I'd prefer a car without an operating system.
Volkswagen’s plan to create a new car operating system
251–257 of 257 posts
Re: Volkswagen’s plan to create a new car operating system
#252I'd prefer a car without an operating system.
You can probably get one with no software/microchips, but it won't be new.
Re: Volkswagen’s plan to create a new car operating system
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cars are already modular. Internally. There are up to 150 different CPUs (meaning different modules) inside a modern car. All from different manufacturers. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUTOSAR
Cars are modular, but manufactures want to abolish the aftermarket like Apple.
Looking at all the electronic internals in a modern car, I'm no longer sure I want an aftermarket :)
Already, when looking for/at a car, my first thought is: "is their software engineering team up to the task?"
Re: Volkswagen’s plan to create a new car operating system
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've discovered how nearly infinite ad dollars and leveraging a near monopoly in mobile has allowed Google to destroy competition.
What competition? There was never anything on that level before Google Maps came around. It's not like Mapquest ever offered similar functionality. Google didn't invent GPS mapping, but they did seem to invent combining it with a bunch of really useful other information like business addresses, hours, reviews, photos, easy searching, etc. And that doesn't even include stuff that isn't useful in cars, like walking/bik…
The competition which couldn't improve their products as fast or as well because they did not get free money from their ad business and now had to compete with gratis good quality maps to boot.
For a long time after Google Maps entered the market there were better products available from various providers.
Re: Volkswagen’s plan to create a new car operating system
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
What competition? There was never anything on that level before Google Maps came around. It's not like Mapquest ever offered similar functionality. Google didn't invent GPS mapping, but they did seem to invent combining it with a bunch of really useful other information like business addresses, hours, reviews, photos, easy searching, etc. And that doesn't even include stuff that isn't useful in cars, like walking/bik…
The competition which couldn't improve their products as fast or as well because they did not get free money from their ad business and now had to compete with gratis good quality maps to boot. For a long time after Google Maps entered the market there were better products available from various providers.
Were they really better though? Maybe by certain metrics, but maybe not by other metrics.
If someone shows me a GPS navigation app that's really pretty, fast, and even shows me where speed traps are, that's nice and all, but what if it doesn't let me just type in a business name, and instead I have to actually know a street address? Then it isn't very useful to me. I'll go back to the app that lets me navigate to business names instead, because that'll save me a lot of time by not having to use a separate app just to look up a street address for every destination I want to go to.
This reminds me a bit about the debate between Google Maps and Waze (yeah, I know they're owned by the same company). The Wazers love waze because it's cartoonish and easy and shows speed traps. That's great, but to me it's too simplistic, it doesn't show alternate routes in real-time (GM will show me a gray route, saying "similar ETA", "3 minutes slower", etc. as I drive), and it's absolutely useless for public transit, so I stick with GM. And this is with two free products both owned by Google.
Finally, what "better products" are you talking about? I remember quite well when GM came out. I switched almost immediately from MapQuest. This was back when it was a PC-only (web) application, of course. At the time, MQ had a clunky interface, and then GM suddenly came out using AJAX, and I could click and drag the map around! It was utterly amazing compared to MQ that you had to use pan and zoom buttons for. Maybe the map dataset was better for MQ? I'm not sure about that, but let's just say for argument's sake that MQ had better map data. That's fine, except that there's more to using a map application than the dataset: the user interface is extremely important too. So this seems like a good example of ignoring how important the UI is, and then wondering why so many people suddenly abandon the "superior" product for the one with the easier-to-use UI, which is something we've seen over and over and over in tech over the decades.
Re: Volkswagen’s plan to create a new car operating system
#256Re: Volkswagen’s plan to create a new car operating system
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
The competition which couldn't improve their products as fast or as well because they did not get free money from their ad business and now had to compete with gratis good quality maps to boot. For a long time after Google Maps entered the market there were better products available from various providers.
Were they really better though? Maybe by certain metrics, but maybe not by other metrics. If someone shows me a GPS navigation app that's really pretty, fast, and even shows me where speed traps are, that's nice and all, but what if it doesn't let me just type in a business name, and instead I have to actually know a street address? Then it isn't very useful to me. I'll go back to the app that lets me navigate to bus…
I was using iGO offline maps for navigation on Windows Mobile where one could search for addresses and also POIs. Sygic was a similar app later available on the Sony P1i.
Both of these were offline apps using maps from multiple sources, at a time when Google were still gathering data and mobile online access was expensive and inconvenient. At least when using iGO the iPhone and Android didn't exist yet.