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

281–290 of 376 posts

Re: Apple CarPlay

#281

Post by chiph »

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…

Try the Lexus car-mouse. It's far better than the "knob" systems (Mercedes, BMW, Audi). You still get haptic feedback (magnets, how do they work?) and the motion of the controller corresponds directly with the screen display.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#282

Post by collyw »

JohnBooty wrote: post #248
collyw wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketing and gaining widespread adoption seem to be the areas that Apple excels at. In most cases where something is heralded as "revolutionary" by Apple, it has been done before. Maybe not as well or as polished, but usually it has been done before.

Even if all they do is do things better and more polished than others, that's something any company would do well to emulate. And sometimes doing things simply in a "more polished" way is revolutionary. The early, pre-iPod mp3 players were an absolute mess when it came to navigating your music. That doesn't show up on a spec sheet, but "creating the first mp3 player that lets you actually navigate your music in a sim…

Yes and no. I mean you cad hardly say the iPod shuffle was a revolution in music navigation. They just marketed it right.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#283

Post by lutusp »

furyofantares wrote: post #112
lutusp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He is accidentally technically correct. Saying that "the human brain evolved to do x" implies that evolution has purpose or intention, which is not the case. But to say that human behavior evolved to meet a specific environmental requirement isn't a purpose, it's an outcome that allowed the genotype to procreate. It's a gray area and one must be careful speaking of goals, but if one is addressing a specific adaptat…

At the current fatality rate among young drivers I wonder how many years it would take us to notice statistically significant genetic changes in the population that could be attributed to automobiles.

Or, more interesting, a correlation between innumeracy and traffic deaths. It turns out that the distance required to bring a car to a stop (after reaction time) is proportional to the square of the vehicle's speed. This is something that most people don't know, and that young drivers ignore at their peril.

After the driver reacts and presses on the brake pedal, on dry, level pavement, a car requires about 20 feet to stop at 20 miles per hour, 80 feet at 40 miles per hour and 180 feet at 60 miles per hour (all approximate distances).

Simple equation (reaction time not included): y = v^2 / 20

v = velocity MPH

y = stopping distance in feet

Another reason to learn some mathematics and science (it's based on the kinetic energy of the moving car). :)

Re: Apple CarPlay

#285

Post by coldtea »

Marazan wrote: post #251
coldtea wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of it was placebo? How much of it was "feeling out of control"? "second worst driving experience" has nothing quantifiable.

I had absolutely no preconceptions going into using the automatic - I would even go so far as to say I was looking forward to it as I'd never driven an automatic before. I would think my number 1 complaint about the driving experience was the occasional (but not predictable) incredible lag between pressing the accelerator and the car going faster and the ridiculous over-revving when I presume the car got confused abo…

>I would think my number 1 complaint about the driving experience was the occasional (but not predictable) incredible lag between pressing the accelerator and the car going faster and the ridiculous over-revving when I presume the car got confused about what gear it thought I should be in.

I've never seen the lag (much less "incredible") in any model I've known.

I've indeed seen the over-revving sometimes. That said, how is the over-revving any issue compared to the whole not having to even worry about manual gear shifting benefit?

It's like going to the US on a boat, because airplane food is bad. Yes, it might be, but it misses the whole point of getting there faster, easier, safer and with less concerns.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#286

Post by jarek »

Marazan wrote: post #251
coldtea wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of it was placebo? How much of it was "feeling out of control"? "second worst driving experience" has nothing quantifiable.

I had absolutely no preconceptions going into using the automatic - I would even go so far as to say I was looking forward to it as I'd never driven an automatic before. I would think my number 1 complaint about the driving experience was the occasional (but not predictable) incredible lag between pressing the accelerator and the car going faster and the ridiculous over-revving when I presume the car got confused abo…

Driving a car with a cheap or slow automatic transmission is a bit of an art - after a while you start knowing when and how to floor the accelerator just to tell the car that you'll need it to shift up in a couple of seconds.

It feels somewhat counter-intuitive as normally you press the pedal to speed up, but when going uphill you sometimes have to really step on it just to maintain speed.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#287

Post by pcurve »

nkozyra wrote: post #102
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…

A touchscreen isn't tangible?

it is, but it's really limited in kind of tactile feedback it can provide. (haptic feedback).

Re: Apple CarPlay

#288

Post by jarek »

coldtea wrote: post #285
Marazan wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had absolutely no preconceptions going into using the automatic - I would even go so far as to say I was looking forward to it as I'd never driven an automatic before. I would think my number 1 complaint about the driving experience was the occasional (but not predictable) incredible lag between pressing the accelerator and the car going faster and the ridiculous over-revving when I presume the car got confused abo…

> I would think my number 1 complaint about the driving experience was the occasional (but not predictable) incredible lag between pressing the accelerator and the car going faster and the ridiculous over-revving when I presume the car got confused about what gear it thought I should be in. I've never seen the lag (much less "incredible") in any model I've known. I've indeed seen the over-revving sometimes. That said…

> I've never seen the lag (much less "incredible") in any model I've known.

Check out a Smart fortwo on car2go sometime and be amazed :)

Re: Apple CarPlay

#290

Post by joosters »

lutusp wrote: post #283
furyofantares wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the current fatality rate among young drivers I wonder how many years it would take us to notice statistically significant genetic changes in the population that could be attributed to automobiles.

Or, more interesting, a correlation between innumeracy and traffic deaths. It turns out that the distance required to bring a car to a stop (after reaction time) is proportional to the square of the vehicle's speed. This is something that most people don't know, and that young drivers ignore at their peril. After the driver reacts and presses on the brake pedal, on dry, level pavement, a car requires about 20 feet to…

Is that relevant? Most fatalities are not because the car drove straight into a stationary object directly in front of them on the road. So, total stopping distance doesn't come into play as you describe it. Collisions mostly happen because of the actions of car drivers who are going roughly the same speed as you.

Not saying that speed is a factor, just that stopping distance isn't the thing. Perhaps you should discuss kinetic energy instead?

Post reply on HN