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

281–290 of 537 posts

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#281

Post by js2 »

wvenable wrote: post #272
js2 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Sadly my 2014 CX-5 is not supported.

Sorry if I got your hopes up. I edited my comment to be more accurate. I didn't realize 2014 only applied to the Mazda 3 and it's 2016 for the other models.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#282

Post by MBCook »

thedougd wrote: post #264
MBCook wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know it requires both sides to support it. My car originally didn’t but a later update to my car enabled it.

I don’t know when the first car got that, it’s possible it simply didn’t exist when yours was made. Or maybe it did and they just didn’t bother? I don’t know.

My car doesn’t have the version where it just shows Apple Maps, which I would love. Instead the next turn/etc. is clearly being sent to the cars operating system because it gets displayed the same way the cars internal navigation stuff does on the screen behind the wheel.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#283

Post by lokar »

babypuncher wrote: post #87
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…

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…

You pay for maps on your phone?

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#284

Post by lokar »

eropple wrote: post #253
jasondigitized wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 iPho…

I would never consider buying GM. I was, in the past, a UAW shop steward.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#285

Post by lokar »

bluGill wrote: post #254
Tagbert wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It what if I’m in FSD mode? /s

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#286

Post by hatsix »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #255
dzhiurgis wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it is not just that, and cheap decks with laggy carplay/AA unfortunately prove that some processing happens external to the phone

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#287

Post by roughly »

ajmurmann wrote: post #246
roughly wrote: post #18

Something that stuck out to me in the article: > There used to be a big difference in driving characteristics and technology between premium and budget brands. Compared to a Volkswagen, a BMW used to have a more powerful engine, better handling, and comfort features like seat-heating and cruise control. However, a Volkswagen Golf now has similar tech as a BMW and with the transition to EVs, drivetrains and handling w…

> BMW put out a car that shared a platform with a Toyota, in a move that should've caused a plague of locust to descend on Munich if God existed and had a driver's license Why is this bad on BMW? Doesn't Toyota make the most reliable cars?

It’s nothing to do with the reliability. It’d be like finding out that Apple had shipped a laptop based on Dell internals - whatever the results, it’d indicate something tectonic had happened in Cupertino. It’s just not something the company would have even considered a decade or so ago.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#288

Post by nmcfarl »

sircastor wrote: post #213
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.

CarPlay is still wholly dependent on the car’s infotainment stack. If your Suburu’s system is crashing, CarPlay can’t insulate you from that.

I don't know about that - my Subaru head unit crashes a lot more when I'm clicking around in the Subaru programs, and it very rarely crashes when I'm clicking in CarPlay. My feeling is there are bugs in the Subaru provided programs, and very few bugs in the program that launches CarPlay and gives it control of the screen (probably because that is a very simple program).

So it seems that the more features I use via carplay the less it crashes. It's not perfect, but it certainly helps.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#289

Post by toast0 »

throw0101c wrote: post #172
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…

> That doesn't have to be a touchscreen but usually are […] With back up cameras being mandated in the US (and other jurisdictions?): * https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-required-... There needs to be a screen: I'm not sure what the incremental cost is of it being touch-sensitive. And I think a lot of designers (or cost cutters) may have figured that since they have to have software anyway , it may e…

I'm pretty sure a touchscreen is cheaper than buttons, or at least awful close. You'll still get some buttons, unless the car maker really hates you, and hopefully something to turn for volume control (which may even work most of the time, if you're lucky).

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#290

Post by ddmitriev »

brewdad wrote: post #159
s0rce wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people do that? I just use my phone beside the old useless infotainment. Honestly, I wouldn't buy a new car that used an in-house infotainment specifically because they go obsolete quickly (<5-10 years) and cannot be economically (or at all) to the latest tech. Carplay seems to be long lived.

My vehicle (a mid teens Volvo) doesn’t support CarPlay or AA. Its infotainment system gets its data from 3G, so it doesn’t get data anymore. Music is through Bluetooth, which works well enough. Navigating means using the clunky in-car nav with no traffic data or a phone with the volume turned way up. It’s far from ideal but at least I have zero expectations for my next car.

I replaced the head unit on my car from the same era with an aftermarket Sony XAV-9000ES unit that has wireless carplay support. It takes about 10 seconds to connect after powering up the electronics but is otherwise seamless. Full steering wheel controls too (volume, next/prev track, pause/resume, mute). No car info, but the car is old enough to have a proper gauge cluster.

There are also dash-mounted "carplay screens" that are both much cheaper and much easier to install but lack integrations/require hacky solutions to get, say, audio out.

Post reply on HN