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

271–280 of 376 posts

Re: Apple CarPlay

#271

Post by foobarqux »

chaz wrote: post #210
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…

iDrive is terrible and distracting. Never has changing a radio station been so dangerous.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#272

Post by deveac »

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. 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.

This reduces distraction.

You have to remember to take into account human behavior. In the real world, people get into their vehicle and use their phone's map application, as well as text, phone, and music applications. Not only do they do this, they do it in overwhelming numbers.

This product takes common behavior that people engage in (and will continue to), and makes it safer and less confusing to engage in while driving.

Vehicles have knobs and touch-screens now. This tech doesn't change that dynamic, -it works with the UI elements already present in order to reduce fumbling around with your phone and tiny touch-targets on your mobile device.

>2) Self-driving cars cannot come fast enough, and every single innovation in the car industry that does not go towards electric self driving cars is just useless fluff at this point.

That's besides the point. They aren't here yet, and they won't be in the immediate future. Making driving safer in the meantime isn't fluff.

> there is no room for caring about the feelings of greedy old white men.

What a terrible, low-value comment to make in this forum.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#273

Post by acchow »

selectodude wrote: post #259
driverdan wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Automatic transmissions have a clutch that's operated automatically. DSGs have two clutches for quicker gear changes. That's the only major difference.

Oh how I wish this were the language we all adopted.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#274

Post by cmelbye »

moe wrote: post #225
cmelbye wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

C'mon, this is Hacker News. Let's try to look beyond the current state of technology and think about its potential instead.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#275

Post by dubya »

gutnor wrote: post #131
furyofantares wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be blunt I am pretty capable of driving without any maps in the car, or at ignoring instructions that appear incorrect or dangerous. And while Apple Maps might still get it wrong more than other maps, I've never used a mapping service that hasn't gotten some things wrong. I do hope it supports other mapping apps though, or if not I hope Apple gets pressured to support that. And I don't really see why they wouldn't…

The GPS get it wrong very often too. There is an enormous amount of magic going on behind the scene to put a car on an actual road on the map. When I'm driving on the highway with spotty coverage, I very often hear "Turn Left in 50 m" when the magic fails and the GPS (mobile phone running TomTom in this case) now thinks I teleported on a side road. Similarly, you could get yourself lost for hours if you follow your G…

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/12/australian-travelers-st...

Re: Apple CarPlay

#276

Post by dubya »

gutnor wrote: post #131
furyofantares wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be blunt I am pretty capable of driving without any maps in the car, or at ignoring instructions that appear incorrect or dangerous. And while Apple Maps might still get it wrong more than other maps, I've never used a mapping service that hasn't gotten some things wrong. I do hope it supports other mapping apps though, or if not I hope Apple gets pressured to support that. And I don't really see why they wouldn't…

The GPS get it wrong very often too. There is an enormous amount of magic going on behind the scene to put a car on an actual road on the map. When I'm driving on the highway with spotty coverage, I very often hear "Turn Left in 50 m" when the magic fails and the GPS (mobile phone running TomTom in this case) now thinks I teleported on a side road. Similarly, you could get yourself lost for hours if you follow your G…

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/12/australian-travelers-st...

Re: Apple CarPlay

#278

Post by lutusp »

MrScruff wrote: post #148
lutusp wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My inference from that was that the 'simple' problems have been solved, but to have technology that can safely drive an intoxicated person home would require solving another set of much harder problems. But they already have cars that drive themselves, without human interference. Google (and other companies') engineers have been driving them all over the country on test runs. Obviously if the car will drive itself…

But they already have cars that drive themselves, without human interference. Google (and other companies') engineers have been driving them all over the country on test runs. Obviously if the car will drive itself to a specified destination autonomously, the physical state of the occupant is no longer an issue. The physical state of the occupant is an issue if there are situations where the occupant might need to re…

> The physical state of the occupant is an issue if there are situations where the occupant might need to regain control of the vehicle.

All I can say is that the goal of self-driving cars is to take the occupant out of the picture entirely. I think a lot of public safety officials will welcome this change. Eventually, there will be two classes of vehicle occupants -- those who are qualified to touch the controls, and those who aren't.

For an earlier social model, look at elevators. At one time, to have an elevator in your building, you had to hire an elevator operator. Then there were elevators that the building's occupants could operate if they were careful and knew what to avoid. Now elevators are safely operated by anyone.

Same idea.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#279

Post by whistlerbrk »

>> (the views in this post are a bit on the extreme side- but that's how interesting conversations get started :-)

says it all. No it doesn't make this conversation interesting. It makes it divisive. It makes people fight each other for no reason. It confuses and disillusions. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, not greedy old white men, you racist.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#280

Post by chaz »

foobarqux wrote: post #271
chaz wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

iDrive is terrible and distracting. Never has changing a radio station been so dangerous.

Yes, which is why they give you hard buttons for presets and up/down scan.
Post reply on HN