Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

jalopnik.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 438 posts

Re: GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

#421

Post by jimmaswell »

fl7305 wrote: post #188
jonathankoren wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh… cars don’t really change from year to year. Pretending that an acceptable infotainment system is hard to do, just isn’t so. The real problem is dumbass “features” (my MDX likes to show an animation of the keyboard typing out all the words a half second a letter, whenever you click autocomplete… for some reason) The real issue is that the infotainment systems are underpowered, because they’re considered an afterth…

> infotainment systems are underpowered, because they’re considered an afterthought. Also, cars sell in the millions. Car manufacturers will redesign a circuit board if it will save them cents on each board. So it is always a struggle to put a more powerful CPU in there.

Infotainment responsiveness needs to be a NHTSA regulation. The mental load of dealing with laggy and unresponsive radios is surely causing accidents. Even if at worst it adds another $100 to the cost of the car to get a good enough cpu, so what?

Re: GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

#422

Post by mulmen »

sokoloff wrote: post #418
mulmen wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting machines are scary for different reasons. 1) The general public has private physical access by design . 2) The chain of custody is unclear and hard to prove. This undermines trust in the system.

That depends on the jurisdiction. When I voted in Maryland, there was a machine that I directly cast my vote into. When I vote where I live now in Massachusetts, I fill out a paper form in private and then I manually feed the forms into a voting machine where I have only supervised physical access. I think it's entirely possible to have machine-counted ballots without giving unfettered and unsupervised access to the…

Counting machines are different than voting machines.

Here in Washington we vote on paper but the results are counted by machine. The counting process is overseen by representatives of both parties. In a recount the paper votes could be manually counted to reconcile with the machine. I’m not worried about any of that.

What is scary about voting machines is that the output isn’t guaranteed to match the input. This is for any number of reasons. The best defense against this is to print the choices in a human-readable format… on a piece of paper. Which means you don’t really need the machine at all. If it’s on the network you can’t trust anything.

Re: GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

#423

Post by crossroadsguy »

I have never owned a car but have connected my phone to car systems too many times.

My assumption is — when you do that via an Apple CarPlay enabled console you are guaranteed a level of privacy as well, isn’t it?

I know cars do not have Internet connection on their own but what stops them from making you install an app on your phone that would handle all these connections (BT profile work etc) and then upload whatever they want to their servers.

Re: GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

#424

Post by sbierwagen »

fl7305 wrote: post #188
jonathankoren wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh… cars don’t really change from year to year. Pretending that an acceptable infotainment system is hard to do, just isn’t so. The real problem is dumbass “features” (my MDX likes to show an animation of the keyboard typing out all the words a half second a letter, whenever you click autocomplete… for some reason) The real issue is that the infotainment systems are underpowered, because they’re considered an afterth…

> infotainment systems are underpowered, because they’re considered an afterthought. Also, cars sell in the millions. Car manufacturers will redesign a circuit board if it will save them cents on each board. So it is always a struggle to put a more powerful CPU in there.

Apple made a computer with a fast, responsive UI in 1984 using a chip that ran at 7.8 mhz and had 128 kb of ram.

You don't need a fast chip to eliminate lag. It's just incompetence.

Re: GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

#425

Post by fl7305 »

sbierwagen wrote: post #424
fl7305 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> infotainment systems are underpowered, because they’re considered an afterthought. Also, cars sell in the millions. Car manufacturers will redesign a circuit board if it will save them cents on each board. So it is always a struggle to put a more powerful CPU in there.

Apple made a computer with a fast, responsive UI in 1984 using a chip that ran at 7.8 mhz and had 128 kb of ram. You don't need a fast chip to eliminate lag. It's just incompetence.

Sure. I've used home computers since 1979. The graphics were instantaneous back then even on a few MHz and 16 kBytes of RAM.

We don't want slow and laggy UIs because the software is bloated.

But I responded to this part:

> The real issue is that the infotainment systems are underpowered

And my point was that it is far harder than it seems to put more powerful CPUs in cars.

Re: GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

#426

Post by b7we5b7a »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #397
b7we5b7a wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't the full Autopilot, just the lane following/adaptive cruise control kind of thing but we almost did go off the road at least once. Your friend should have warned you that there are conditions where AP is expected not to work well, they're also clearly stated in the manual. I tend to agree that Tesla oversells the AP/FSD functionality just by the name, AP should be renamed to "vision lane assist", or somet…

> AP should be renamed to "vision lane assist", or something along those lines. In aviation, all autopilot does is keep your plane going in a straight line at the same speed. So the use of autopilot to describe auto-cruise, lane keep assist (not just going in a straight line, but keeping inside the lane and slowing down when other cars slow down in front of you), well, an aviation autopilot doesn't go that far, so it…

In aviation autopilot nowadays can do much more than just "keeping the plane straight", it can also improve stability during maneuvers, or auto-land (mostly, ILS). But even aviation autopilot has limitations, which are well understood by the well-trained officers operating the plane as their only mission.

I see these problems with the naming:

- non-technical people have a "magic" grasp of the "autopilot" word that was passed down by movies, as a "set-and-forget" magical button that will make all the problems go away

- non-technical people won't read manuals (most of them, at least), so they are not aware of limitations, and WILL get distracted thinking AP will safely operate the car for them

- Tesla's AP, as of today does NOT handle most streets in most conditions well enough, and still has some caveats on highways, which are its intended operational domain; I understand FSD would do better, but still not a set-and-forget experience

So while I agree that it's being undersold feature-wise, I really think the issue is that "autopilot" is tied to unrealistic expectations in the mind of the average person, which easily leads to dangerous situations in the case of operating a 2-ton vehicle.

Re: GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

#427

Post by cultofmetatron »

rcxdude wrote: post #404
nfRfqX5n wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure they are. there's a ton of software running in cars outside of the infotainment system

There's a lot of software, but their business is making and selling hardware. That almost always leads to the business viewing software as an afterthought and a cost center. Embedded is absolutely rife with this and the quality is often awful as a result (yes, even in safety critical applications)

> their business is making and selling hardware. That almost always leads to the business viewing software as an afterthought

apple is a hardware company and manages to buck this trend.

Re: GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

#428

Post by hulitu »

OJFord wrote: post #282
urbandw311er wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s interesting how you correctly identify that this is a massive play for control by Apple and Google, and yet you still seem to sympathise with their position! I can completely understand why vehicle manufacturers are so wary. Just look at the history of how Apple, Google, etc companies have behaved when it comes to “partnerships”. Look at the App Store. Look at what Google did to supposedly open source Android. I…

I don't read GP as sympathising with Apple/Google at all, they just want a nice experience in their car; say that they think they get it from A/G, and that they didn't for years before that from car manufacturers. i.e. it's not about being a fan of particular brands, it's a self-interested desire for a decent UX/platform.

> I don't read GP as sympathising with Apple/Google at all, they just want a nice experience in their car;

Apple/Google are not a nice experience. If you could share your screen would have been ok. But running special apps is out of discussion. I tried Android Auto. It is terrible, it needs a lot of time to set up (permissions, settings on car), the car must be stopped (ignition off) and 95 % of apps installed are not compatible. In the end, to listen music i have memory sticks and for navigation a Garmin.

Re: GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

#429

Post by Saris »

slantyyz wrote: post #371
jrsj wrote: post #18

If this was actually about safety they would just get rid of the touch screen entirely. You really don't even need a display at all anymore, HUD + physical controls could cover all essential functions.

I'm probably in the minority of the minority, but I don't want a touch screen in my car. Or even any big LCD screen in my car. I would prefer my car to be relatively dumb, and free of distractions where possible.

The only screen that would be nice is a small diagnostics one that shows trouble codes, and some live info like temperatures and sensor voltages.

Re: GM says it's dropping Apple CarPlay and Android Auto because they're unsafe

#430

Post by chrisandchris »

hulitu wrote: post #428
OJFord wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't read GP as sympathising with Apple/Google at all, they just want a nice experience in their car; say that they think they get it from A/G, and that they didn't for years before that from car manufacturers. i.e. it's not about being a fan of particular brands, it's a self-interested desire for a decent UX/platform.

> I don't read GP as sympathising with Apple/Google at all, they just want a nice experience in their car; Apple/Google are not a nice experience. If you could share your screen would have been ok. But running special apps is out of discussion. I tried Android Auto. It is terrible, it needs a lot of time to set up (permissions, settings on car), the car must be stopped (ignition off) and 95 % of apps installed are no…

I don't knwo Android Auto, but Apple CarPlay. It's far from perfect, but I had a whole different experience than you.

First time plugging in, a simple confirmation on my phone to allow connection. CarPlay starts, everything works out of the box. Now I can phone, can search my music library (try that with bluetooth) and I have a voice control that mostly understands what I want to play.

Post reply on HN