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

261–270 of 537 posts

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#261

Post by lotsofpulp »

duxup wrote: post #49
mannyv wrote: post #4

CarPlay mostly works, and although it has issues it's definitely user-focused. CarPlay doesn't prevent car makers from tracking vehicle activity. In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. It sucks, or it's AA/CarPlay. The first generation of iDrive showed that rich people people will buy cars in spite of the in-car stuff. In fact, most car infotainment sucks, yet people still buy cars…

Yeah it's CarPlay or whatever Android uses, or I want nothing to do with it. Every time I rent a car it's a HELLSCAPE of figuring out whatever crappy UI this brand of car created for that year ... until I get my phone hooked up. Man I just want to get to my hotel not futz with some garbage UI in the garage forever.

Every single car I have rented in the last ~5 years in the US has had CarPlay.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#262

Post by astrange »

xyst wrote: post #17

I used to be fascinated with Apple but I no longer want anything to do with them. I could care less if my car has Apple or android auto at this point. I would rip it out immediately if it had one. Any always on connectivity would be removed. Car manufacturers are increasingly selling off your private data and leveraging all of these technology upgrades you paid for to do it. As soon as the car is connected to the int…

> In some cases the manufacturers are reporting your driving history to insurance companies so they can get any reason to bump your rates or deny you coverage . [2]

Obviously good. Driving is incredibly dangerous to other people and insurance companies are the most motivated to make it safer.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#263

Post by srockets »

js2 wrote: post #181
yabones wrote: post #34

There's an interesting gap when discussing carplay/aa. Cars from the 90s up until about 2013 can be easily fitted with a $500 head unit upgrade, and support carplay quite well. With the right tools, it can be done in about two hours right in your driveway. Cars from 2018 and up pretty universally support carplay, and it's generally quite well integrated into the car's infotainment system. But, between 2013 and 2017,…

> But, between 2013 and 2017, things were a complete mess. In-car systems were too integrated to be replaceable with a third party 2-DIN unit, but too primitive to run carplay/AA Mazda sells a retrofit kit for their 2014 (Mazda 3) / 2016 (other models) and newer cars that didn't come with native CP/AA. It's about $200 and DIY if you're the least bit handy: https://mazdaparts.org/mazda-3-smartphone-mirroring-kit.html

For other brands, there are third party retrofits that replace the integrated stereo with a DIN mount, or with a carplay compatible head unit. The software on those is usually clunky, but it's not like OEM car head units are known for their UX.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#264

Post by thedougd »

MBCook wrote: post #206
ComputerGuru wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently this isn't true. If you have a car where the 2nd screen behind the steering wheel also shows CarPlay-related stuff, you have CarPlay 2 (or so I've been told). It's just not as invasive and all-or-nothing as it was billed to be.

No. There are three things, which makes it confusing. 1: “original” CarPlay. Shows up on your head unit 2: enhanced “original” CarPlay. Some cars can show the map or turn by turn instructions behind the steering wheel on a screen there 3: “new” CarPlay. This is where CarPlay fully takes over every screen. Nothing has been released, I think only one very expensive model has even said they’re going it. Today e dry one…

Any idea when #2 was released? I have a 2019 Honda. Android Auto can use the instrument panel as a second screen but CarPlay cannot. I miss seeing the next-turn distance countdown right in front of me.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#265

Post by makeitdouble »

pr337h4m wrote: post #225
lobochrome wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. Google Maps, in particular, has by far the best route guidance. It used to be different - but not anymore. Most in-car systems don't even attempt to route the last 300m here because the detailed one-way street narrow layout of tiny streets isn't in their mapping data, or their algorithms are too weak. Google has mostly no problem with that. Entering Japanese addresses IS tricky, though; here, custom-…

Why not use plus codes? They're well-integrated into Google Maps: https://maps.google.com/pluscodes/

TIL.

The weird part is Maps will accept them for search, but not display the plus code except when looking at POI (randomly selecting a point on the map doesn't show it for me, I only could get that from the /pluscodes/ map)

This seems genuinely useful, but as usual we're having the chicken and egg problem to get it adopted ?

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#266

Post by [deleted] »

yabones wrote: post #34

There's an interesting gap when discussing carplay/aa. Cars from the 90s up until about 2013 can be easily fitted with a $500 head unit upgrade, and support carplay quite well. With the right tools, it can be done in about two hours right in your driveway. Cars from 2018 and up pretty universally support carplay, and it's generally quite well integrated into the car's infotainment system. But, between 2013 and 2017,…

[deleted]

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#267

Post by dzhiurgis »

mey wrote: post #16

As a shopper of a vehicle. I want my car to control car operation/cockpit information. I have enjoyed the continuous improvement of navigation and entertainment functionality of Android Auto/Car Play. For the love of god, keep them separate. One is critical vehicle functionality. There other can crash/reboot/have connectivity issues, without me being concerned about knowing the engine is overheating/battery pack is d…

> One is critical vehicle functionality

Except it isn't. Can you start or continue driving without any of that info? Then it isn't critical.

Critical functionality is:

- steering

- drivetrain

- brakes

- tyres

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#269

Post by dzhiurgis »

elzbardico wrote: post #104

It is bad enough that Mercedes decided to emulate Tesla. Now, fuck this, I don't want my merc dashboard to look like an IPhone. It cheapens the experience.

> Mercedes decided to emulate Tesla

Except Tesla is doing it right. Mercedes software is a mess. It's hard to explain why, but use it for a few days and it's just obvious.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#270

Post by raihansaputra »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #118
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…

I also think the author misses the mark on this statement > Apple’s long-term goal is likely to find ways to directly monetize CarPlay. It could license CarPlay to carmakers at some point. But with the entire global car market amounting to only around 70 million cars per year and the car industry’s slim profit margins (ranging from 5% to 15%), it must reach a high market share to get significant revenue from it. Howe…

> I don’t think Apple sees this as a promising revenue stream. It’s just another way to encourage people to stay within the walled garden. That seems many times more valuable than any possible licensing fees they would get from manufacturers

I agree this is the optimal way of seeing it. Apple did not do the same with App Store though. The initial vision was to just apply enough fees for hosting and vetting the apps. Now with the way they hold on to the 15/17/30% fee, they are treating it like a revenue stream instead of a "courtesy service".

Post reply on HN