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

Apple CarPlay

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 376 posts

Re: Apple CarPlay

#161

Post by valarauca1 »

The problem I see while this is great for consumers is IOS isn't a real-time OS. So it won't be able to manage car sensor data.

This means it'll be a hard sell to auto-makers in the US since most want only 1 computer in the car (to do infotainment AND sensor control). This is the holy grail currently in infotainment systems.

The only automaker moving in this direction currently is Ford by using blackberry's platform which is Realtime. The problem then being your downgrading from a 600MHz PPC chip to a dual core ARM. Your heat generation decreases significantly, but so does your computational muscle.

Honestly I'll be surprised if this catches on with US automakers.

Source: Close friends who could possibly lose their jobs if I give names. Or suppliers, some of the outfits who know about this are small.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#162

Post by deelowe »

GuiA wrote: post #34

Yay, more touch screen in cars. More ways to distract, frustrate and confuse users who are operating a big box of steel weighing 3 tons and going at speeds the human brain has never evolved to appropriately deal with. 1) Not only are touch screens a very poor interactor in the first place [0], but why do you think planes and other complex machinery have stuck with physical controls? For operating complex vehicles/app…

My stepfather is a pilot.

| but why do you think planes and other complex machinery have stuck with physical controls

They haven't. Most new planes and retrofits are moving to touchscreens. It allows the pilot to display only the important information on screen at a given time. Like the airport map, for example.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#163

Post by mschaecher »

GuiA wrote: post #34

Yay, more touch screen in cars. More ways to distract, frustrate and confuse users who are operating a big box of steel weighing 3 tons and going at speeds the human brain has never evolved to appropriately deal with. 1) Not only are touch screens a very poor interactor in the first place [0], but why do you think planes and other complex machinery have stuck with physical controls? For operating complex vehicles/app…

The three cars I've owned in my lifetime all had 90% physical controls, with a small little digital screen that would display something like the radio station you're on, the temp, the strength of air, treble/bass, etc, etc.

There was absolutely zero tactile feedback on all of them, as their were dedicated buttons that had to be cycled through to reach a state....and the only way you could know if you were getting to what you wanted was if you looked at the tiny little digital display.

Want preset radio station #x? Jam the preset button a few times.

Want to warm the passenger side a bit? Jam a button to select that side, then select heat, the turn it up.

That's on a Honda, a Cadillac & a Toyota spanning a decade in years....so I'm guessing you must be referring to pre-1990 vehicles that literally had dial tuners and manual button to control valves...and 5x less options for stuff that could even be adjusted?? Or did you speak too soon?

Re: Apple CarPlay

#164

Post by ecopoesis »

Marazan wrote: post #94
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think automatics were horrible (I live in the UK, drove manual for 15 years) then I got one... In terms of fuel economy, isn't it just a matter of time before automatics become as economical (then probably more economical) than manuals? Even without anticipating future events? Driving efficiently feels like something a computer could optimise for and that a human has no natural advantage doing.

Without being able to determine future road conditions then automatics can't guarantee being in the "right" gear for the up coming section of road. Be that due to traffic, grading, weather, banking, sharpness of corner etc. My go to example is the insanity of junction 15 of the m8, that loop onto the west bound motorway is a 270 degree corkscrew rising 30 feet with a diameter of 55 yards onto a 5 lane motorway where…

Or just buy a Nissan Versa today: http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/five-myths-about-stick-s...

Manuals have better fuel usage then automatics is a myth for recent cars, no fancy self driving needed.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#165

Post by mschaecher »

Marazan wrote: post #94
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think automatics were horrible (I live in the UK, drove manual for 15 years) then I got one... In terms of fuel economy, isn't it just a matter of time before automatics become as economical (then probably more economical) than manuals? Even without anticipating future events? Driving efficiently feels like something a computer could optimise for and that a human has no natural advantage doing.

Without being able to determine future road conditions then automatics can't guarantee being in the "right" gear for the up coming section of road. Be that due to traffic, grading, weather, banking, sharpness of corner etc. My go to example is the insanity of junction 15 of the m8, that loop onto the west bound motorway is a 270 degree corkscrew rising 30 feet with a diameter of 55 yards onto a 5 lane motorway where…

I have a feeling being able to determine immediate near term road conditions is a 1.0 feature for self-driving vehicles?

Waze-style technology + GIS + networking with other vehicles + weather data (if you look, there is already tons of small weather monitoring stations all over major). thoroughfares).

I mean many vehicles within the last handful of years have automatic traction control that can react faster to a real time change in road conditions than any human could ever hope too. A lot of the stuff I mentioned above is just extending that foresight out further so as to not be so jarring.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#166

Post by gnaffle »

mschaecher wrote: post #163
GuiA wrote: post #34

Yay, more touch screen in cars. More ways to distract, frustrate and confuse users who are operating a big box of steel weighing 3 tons and going at speeds the human brain has never evolved to appropriately deal with. 1) Not only are touch screens a very poor interactor in the first place [0], but why do you think planes and other complex machinery have stuck with physical controls? For operating complex vehicles/app…

The three cars I've owned in my lifetime all had 90% physical controls, with a small little digital screen that would display something like the radio station you're on, the temp, the strength of air, treble/bass, etc, etc. There was absolutely zero tactile feedback on all of them, as their were dedicated buttons that had to be cycled through to reach a state....and the only way you could know if you were getting to…

http://ipocars.com/imgs/a/b/n/u/s/citroen__citron_citron_ber...

Here's an example of a car from ca. 2005 that has simple, manual controls for climate control. If the passenger is too warm, there's a separate button for opening the window :)

Some newer cars also have separate dials for heat on each side: http://static.autoexpress.co.uk/sites/autoexpressuk/files/st... ..but of course they still have pushbuttons for fan speed.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#167

Post by rickdale »

Just bought a 2013 Ford Taurus. My car does all of this and more. I can ask Siri any question, she will respond and its quite nice. I can command phone calls, sports scores, directions, etc. Yes the overall system is a little buggy, but I get it done.

This is really just a makeover for a problem thats already been solved. I can't help to think that some of the decisions Apple has been making lately (different colored backs on the iphones) were concepts that Jobs was totally against, and then now that he is gone those that were for it are in charge. Apple is going rotten in my opinion.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#168

Post by o0-0o »

GuiA wrote: post #34

Yay, more touch screen in cars. More ways to distract, frustrate and confuse users who are operating a big box of steel weighing 3 tons and going at speeds the human brain has never evolved to appropriately deal with. 1) Not only are touch screens a very poor interactor in the first place [0], but why do you think planes and other complex machinery have stuck with physical controls? For operating complex vehicles/app…

Dude I up voted your comment, but seriously with the white man racecard?

Re: Apple CarPlay

#169

Post by belorn »

archagon wrote: post #124
collyw wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketing and gaining widespread adoption seem to be the areas that Apple excels at. In most cases where something is heralded as "revolutionary" by Apple, it has been done before. Maybe not as well or as polished, but usually it has been done before.

Saying that Apple is good at "gaining widespread adoption" is kind of like saying that J. K. Rowling is good at "being read".

If J. K. Rowling had only copied other books and stories, then yes, that would have been a good description.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#170

Post by jamesjguthrie »

frik wrote: post #96
jamesjguthrie wrote: post #57

I'd like to see this available in a double-DIN sized unit that could be fitted in any car. Instead of it only being available in 2014+ cars.

Sadly, this standard that was once common, is going away. Inbuilt car audio, navigation and entertainment systems age very badly. Seeing a car with a CD or even a cassette drive feels very dated. (the iOS Carplay photos feature a slot CD drive, very old-school for Apple the re-inventor of the mp3 player - the iPod)

It's only 'going away' in regards to new car models. There's many millions of second hand cars on the roads all over the world that could facitate an aftermarket double-DIN unit.
Post reply on HN