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

221–230 of 376 posts

Re: Apple CarPlay

#221

Post by driverdan »

dipth wrote: post #109
Marazan wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. That's because automatic transmission is the worst and invented by the devil. More seriously, using an automatic transmission results in trade-offs, for instance fuel usage was the historical number 1 sticking point with automatics guzzling up the petrol compared to manuals. Modern engineering has closed that gap but there are still issues related t…

You should try a proper DSG gearbox, they will change your mind and they're even faster and more economical than manual gearboxes. I have one in my VW Golf!

But DSG isn't a traditional auto. It's still clutch based, you just don't control the clutch yourself.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#222

Post by tallanvor »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #74
Marazan wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. That's because automatic transmission is the worst and invented by the devil. More seriously, using an automatic transmission results in trade-offs, for instance fuel usage was the historical number 1 sticking point with automatics guzzling up the petrol compared to manuals. Modern engineering has closed that gap but there are still issues related t…

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.

It pretty much has already happened. Most cars that offer both versions are very similar in terms of mileage for automatics and manuals - the difference is usually only like 1 or 2 mpg, with the automatics actually coming out on top at times because the car makers can add more gears. And realistically, most drivers aren't as good at using manual transmissions as they like to think they are, which also does a lot to cancel out the theoretical improvements a manual transmission offers.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#223

Post by abruzzi »

I hope they make this available for aftermarket manufacturers. No way I'm going to spend $80k to replace my '97 Landcruiser with a 2014. Maybe in 15 years, but by then I'd probably need to be running a 15 year old iPhone.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#224

Post by collyw »

LunaSea wrote: post #217
interpol_p wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty hard to see the iPhone and iPad as anything other than a revolution. Similar to how Windows was a revolution in desktop computing (whether you liked it or not). "Gaining widespread adoption" was never an area Apple was very good at. They were always good at creating consumer-focused PCs. The initial line of MacBooks and iMacs are good examples of this — minuscule user base compared to Windows, but built t…

The Ipad definitely wasn't a revolution.

It was marketed as one though. And to be fair it was the first tablet to gain widespread adoption.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#225

Post by moe »

cmelbye wrote: post #135
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…

You ignore the fact that this is meant to be controlled by Siri and, yes, tactile knobs and switches in your car. It says it right there on the linked page. Little to no distraction needed.

You ignore the fact that this is meant to be controlled by Siri

Nothing to improve road safety like elaborate arguments with a speech recognition engine...

Re: Apple CarPlay

#226

Post by mdorazio »

morganvachon wrote: post #132

Wait, so this works with the iPhone 5, yet you have to plug in your phone to make it work? What is this, 2003? I get in my car, the radio syncs up to my WP8 phone via Bluetooth, and if I get a text message I can have the car read it to me. I can dictate the response, or choose to ignore it, or call back the person, all with my voice. It can play music from my phone, including internet radio. I can call up an address…

Bluetooth doesn't support enough application throughput to enable streaming things like maps (the map solution you're referring to uses on-board maps, not Apple's native iOS maps). Everyone would love to not require a physically connected phone, but it's not possible right now.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#227

Post by mikeash »

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.

The iPod didn't add much, when you're a techie looking at technical specs.

What the iPod added was fewer features (yes, that's a good thing when you do it right) and usability. It did what people wanted, and in a way that regular people could actually use. For reasons I can't comprehend, a large number of technical people continue to be unable to see the value in that, but it does provide immense value, and that's why the iPod was so popular for so long.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#228

Post by grmarcil »

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'm a die-hard manual fan, so you have my sympathy here. That said, I think current automatic technology is at the point where it can handle your go-to example with no problem. Yes the responsiveness of your base-level Toyota/Honda/Ford automatic transmission is going to be lacking versus a manual, but step up to a Mercedes or BMW double clutch automatic gearbox, or just go straight to the top of the automatic heap with Porsche's PDK transmission, and I think you will find all of them quite performant, even without paddle input.

To preempt the "but you have to own a porsche for that!" responses, I'm not saying this is cheap, I'm just saying it is not limited by the available technology, just cost.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#230

Post by pistle »

stinos wrote: post #113
arethuza wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet" After having a couple of cars with automatic gearboxes (including a 4.4L BMW - so lack of power wasn't the problem) I find that I am much happier with a manual gearbox. NB I'm not resistant to new technology in cars - my current car has automatic parking and I use it a lot and normally leave the lights on auto as well. [Note I am in the UK]

second. I don't know what it is with it exactly, but automatic shifting kills any pleasure in driving I still have. All the ones I tried seem to react to pedal movements too slowly, which I find sometimes even dangerous because I'm not used too it, and I cannot use the engine to do light to intermediate braking anymore. and normally leave the lights on auto as well. Why don't you just leave them always on anyway? Or…

Down-shifting puts extra stress on transmission and engine components which are far harder to replace than brake pads.

If you're heading down a long slope, sure, use the lower gears to add control.

If you're just trying to come down from your amazing commute freeway race into the clover leaf... use the brakes for braking. Most people downshift incorrectly and add unneeded wear to their clutch.

There's few enough sticks out there already... don't leave me one with a beat up clutch.

Post reply on HN