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

201–210 of 376 posts

Re: Apple CarPlay

#201

Post by morganvachon »

shimfish wrote: post #197
morganvachon wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think it's mirroring the phone's display onto the car's screen? That would be pointless, as you don't want dozens of irrelevant app icons cluttering your car's display. You want the basic controls that are useful in a car, with large targets that can be hit with a glance and later with muscle memory. If you really think they are just mirroring the display, then you didn't even look at the linked Apple p…

My guess is that the iOS SDK has been expanded to allow for a second screen that is output over lightning. So no, it's not mirroring the phone screen, but displaying another screen powered by the phone. This would seem to fit with it being iPhone5 and above only as lightning is designed to have these sorts of custom digital output.

That makes a lot of sense, thank you.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#202

Post by nhangen »

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…

How is this the top comment?

'greedy old white men' should justify dead on its own, but it also completely misses the point.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#203

Post by gambiting »

dagw wrote: post #160
Marazan wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your GPS already knows where you want to go, what the road ahead looks like and often even the current traffic situation. I imagine writing some semi-smart software that hooks up that info to the automatic gearbox to give it hints about what to do wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility and no doubt a lot easier than self-driving.

There are cars which already do exactly that: http://www.dvice.com/2013-3-7/new-rolls-royce-looks-ahead-gp...

Re: Apple CarPlay

#204

Post by romanovcode »

nhangen wrote: post #202
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…

How is this the top comment? 'greedy old white men' should justify dead on its own, but it also completely misses the point.

because patriarchy

Re: Apple CarPlay

#206

Post by nackerhews »

nhangen wrote: post #202
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…

How is this the top comment? 'greedy old white men' should justify dead on its own, but it also completely misses the point.

Because 1) he typed a lot and 2) cited some sources 3) early on when the link was submitted. That's instant upvote criteria.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#207

Post by colinprince »

Couldn't help noticing this is a significant foray into responsive screen layout for Apple.

A good responsive/adaptive layout will give Apple options for more diverse screen sizes and proportions from cars to watches to other phone and tablet aspect ratios.

Can't wait.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#208

Post by jsz0 »

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…

> Yay, more touch screen in cars.

It's odd though that the number of auto accidents in the US has not increased with the increased use of in-dash touch screens and SmartPhones. Deaths from auto accidents have also been on the decline. It seems like people are doing a pretty good job adapting.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

13.4 12.5 18.3 11.8 10.9 10.7 10.4 10.6 10.2 10.8

Re: Apple CarPlay

#209

Post by ceejayoz »

josteink wrote: post #127
annnnd wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is a bit dismissive. Can you really claim that for iPod, iPhone and iPad? Sure, every invention is based on work of others, but Apple has still made huge improvements on multiple areas.

This comment is a bit dismissive. Can you really claim that for iPod, iPhone and iPad? MP3 players were already pretty mainstream when the iPod came around and it didn't really add much. And the iPad was merely an iteration on the iPhone. But every rule has an exception. I'll grant that Apple definitely redefined what a smartphone was with the iPhone.

> MP3 players were already pretty mainstream when the iPod came around and it didn't really add much.

In the world of techies, perhaps, but it hadn't made much of a dent per-iPad in the mainstream consumer market. http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/1695501/ipod-mp3-player-ad...

Re: Apple CarPlay

#210

Post by chaz »

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…

It depends on each manufacturer's implementation. The ever-growing complexity needs to be managed, both in learning curve as well as overall placement and design of features.

For one, BMW does this right. The large screen is controlled by the iDrive knob in the middle, which rotates with haptic detents, is pushable, and has 4-directions on it. All of the major controls are still present with physical controls: radio volume, presets, dual temp control, fan speed, vents, cruise control, phone, etc. The only time you would regularly use the iDrive is for navigation, which is always going to be kludgy because of the complexity of putting in addresses. I welcome voice and touch here.

http://www.moibibiki.com/images/bmw-4-series-interior-12.jpg

Post reply on HN