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

251–260 of 537 posts

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#251

Post by astrange »

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.

Cars can have better GPS reception, which is important when you're trying to drive in an urban area with a lot of buildings. Phones are bad at accuracy there.

(CarPlay can provide car GPS to the phone though.)

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#252

Post by ajmurmann »

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.

> 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.

I've had some rental cars that wanted me to install a manufacturer app. Super annoying! Just let me plug my phone in and project my screen and speakers. I don't want to get adjusted to a new UI with each car I drive, or worse sync stuff. I also have zero interest to find out what software a car company will develop. Car companies should make cars and leave infotainment to my phone and companies that are experts in it. Built-in infotainment in cars is even worse than "smart" tvs.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#253

Post by eropple »

jasondigitized wrote: post #182
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…

How is GM a middleman when they are producing the product I am buying which is a car? If GM bundled OnStar with a top tier infotainment / navigation / ChatGpt / I’m hungry where do I eat app, I’ll pay for that as long as it’s reasonable and lets me know I’ll be taken care of if I crash and need assistance.

Maybe for you. If it doesn't exactly mirror the stuff on my phone, though, it's distinctly worse than using my phone. If it doesn't start playing music from my phone when I turn the car on, it's distinctly worse than using my phone. If it doesn't act like my phone does today, it's distinctly worse than using my phone.

For me, there is no room for GM to become a player here. I have friends' addresses, etc. in my iPhone's contacts and they show up on Maps. GM isn't going to do that, so GM isn't going to get my business. I'm starting to look for a new car right now, and this is a hard no. If it doesn't support CarPlay and Android Auto (both--I've used both in the last five years, and might switch back again to Android in the lifetime of my next car), it's outside my observable universe.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#254

Post by bluGill »

Tagbert wrote: post #180
devmor wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. It sucks, or it's AA/CarPlay. My ideal "infotainment" is a button that lets me pair bluetooth and volume/skip controls on my steering wheel. I have a phone mount, like almost everyone does. I don't need a display on my dashboard. AA/CarPlay (and everything else) are genuinely just distracting annoyances that take up space. Especially in newer…

If find the Bluetooth interface too limited because it requires interacting with the touchscreen on the phone. I want to use the large screen on the car with an interface that is optimized to work while in the car not small controls on a small phone.

No touch screen i should be accessable by the driner unless the car is in park. I don't care if it is the phone or infotainment, no touchscreen is allowed.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#255

Post by lotsofpulp »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #187
lanthade wrote: post #179

It’s amusing when the author says “when the phone crashes.” My 2022 Subaru Outback head unit frequently crashes or is really unresponsive. My iPhone never crashes. Car infotainment systems are garbage. I’d never buy a car without CarPlay. It’s maybe the #1 measure I have for vehicle quality when I rent on vacation.

FWIW Teslas infotainment works better than CarPlay

If that were true, Tesla would have no problem offering CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility.

After all, it’s just a protocol to let your phone use the display (or part of it) as a second monitor.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#256

Post by eddythompson80 »

sunshowers wrote: post #110
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.

Oh yes, current cars do. I'm concerned about the situation where Apple provides the onboard infotainment system, which is what's being talked about in the post.

No it’s not what’s being talked about. I’m not sure where you’re getting this. There aren’t a lot of details about CarPlay 2, but even this article says that CarPlay 2 is a way for the car and the phone to communicate more and allow the phone to control more of the car. What you’re thinking about is Android Automotive where there is an Android box in the car that is THE infotainment system. I have yet to see anywhere that Apple is building an iOS box that sits in the car itself that is the only infotainment system.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#257

Post by ajmurmann »

massysett wrote: post #127
kenjackson wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I so much prefer hooking up my phone, rather than having to authenticate every device I own to all the services I want to use. And given that most of the services that I want to use in the car are also services on my phone, e.g., GPS maps, music, podcasts -- why would I want to have to use a whole new app for this purpose? I love that when I search for something with Google Maps it knows, typically in a letter or two…

You make a great case for why your car should have Google Maps built in. That wouldn’t require you to hook your phone to the car. Having to hook the phone to the car is s giant leap backward. We’ve got Gmail: email from any device. We don’t say: My phone has all my email, I hook it up anytime I want to read mail, if the battery is dead or I forgot my phone, I’m screwed. No, we use Gmail from a tablet, phone, PC, etc.…

In addition to the points other comments are making, please consider rental cars. So much easier there if I can just plug in my phone and get the same Infotainment UI everywhere.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#258

Post by astrange »

spike021 wrote: post #142
hedgehog wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The car probably has odometry and inertial sensors to do position updates while GPS is unavailable. That's actually how some of the original car nav systems worked even pre-GPS in the 80s.

That makes sense. I would've thought the accelerometer/gyro in the phone could be used similarly but I'm probably wrong.

It can, but it's harder because you can mount the phone any way you want in the car, or not mount it at all.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#259

Post by Tiktaalik »

Tbh CarPlay runs really badly in my 2018 VW GTI and Castro in particular is extremely buggy. It’s pretty much random if the turn by turn audio navigation works at all.

The fact that everyone seems to think CarPlay is great though I guess suggests that the problem lies with the implementation details with the VW.

> there is no match for seamlessly transferring the phone's state to the car.

I’ll point out it’s not at all seamless. In fact it’s extremely cumbersome to fish out a lightning cable and plug the phone in. A good car infotainment system where I didn’t have to connect my phone at all would be seamless.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#260

Post by lotsofpulp »

jasondigitized wrote: post #182
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…

How is GM a middleman when they are producing the product I am buying which is a car? If GM bundled OnStar with a top tier infotainment / navigation / ChatGpt / I’m hungry where do I eat app, I’ll pay for that as long as it’s reasonable and lets me know I’ll be taken care of if I crash and need assistance.

Why would you pay for that when your phone already does all of that and you always have it on you?
Post reply on HN