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

Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

theturnsignalblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 537 posts

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#131

Post by makeitdouble »

ryandrake wrote: post #86
numpad0 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 navigati…

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.

Phone navigation apps are surprisingly bad in Japan (Google ones in particular). Not unusable, but the in-car GPS is more competitive than in other markets IMHO.

Also with an aging population a phone screen is just too small for many.

BTW, to parent's point VW has been trying different approaches with a top mounted GPS/infotainment unit that can be omitted on cheaper trims.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#132

Post by sunshowers »

kelnos wrote: post #111
serial_dev wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that most cars ship with both Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, so you (or your passengers) don't need to commit to one mobile OS only because of the car you bought.

Do cars with systems built on Android Automotive (which is Google's infotainment OS, and is not the same as Android Auto) support CarPlay?

Yeah, I believe so! But the post talks about using your iPhone to do things like turn on climate control remotely. I'm incredibly dubious of the idea that Apple would build an Android app with the full feature set that they'd ship for iPhones. And I'm never going to accept a $$$$$ purchase locking me into any particular ecosystem.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#133

Post by chris_wot »

valianteffort wrote: post #126
kelnos wrote: post #102

It's pretty funny to me to see an Apple user complaining about lack of interop with other ecosystems. You've chosen your walled garden; now it's time to realize you're stuck in it. The author seems to blame everyone but Apple for this, though. Apparently it's Google's fault that his preferred podcast app isn't available on Android. What about the app developer, who has decided not to support Android? And it's the aut…

[flagged]

That’s a ridiculous statement - he was responding to substantive points raised by the article. I’m a huge Apple fan, but let’s be fair here and not flame others.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#134

Post by jdminhbg »

what_ever wrote: post #124
babypuncher wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soci…

Doesn't Tesla do that as well?

No, Tesla sells internet connectivity for $10/month.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#135

Post by londons_explore »

krater23 wrote: post #69
vsdlrd wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, never. This would mean to concentrate only to customers with Apple devices. Why should a carmaker do this?

I assume Apple would also provide code for a fallback UI that offered basic functionality for when you didn't have an iphone attached.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#136

Post by makeitdouble »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #125

> Google jumped on this opportunity by releasing Android Automotive. Unlike Android Auto, Google's equivalent to Apple CarPlay, Android Automotive runs natively inside the car and any carmaker is free to use it. Tangential I know, but I giggled at yet another example of Google's incompetent branding and product naming. How a company filled with so many brilliant people can be so bad at brand strategy is baffling to m…

The actual name is Google Automotive Service [0], which shortens as GAS. That's not bad I think, at least it's easy to remember.

The fact that it's still confusing with android auto being another thing is I think partly on purpose, to make it look like Android is doing more than what it's actually responsible for.

[0] https://developers.google.com/cars

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#137

Post by jdminhbg »

mcfedr wrote: post #74

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.

What permissions do iOS or Android withhold that prevent you from doing this? The reason car manufacturers don't do this is that it makes no sense to put the software in the phone if you're not trying to make the software portable between different cars.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#138

Post by mikepurvis »

babypuncher wrote: post #88
ryandrake wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

And critically lets you directly access CarPlay interfaces to apps for streaming, podcasts, navigation, etc, all of which is much richer than a dumb audio only passthru with skip buttons.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#139

Post by onethought »

makeitdouble wrote: post #131
ryandrake wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Phone navigation apps are surprisingly bad in Japan (Google ones in particular). Not unusable, but the in-car GPS is more competitive than in other markets IMHO. Also with an aging population a phone screen is just too small for many. BTW, to parent's point VW has been trying different approaches with a top mounted GPS/infotainment unit that can be omitted on cheaper trims.

Aging population prefers low quality tiny screens with awkward interfaces?

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#140

Post by cherioo »

codexb wrote: post #94
roughly wrote: post #18

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 w…

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…

But why is that somebody spending even 40k on a barebone car?

How is it that BYD and a bunch of chinese manufacturers able to produce ~10k car but nobody else?

Post reply on HN