do business with them in new markets where
| Apple doesn't have leverage
|
| This is why they couldn't get a manufacturing partner for the
| now-dead Apple car...no one wanted to be the Foxconn of cars
| (they do all the work, Apple gets all the credit)
| resource_waste wrote:
| How would Apple not have leverage in the car market? There are
| 18 companies and only 1 Apple Logo.
|
| I think Apple failed on cars because they are significantly
| more complex then hobbling off-the-shelf electrical parts
| together and slapping an OS on it. Think of how many companies
| can assemble electronics and make OS. Its easy, literal sub 18
| year olds make prototypes like this.
| mannyv wrote:
| CarPlay mostly works, and although it has issues it's definitely
| user-focused.
|
| CarPlay doesn't prevent car makers from tracking vehicle
| activity.
|
| In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle
| infotainment. It sucks, or it's AA/CarPlay. The first generation
| of iDrive showed that rich people people will buy cars in spite
| of the in-car stuff. In fact, most car infotainment sucks, yet
| people still buy cars.
|
| Let's turn the question around: why would car makers want to
| spend millions of dollars a year rolling their own infotainment
| system? So they can make incremental revenue selling ads and user
| data? So they have control? Control over what, exactly?
| the_snooze wrote:
| >Control over what, exactly?
|
| Planned obsolesence. Without proper CarPlay/AA integration, car
| manufacturers get to decide when those whiz-bang infotainment
| features stop working. You'd have to replace the whole car to
| get those features back instead of just buying a new phone.
| s0rce wrote:
| Do people do that? I just use my phone beside the old useless
| infotainment. Honestly, I wouldn't buy a new car that used an
| in-house infotainment specifically because they go obsolete
| quickly (<5-10 years) and cannot be economically (or at all)
| to the latest tech. Carplay seems to be long lived.
| hx833001 wrote:
| No degradation at all for me over seven years. It's a game
| changer. Car still feels new
| daanvr wrote:
| For me, the fact that it updates with your phone every year
| is a game-changer! The end of those bad user interfaces.
| m463 wrote:
| come on. It is AOL of cars.
|
| This isn't "we're going to deprecate your car, buy a new
| one". People will buy them anyway.
|
| It is "You're going to pay for AOL, even though we have the
| internet"
|
| And when you sell your car, some other dumb schmuck will buy
| it used and sign up for AOL-of-cars.
| com2kid wrote:
| Heck simple bluetooth audio playback has degraded year over
| year in my car. After an android update a few years back I
| don't get to see the track name any more, pause/play sort of
| works, and thankfully audio still comes through and I can go
| to the previous/next track.
|
| Without constant updates, software that is part a a larger
| ecosystem will eventually breakdown.
| the_snooze wrote:
| >Without constant updates, software that is part a a larger
| ecosystem will eventually breakdown.
|
| This is why we should be so skeptical of tight software
| integration with durable hardware (e.g., cars and
| appliances with operational lifespans 10+ years easily).
| Software has a pretty short half-life, especially software
| that integrates with internet services; vulnerabilities get
| discovered in third-party components and remote APIs shift
| out from under you.
|
| Durable goods manufacturers have little skill or interest
| in long-term software upkeep (maybe they like the profits
| and the rent-seeking, but not the actual maintenance), so
| the most sustainable design is one where the software is
| easily seperable and replaceable from the core durable
| item. Manufacturer-specific internet-connected infotainment
| in cars ain't it.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| Isn't that exactly what VW did? No more GPS. Just use CarPlay.
| leovander wrote:
| Top of my head, most car makers aren't rolling their own. It's
| either off the shelf with some white labeling or they buy it
| from another care manufacturer. i.e. Mazda default infotainment
| can be found in some Toyotas
| neogodless wrote:
| Not sure if there's any more to it than this, but the Toyota
| Yaris is a rebadged Mazda 2. I suspect you won't find Mazda
| infotainment in other Toyota models, though.
| moduspol wrote:
| I mean, theoretically they could make money by selling
| additional services. Tesla sells "Premium Connectivity" for
| ~$10/mo, though it might be against the license agreements
| traditional manufacturers have with dealers to sell
| enhancements directly to the consumer.
|
| IMO it's more about control over the user experience. You don't
| want your customers' UX to be dependent on the whims of Apple
| or Google, because now you're implicitly building a long-term
| dependency with a third party that may not be acting in your
| interests in the future. You're moving closer toward a future
| where the vehicle becomes commoditized, and now you have more
| trouble differentiating from competitors. And keep in mind:
| it's only very recently that the "Apple car" project was
| cancelled.
|
| That said, traditional automakers are also famous (or
| infamous?) for sourcing tons of components (including
| infotainment systems) from the same parts manufacturers. But I
| guess at least that retains the ability to pivot and use it as
| a point of differentiation in the future.
| throwaway11460 wrote:
| Every traditional European car manufacturer sells services
| directly to customers. Not sure about the US/Japanese/Korean,
| though.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle
| infotainment.
|
| Drivers don't car, but I think car _buyers_ actually do.
| Remember that many people are not buying cars for themselves
| but for other people, usually family. They fall into the trap
| of thinking that those other people _might_ want such features,
| if not now then in the future. Look at automatic transmissions.
| I know many people who much prefer manuals, but they always end
| up buying an automatic because they believe that other people
| will want the automatic. And a few years later, all the cars
| are automatics. The same is happening with in-car entertainment
| systems. We buy them not because we ant them but because we
| _think_ other people do.
| baseballdork wrote:
| > Remember that many people are not buying cars for
| themselves but for other people, usually family.
|
| Can you explain this? I guess maybe the devil is in "many"?
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Unless you are single, and even then you carry occasional
| passengers, many/most cars are used by multiple people. So
| people who buy cars are thinking not just about the primary
| driver but about all the other people who will drive/ride
| in the car too. Nobody buying a car actually wants in-dash
| 4k movies, but they think that their partner/kids will.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's true for some features (the wife (and I, to be fair)
| were pretty strongly on the "heated seats" side of
| things) but things like infotainment were not
| _dealbreakers_ if everything else lined up.
|
| But CarPlay is darn close; I'd not say I'd never buy a
| car without it but having it means I don't need to worry
| if the infotainment setup is crap or not, because I won't
| be using it.
| vsdlrd wrote:
| I thought about that as well. At the moment, CarPlay can't take
| over every function so carmakers still have to make their own.
| But in the long term, there is an opportunity for Apple to make
| the whole thing and monetize it as a cost-saver to carmakers
| krater23 wrote:
| No, never. This would mean to concentrate only to customers
| with Apple devices. Why should a carmaker do this?
| duxup wrote:
| Yeah it's CarPlay or whatever Android uses, or I want nothing
| to do with it.
|
| Every time I rent a car it's a HELLSCAPE of figuring out
| whatever crappy UI this brand of car created for that year ...
| until I get my phone hooked up. Man I just want to get to my
| hotel not futz with some garbage UI in the garage forever.
| daanvr wrote:
| The auto industry is really at a crucial point with how it
| integrates tech. As cars get more autonomous, infotainment is
| becoming a key part of our driving experience. I'm wondering,
| are carmakers at risk of falling behind if they don't embrace
| platforms like CarPlay? Or do they have solid reasons to keep
| developing their systems in-house to keep control over their
| tech narrative?
| potatolicious wrote:
| > _" So they have control? Control over what, exactly?"_
|
| I think a key thing to consider is that there are in fact three
| separate questions at play here:
|
| 1 - Does infotainment/software UI differentiation matter in the
| car market? Is there a significant enough market advantage for
| having better UI that anyone should care?
|
| 2 - If there _is_ an advantage for better UI, is it enough of
| an edge that would compel you to build your own? Or is it the
| case where it simply has to be good enough?
|
| 3 - If there is enough differentiation to be worth building
| your own, is your company good enough at software to pull it
| off?
|
| Personally I think the answer to #1 is _YES_. I think cars with
| better UIs - while not sufficient in and of itself - have a
| market advantage.
|
| Where car makers start veering off from each other is the
| answer to #2. If you believe that you just need a "good enough"
| experience to not be _actively awful_ , then you buy off-the-
| shelf. You see this with Volvo/Polestar and Google Automotive.
| The "skin" around the stock experience is minimal at best, with
| only minor customizations.
|
| If you believe that being _excellent_ at it confers some
| advantage, you 'd try to roll your own. This would include
| folks like BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
|
| Now, where the latter strategy really goes off the rails is
| question #3. That said, if you believe the answer to the first
| two questions compels you to roll your own - would you easily
| surrender to a third-party? Or would you at least try to level
| up your software orgs to make a serious play?
| anthony_d wrote:
| For what it's worth I agree on #1. I really like RR/Jaguar's
| current UI. When I'm in a rental or someone else's car and
| I'm forced to use CarPlay I hate it. Feels like I've been
| pushed to kindergarten and given crayons... any car
| manufacturer that just expects me to use CarPlay is probably
| not on my potential buy list.
|
| I might be unusual in my preference but I really expect
| people to have preferences as strong.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > Let's turn the question around: why would car makers want to
| spend millions of dollars a year rolling their own infotainment
| system? So they can make incremental revenue selling ads and
| user data? So they have control? Control over what, exactly?
|
| There's an interesting (and apparently often misunderstood)
| article called "IT Doesn't Matter" [0]. In it, Carr is largely
| arguing that IT, as a business differentiator, was over for
| many of the things people thought were differentiators. That
| is, things that helped a company (say American Airlines) get a
| lead on their competitors in the 1960s had become commoditized.
| Now every airline was offering flight search and booking online
| (directly and through aggregators). The IT edge had become
| table stakes, you didn't do it to beat out a competitor but
| just to stay in the game. And, even more importantly, many of
| the things that used to be IT differentiators became
| commoditized.
|
| Car infotainment was once a differentiator for car
| manufacturers or for classes of vehicles within the same
| manufacturer. Today, it's table stakes. Not all the
| manufacturers have figured that out (have any?).
|
| [0] https://hbr.org/2003/05/it-doesnt-matter and
| https://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=99
| numpad0 wrote:
| I wonder how much of those frustrations has to do with Japanese
| market share of car industry; I think the touchscreen
| infotainment is not there because car manufacturers value it as
| integral and central part of car experience but simply because
| otherwise their product loses against one of Japanese brands.
|
| Japanese road network is a disorganized weighted node graph and
| absolutely not a grid, and a bulletproof navigation unit has
| been a must for a car in Japan since its inception around 1990.
| It is also preferred that they are 2DIN compatible so it can be
| later upgraded. AFAIK, those are not high priority checkbox
| items elsewhere, but all cars nevertheless follow the Japanese
| manufacturer layout because of manufacturers' collective
| dominance. Cars before 2DIN navigation units seem to have had
| 1DIN AM/FM radio units with radio buttons[1], by the way.
|
| That dominance leaves a 4:3 8" diagonal hole in immediate view
| of driver for all cars globally that must be filled with
| _something_ of value. That doesn 't have to be a touchscreen
| but usually are, and it ends up being a navigation-audio combo
| unit, and it's outsourced to the lowest bidder. It is not the
| primary interaction point for cars by overwhelming global
| demands or principles of automotive product design. That leads
| to jarring subpar experience that appear to be but are perhaps
| not intended to be part of core UX of the whole car. I think.
|
| 1: https://www.alamy.com/1956-mercedes-benz-190-sl-steering-
| whe...
| ryandrake wrote:
| Don't Japanese people have smartphones or tablets with
| navigation on them that they can use? I'd rather cars just
| have a place I can mount my own device, rather than include
| any kind of screen whatsoever with crappy un-updated, un-
| maintained software.
| babypuncher wrote:
| This is sort of the goal of Android Auto and CarPlay, but
| not as a mount for your phone. Rather, it turns the screen
| into a dumb terminal for your phone, bypassing all the
| shitty built-in software and providing a UX designed
| specifically for use while driving.
| drekipus wrote:
| In car navigation came before mobile smart phones
| api wrote:
| Auto makers want what everyone else wants: recurring revenue.
| They want to find a way to sell subscriptions to something. The
| infotainment system is a potential angle for that. CarPlay
| makes that irrelevant.
| babypuncher wrote:
| GM's plan is to sell a subscription service that covers all the
| things you already pay for on your phone (maps, music
| streaming, etc). It's why they're killing CarPlay, because they
| know that even if their service is good, nobody will pay $20/mo
| for shit they already get for free on their phones.
|
| Basically, their goal in life is to be a worthless middleman
| who takes peoples money while providing no real value to
| society.
| dboreham wrote:
| Regarding "it sucks", if we're talking mapping/directions I
| disagree. Google maps is really a pretty piss poor application.
| It hasn't changed in 15 years and it's obvious its maintainers
| haven't ever driven anywhere using the application, even around
| the Google campus in MT View, or downtown SF. It's deeply bad.
| In my experience _some_ car manufacturer mapping applications
| are quite a bit better. Since they obviously suck at software,
| who knows how good it could get with the combination of (not
| Google) AND (competent team)?
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| Article is really about the unofficially called "Carplay 2", a
| deeper integration that Apple announced in 2022 but hasn't been
| heard about since.
|
| As the article itself says, CarPlay Original Flavor is a massive
| success, I'm in the " _79% of drivers only consider a car if it
| has CarPlay_ " (bye-bye GM!)
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Apparently this isn't true. If you have a car where the 2nd
| screen behind the steering wheel also shows CarPlay-related
| stuff, you have CarPlay 2 (or so I've been told). It's just not
| as invasive and all-or-nothing as it was billed to be.
| robertoandred wrote:
| Huh? There were updates a few months ago
| https://www.macrumors.com/2024/01/27/apple-confirms-next-gen...
| paxys wrote:
| We are in the golden age of phone<->car integration, so enjoy it
| while it lasts. In a few more years 100% of auto manufacturers
| are going to start charging a monthly subscription for this,
| split between them and Apple/Google.
| poisonborz wrote:
| People would just buy a head unit for a fixed price, and use
| the built in screen only for adjusting aircon and whatever is
| vehicle-specific. Also carmakers would never give up to have a
| total control over their car screen like this. They are
| struggling for a decade now with more and more horrid
| iterations, with no end in sight.
| swozey wrote:
| Carplay2 seems cool, but if it takes away my ability to just jump
| into whatever new car with my iphone or android phone and use
| aa/carplay I don't want to lose carplay. I have 3 cars with
| carplay and I don't want to have to set all of them up and lose
| portability.
| ramshorst wrote:
| As CarPlay aims to dominate even more screens in our cars, isn't
| Apple simply replacing buttons and dials with potentially
| distracting and fingerprint-smeared touch screens just to extend
| its software reach?
| encoderer wrote:
| I have physical buttons that control CarPlay - for navigation
| and music
| itishappy wrote:
| This seems like an odd thing to blame Apple for. They never
| provided those buttons and dials.
| pistolpeteDK wrote:
| After spending a very long time trying to find the perfect non-
| Tesla EV with both carplay, good range, cargo space etc... I gave
| up and "settled" for a Model Y LR. The software in a Tesla is
| just as good as Elon is bad. Not to turn this into an anti-Elon
| thing... But the software in the Tesla is really second-to-none,
| and more folks would find out if it weren't for Elon.
| StephenSmith wrote:
| If you're in the market for a new-to-you car, then I recommend
| looking at the model years where they switch from wired car-play
| to wireless car-play and buying the previous model-year.
|
| Typically this difference of one model-year can add thousands to
| the cost of the vehicle, especially because wireless car-play is
| so coveted. The experience of wireless is fantastic, but is it
| worth several thousand dollars? Maybe, but herein lies the trick.
|
| Buy a dongle. They're about $100 for a good one. They can be
| tucked away in the vehicle. They work almost* as good as
| integrated wireless car-play.
|
| *Maybe add 5 seconds to auto-connect when you get in your car.
| albumen wrote:
| When I looked into this previously, the delay seemed pretty
| significant, not just upon auto connect. Can you recommend your
| dongle?
| spike021 wrote:
| I've had a Carlinkit 3.0 for two years connected to a
| standard $400 or so Pioneer head unit with CarPlay and it
| works fine.
|
| Initial connection is a bit slower than wired, maybe 20
| seconds or so, but it's up and running by the time I'm moving
| my car.
|
| There's very small amount of input lag for stuff like
| skipping songs or pause/play. I'd say that lag is almost
| exactly the same as when I used to only use bog-standard
| Bluetooth to connect to a head unit with my phone so I think
| that's just the downside of a wireless connection-- wired
| doesn't have this lag.
| definitelyauser wrote:
| I've tried a few dongles and have had nothing but bad
| experiences.
|
| "Kinda works" for a while, with a noticeable delay when
| changing songs etc.
|
| Actually pondering replacing the infotainment system itself to
| get wireless airplay.
| axxl wrote:
| The delay happens with integrated systems as well apparently.
| My brother's car has it built in and he confirmed my adapter
| is the same.
| luhn wrote:
| I thought the audio delay was because of a crappy dongle too,
| but when I rented a car with built-in wireless CarPlay it was
| exactly the same.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Android Auto: I use the Motorola wireless dongle in a VW. It's
| great when only 1 phone is paired, but my wife and I share the
| vehicle in question. It allows multiple pairings (despite the
| instruction manual hardly mentioning that ability, if at all)
| but it's finicky as hell. Half of all attempts at swapping
| phones end in unplugging the thing and using a cable, to the
| point where I'm thinking I keep wireless AA for myself (driver
| 90% of the time) and have her use a vent mount with only BT
| audio (driver 10% of the time). Connection handshake delay
| before visible feedback is about 30 seconds, which makes
| troubleshooting an extremely latency-riddled nightmare. But the
| other half of the time, it's as simple as selecting the desired
| phone in the Bluetooth menu of the car. Once connected, the
| experience is identical to wired AA.
|
| This problem didn't exist at all before going wireless.
| wil421 wrote:
| The wifi dongle audio quality was reminiscent of the old iPod
| FM Transmitters that would plug into the cigarette lighter. Not
| to mention the annoying delay.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Or just get a car that you can retrofit a head unit to. Could
| be a third party one or a better one from another model. In my
| VW I retrofitted a head unit with navigation and cruise
| control, amongst other things. Be sensible and get things like
| parking sensors that are hard to retrofit, but don't pay for
| things you can easily fit yourself.
| jamesfmilne wrote:
| Agreed, I bought a 2017 VW Golf recently, it has wired Apple
| CarPlay.
|
| Bought a dongle for PS55, works fine.
|
| Love having a car with a steering wheel with real buttons, and
| climate controls with real knobs.
|
| It feels like around 2018 is the zenith of Human Machine
| Interface in cars and it's all been downhill since, as they
| cram everything in a fucking touchscreen.
| dap wrote:
| I am not sure if this would be a problem with wireless as well,
| but I've had very inconsistent experiences having Carplay start
| _at all_ using a dongle. I 'd say right now it works about 70%
| of the time, and about 25% of the time when it doesn't, I can
| get it working by unplugging and re-plugging after the car is
| on. The rest of the time I have to stop the car and start it
| for it to work. This all started about a year ago though. (2022
| RAV4 Prime, multiple iPhone and iOS versions, genuine Apple
| lightning cable, both with and without an extra Lightning->USBC
| dongle.)
| hedgehog wrote:
| In my experience it's over cable CarPlay is reliable if the
| head unit is already booted and the phone is unlocked when
| plugging in. If either of those things aren't true then no
| guarantee the phone will connect after the booting /
| unlocking finishes (I use and recommend the setting to
| disallow accessories when the phone is locked).
| api wrote:
| I actually prefer wired. Otherwise when I get in the car and
| turn it on, it pairs with my wife's phone half the time instead
| of mine. I also almost always want to charge the phone anyway.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I have an actual wireless carplay head unit from Pioneer in my
| 2011 RAV 4, but I still use it in wired mode with one of these
| dongles because Pioneer's implementation is so buggy as to be
| practically useless and they refuse to issue any firmware
| updates for the device.
|
| Moral of the story: Don't buy a head unit from Pioneer. They
| suck ass. This is quite possibly the shittiest tech product I
| have ever spent money on.
| RobT7k wrote:
| I have zero interest in the CarPlay v2 (as described in the
| article).
|
| CarPlay v1, however, is an absolute requirement. It works great
| and gives me pretty much everything I want.
| jkmcf wrote:
| Recently had two rental cars with CarPlay. Oddly, the experience
| with a Chevy (who is abandoning CarPlay support) was much better
| than the Hyundai, though its main problem was connecting and
| constantly asking permission.
|
| Since my older cars do not have it, having a great mount (Peak
| Design) makes a huge difference, but damn I want it integrated if
| only for the bigger screen.
| mey wrote:
| As a shopper of a vehicle. I want my car to control car
| operation/cockpit information. I have enjoyed the continuous
| improvement of navigation and entertainment functionality of
| Android Auto/Car Play.
|
| For the love of god, keep them separate. One is critical vehicle
| functionality. There other can crash/reboot/have connectivity
| issues, without me being concerned about knowing the engine is
| overheating/battery pack is dead, a tire is blowing out via TPS
| or I'm speeding.
|
| I don't want a car that is CarPlay only, guess what, my car is
| not an accessory to my phone. The genius of current Android
| Auto/CarPlay is that the car head unit can act as a mostly "dumb"
| head unit for my external mobile processor.
| xyst wrote:
| I used to be fascinated with Apple but I no longer want anything
| to do with them.
|
| I could care less if my car has Apple or android auto at this
| point. I would rip it out immediately if it had one. Any always
| on connectivity would be removed.
|
| Car manufacturers are increasingly selling off your private data
| and leveraging all of these technology upgrades you paid for to
| do it. As soon as the car is connected to the internet, it's
| shipping off your private data and selling it to data brokers.
| Manufacturers are hiding behind their wall of text called "terms
| of service" to do so [1]
|
| In some cases the manufacturers are reporting your driving
| history to insurance companies so they can get any reason to bump
| your rates or deny you coverage . [2]
|
| My dream car is now a "dumb" car.
|
| Give me a car with a simple backup camera, manual transmission,
| and regular sized vehicle (no trucks or suvs, fuck that).
|
| [1]
| https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/article...
|
| [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/technology/gm-lexis-
| nexis...
| gmadsen wrote:
| kind of funny a back up camera is now considered a "dumb" car
| feature
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| Back-up cameras have been required on all new vehicles in the
| US and Canada since 2018.
| izacus wrote:
| CarPlay and Android Auto run on your phone and outright prevent
| the car manufacturer access to data (they only expose the video
| and audio streams). Whatever data selling is going on it
| utterly disconnected from those technologie.
|
| So what exactly are you ranting about here? Why this rant when
| you don't seem to know what those technologies are?
| ransom1538 wrote:
| "Give me a car with a simple backup camera, manual
| transmission, and regular sized vehicle (no trucks or suvs,
| fuck that)."
|
| Mazda, cx5 <= 2016. Small. Has usb sd, simple knobs, backup
| camera. It reminds me of when apple removed the escape key, I
| had to learn how to buy a used mac.
| the_snooze wrote:
| I really wanted to like that Mozilla report, but their methods
| only looked at the privacy policies of cars, not actual
| software/hardware capabilities in the wild. Let's say I own a
| Honda C-HR, but don't use the Honda Link app or connect the
| onboard wifi to a phone hotspot. Does Honda still get remote
| telematic information from me? Is there a live always-on 4G/5G
| connection in the car itself? It's unclear.
| kernal wrote:
| If you tried to rip out Android Automotive you car probably
| wouldn't work anymore. But, you would have a dumb car that just
| wouldn't start.
| deanCommie wrote:
| Meanwhile I rented a car last week and experienced Android Auto
| for the first time (vs just having my phone precariously
| balanced somewhere in the car, and using it for navigation),
| and now I never want to go back or buy a car without Android
| Auto.
|
| This isn't meant to be a dig of Apple vs Android - I think I
| would feel the same about CarPlay if i was on iOS.
|
| I think we just value different things. As someone who wants to
| be able to drive, navigate with google maps, listen to a
| podcast, and handle incoming messages, but do it safely, these
| integrations are incredible.
| ectospheno wrote:
| Not sure how one could reclaim driving privacy in an age where
| we have license plate scanners and E-ZPass scanners at places
| not on toll roads all while you and everyone else drives around
| with multiple Bluetooth devices turned on. Nothing stopping
| your car from recording everything anyway and having the dealer
| just download it each time you have an oil change. This mirrors
| privacy everywhere else. Think this ship already sailed.
| xenospn wrote:
| You can very easily buy a dumb car and install aftermarket
| parts to get the benefit of CarPlay without any of the
| telemetry.
| sovnwnt wrote:
| I actually had a chat with my local MP (Canadian equivalent of
| Member of House of Representatives) about this.
|
| Why can't we stop companies selling our data? You'd think it's
| easy:
|
| --- very clear opt-in method for having your data sold
|
| --- rejecting cannot prevent regular use of services
|
| --- heavy penalties for breaking these rules
|
| Problem is that no politician wants to touch this because
|
| --- manufacturers sell data to subsidize the product
|
| --- if they can't sell data, costs are going to shoot up
|
| --- if they do this in response to a law, they get to raise
| costs even more because it affects the whole industry at the
| same time and there's a clear scapegoat
|
| Consumers care a LOT more about their _cheap_ , connected
| devices than their privacy. Because getting by your data like
| [2] happens to individuals, but costs affect the group.
|
| EDIT: To clarify, the MP only suggested that costs would go up
| and people don't care. The rest is my personal speculation.
| Angostura wrote:
| > used to be fascinated with Apple but I no longer want
| anything to do with them. > I could care less if my car has
| Apple or android auto at this point. I would rip it out
| immediately if it had one. Any always on connectivity would be
| removed.
|
| And by 'rip out' you mean "disconnect your phone"
| roughly wrote:
| Something that stuck out to me in the article:
|
| > There used to be a big difference in driving characteristics
| and technology between premium and budget brands. Compared to a
| Volkswagen, a BMW used to have a more powerful engine, better
| handling, and comfort features like seat-heating and cruise
| control. However, a Volkswagen Golf now has similar tech as a BMW
| and with the transition to EVs, drivetrains and handling won't be
| the same differentiator as before.
|
| The thing is: that didn't used to be that way. You can blame it
| on the transition to EVs, but part of that transition seems to be
| that a bunch of manufacturers decided not to build their own
| platforms, motors, etc and are just licensing from other
| manufacturers*. The article's correct to note that flattens a lot
| of the value proposition of any given manufacturer, and if that's
| forcing them to lean in a lot on the software, that's a weird
| position for an automotive manufacturer, because that's never
| been anyone in the industry's strong suite - there's a reason 80%
| of drivers won't buy a car without CarPlay.
|
| It's also notable that the brands who do seem to be going in on
| CarPlay are those that still make a point of building their own
| engines and platforms - Aston, Porsche, and even Polestar tries
| to differentiate itself there.
|
| * to be clear, this was happening before EVs, too - BMW put out a
| car that shared a platform with a Toyota, in a move that
| should've caused a plague of locust to descend on Munich if God
| existed and had a driver's license, and Stellantis put a Lancia
| badge on a Chrysler a couple years back.
| m463 wrote:
| I think it is just global manufacturing. Plus a little bit of
| feature parity.
|
| It seems maybe tesla is the one fighting it. I think the
| original model S used steering wheel stalks from mercedes?
|
| Now they do so many things themselves (or don't do in case of
| stalks), to the point of making their own chips for the machine
| learning stuff.
| roughly wrote:
| Re: Tesla - at least in the early days, they did the same
| thing a lot of boutique manufacturers did:
| https://www.theautopian.com/how-tesla-engineers-saved-
| millio...
|
| Re: "global manufacturing" - yeah, but there's also a choice
| being made there. I own an older BMW, and there's been a very
| clear shift away from what was once a differentiated product
| to a kind of blah middle-object, which is almost certainly in
| pursuit of a larger market share, but again, that's a choice.
| I could tell you what the value prop of a BMW made between
| 1975 and 2005 was, I can't really tell you what it is now,
| and that's a choice it seems like a lot of manufacturers are
| making.
| codexb wrote:
| What happened is there are no real "budget" cars anymore.
| Mandatory safety, engine, emission, backup cameras (yes,
| they're mandatory) has steadily driven the base price of a car
| so high that the added cost of creature comforts doesn't
| actually increase the price of a car that much relative to the
| total price. Why would someone spend spend $40k on a bare bones
| car when they could get a well-equipped car for $45k? That's
| basically where we're at. So, basically all cars, "budget" or
| luxury, need to have all the major creature comforts.
| daanvr wrote:
| How significant is the demand for advanced infotainment systems
| like CarPlay 2 among consumers? Are there market studies or
| consumer surveys indicating that buyers would prioritize "CarPlay
| 2" capabilities when purchasing new vehicles?
| resource_waste wrote:
| Does it come with a fruit logo sticker?
| btown wrote:
| > A lot of the concerns around branding focus on the instrument
| cluster as it's one of the most recognizable parts of an
| interior. If you look at the CarPlay concept for Porsche and
| remove the steering wheel, there is no way you can tell it's a
| Porsche. I'm sure many brands took notice of this... With many
| traditional differentiators being democratized, design is a good
| way to stand out.
|
| This is a really good case study in how difficult it is to find a
| balance between co-branding and maintaining a consistently high-
| quality design system across co-branding partners. There's a
| massive amount of work across UI/UX design and implementation
| done at Apple that assumes that widgets are not only using a
| serif font, but a specific serif font with specific kerning; that
| color-primary-60 and color-primary-50 and color-for-text-on-top-
| of-primary-60 are distinguished in a very specific way.
|
| (Light/dark mode and localization efforts force a degree of
| flexibility here, but there are still a finite set of QA targets
| if you focus on primary language markets.)
|
| But what happens if multiple partners want their own primary
| color and font? This suddenly has far-reaching, costly
| ramifications across multiple organizations. Even having planned
| your APIs from day one around color and style customizability
| doesn't guarantee that this can be done successfully. Taken to an
| extreme, frontend engineers (not just their embedded designers)
| are practically required to hold the context of all future
| potential customization needs in mind when implementing a
| component - a nigh impossible ask.
|
| Which is to say that there are few companies that could pull off
| what the OP posits that car manufacturers are requesting, having
| a world-class interface that is customized to their brand. That's
| a tall order even for Apple's depth of talent.
| vsdlrd wrote:
| That is a great point and you are absolutely right! It really
| shows how tricky the UI part of this is and how quickly you run
| into scaling issues
| yabones wrote:
| There's an interesting gap when discussing carplay/aa.
|
| Cars from the 90s up until about 2013 can be easily fitted with a
| $500 head unit upgrade, and support carplay quite well. With the
| right tools, it can be done in about two hours right in your
| driveway.
|
| Cars from 2018 and up pretty universally support carplay, and
| it's generally quite well integrated into the car's infotainment
| system.
|
| But, between 2013 and 2017, things were a complete mess. In-car
| systems were too integrated to be replaceable with a third party
| 2-DIN unit, but too primitive to run carplay/AA. People who have
| cars from this era either sell them (for less than they're worth,
| since only 21% of people will buy a car without carplay!) or put
| up with it for another 8 years or so until the car's wound out.
|
| For example, my rustbucket '06 Toyota has a great sounding stereo
| with carplay but my sibling's 2017 Nissan is stuck with flaky and
| poorly integrated bluetooth.
|
| Or, if you do want to upgrade your 2013-2017 car, you end up
| replacing half of the in-dash components with ones from a couple
| model years up, tapping into the car's CAN bus to recognize the
| new controller, and then running some sketchy scripts to patch
| the firmware to remove component protection since the VIN's don't
| match up anymore. Not for the faint of heart.
| spike021 wrote:
| My car is from between 2013-2017 and it supports a standard
| 2-DIN replacement with Apple CarPlay.
| floxy wrote:
| >(for less than they're worth, since only 21% of people will
| buy a car without carplay!)
|
| ...is there a handy list of which models these are? I'm in the
| market for a used car, and I'm perfectly happy to pay less for
| something without CarPlay.
| bombcar wrote:
| The percentages only apply to _new_ car buyers, in my
| experience.
|
| Once you're in used territory, all bets are off and you'd
| have to poke around.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| This article could really use a tl;dr. I tapped out about a third
| of the way through after I got bored with slogging through so
| much windup in search of a "risky bet."
| spike021 wrote:
| A huge benefit to CarPlay for me is I can travel someplace like
| Japan, get a car with a CarPlay-supported head unit, and
| immediately I have Google or Apple Maps available straight off
| the bat in English with all my saved locations like hotels or
| places that are bookmarked. Nothing to set up or anything.
|
| The only downside I've experienced with it in Japan is the GPS
| can be wonky in tunnels whereas the car's built-in GPS seemingly
| doesn't.
| hedgehog wrote:
| The car probably has odometry and inertial sensors to do
| position updates while GPS is unavailable. That's actually how
| some of the original car nav systems worked even pre-GPS in the
| 80s.
| sunshowers wrote:
| As a former iPhone and current Android user, I would be very
| hesitant to buy any car that has Apple software in it. I don't
| trust Apple's software to work well with whatever phone I end up
| picking next.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| The author admits that they only use 3 apps on CarPlay 1. They're
| going to get CarPlay 2 and still only use 3 apps.
|
| What's the big deal about CarPlay 2, then? Who cares?
| 51Cards wrote:
| >Continuing with the above example, let's imagine I just
| downloaded a new podcast app on my phone (one that is also
| available in the automotive Play Store). The next day I have to
| go on a long drive and I want to listen to a podcast episode I
| downloaded on my phone. When I enter my car, I have to go to the
| Play Store, find the app, download it, log in, and then download
| the episode. When I use CarPlay, I only have to connect my phone.
|
| Does the author have no experience with Android Auto? The same
| happens there, if the app is on my phone and it supports Android
| Auto then it will automatically be available in the car, along
| with all media on my phone. This isn't a CarPlay only
| functionalitiy, it's just how phone mirroring works on both
| platforms. Author seems to think there is an extra step involved
| on Android. Perhaps by "Play Store" they mean the car
| manufacturer's own app store?
|
| Source: I use Android Auto constantly in my own vehicle and in
| the 15+ rental cars I have every year.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| >> Continuing with the above example, let's imagine I just
| downloaded a new podcast app on my phone (one that is also
| available in the [Android A]utomotive Play Store).
|
| They lost a capitalization which makes it a bit ambiguous but
| their scenario is this:
|
| There are two app stores being discussed: iOS (for CarPlay),
| and Android Automotive (the infotainment system's play store).
|
| If you have Android Automotive on an infotainment system and an
| iPhone and can't connect your iPhone to the infotainment
| system, you have to download the app twice: iOS App Store and
| _Android Automotive_ Play Store.
|
| I don't know the numbers, but Android Automotive infotainment
| systems don't universally support CarPlay. Some only got it via
| updates over the last couple years (that's also a selling point
| of them, though, that they could do it via software updates and
| not a whole hardware refresh).
| arjvik wrote:
| There's a difference between Android Auto (Google's CarPlay
| equivalent for phone projection to any infotainment system)
| and Android Automotive (Google's Infotainment OS).
| mcfedr wrote:
| I really hope the lock in with have with car/phone a connection
| is something the EU addresses next.
|
| I don't like that car manufacturer has to use Apple / Google
| software, why can they not make an app that you install and your
| phone connects to the car in a useful way.
|
| The reason is that only Apple apps have the required permissions
| and system access to do it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-23 23:00 UTC)