Apple CarPlay • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple CarPlay

#361

Post by adventured » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 10:04 AM UTC

deveac wrote: post #272

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 m…

It's worse than low value, it's flat-out racist.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#362

Post by supermatt » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 10:22 AM UTC

This is a truly killer move by apple. No longer will you be bound by the 24 month term of your carrier to an apple handset, but you will be tied to using an apple device for the duration of your vehicle ownership.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#363

Post by poub » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 11:26 AM UTC

I can't wait for the WWDC where Apple will allow all developers to submit their app following of course meaningful guidelines that fit a car user interface.

Then Apple can act as a gateway and the automakers cannot put a veto on which app goes to the car dashboard or not.

I think we can learn from the fiasco of Renault trying to create a plateform with their R-link system. In this case the car manufacturer does the filtering of the apps but the rewards are low for the developers :

- antique system : android already 3-4 years old!

- no access to the car data : it's like making a smartphone app without being able to use the camera in your app. So as the user experience designer you're loosing very important data about the context of the user.

- low number of users : not many cars are sold with this system. (Carplay do not have many users yet but has much more potential of growth than R-link).

The marketing page of r-link : http://www.renault.co.uk/innovations/r-link/

I think people already showed many time they do want control, variety and choice.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#364

Post by mukundmr » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 1:16 PM UTC

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…

Touch screen in cars is debatable, but for the record, Apple's solution allows the use of physical knobs and buttons in the car to hook into CarPlay.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#365

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 1:42 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #189

baddox wrote: post #89

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.

No. Evolution is just a phenomenon, but its successful products, such as brains, have purposes. Eyes are there for seeing. They came about, in a sense, by coincidence, but they don't work by coincidence. There's no conceptual error in saying "a brain evolved to do X".

Products do not have purposes. Eyes can be for seeing, but can also be for eating or throwing at things. Atoms don't have tiny XML tags describing the purpose of an object they're part of. It's the user who attributes purpose to a tool.

You can't say "brain evolved to do X", you can at best say "brain is well suited to do X".

Re: Apple CarPlay

#366

Post by chiph » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 2:01 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #350

chiph wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I remember seeing that at the local auto show last year. I couldn't help but think that if you see a mouse in the car they did something wrong.

It looks gimmicky. But it's actually very functional.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#367

Post by lazydon » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 2:49 PM UTC

Oh God! Please no. For someone, who lost his dad in an accident due to a distracted scumbag, this is heart breaking.

Just say no to phones (in any form) while you drive.

Multitasking is a myth. Try driving on a new road while chitchatting to someone siting next to you; or, even try walking fast while thinking something hard or even recollecting something.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#368

Post by JohnBooty » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 3:03 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #282

JohnBooty wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was a pretty good product for a lot of people! A lot of people, like me, just want to shuffle some music while we exercise and we're willing to trade fine-grained control for the fact that the device is as light as a feather.

It also has really respectable sound quality and volume, which is not always the case (to put it gently) for teeny tiny electronics.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#369

Post by mzs » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 3:50 PM UTC

valarauca1 wrote: post #332

mzs wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not holy grail at all, only one car manufacturer was pushing for that, and they have essentially given-up.

From what I understand the Microsoft contract is cancelled, the new company stepping in has a real time OS, and they are testing once again to enable single CPU configurations.

Interesting, thanks. Pretty sure I know the two companies, my take would be one has a lot more riding on this and to take that with a grain of salt.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#370

Post by derda » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 4:06 PM UTC

valarauca1 wrote: post #161

The problem I see while this is great for consumers is IOS isn't a real-time OS. So it won't be able to manage car sensor data. This means it'll be a hard sell to auto-makers in the US since most want only 1 computer in the car (to do infotainment AND sensor control). This is the holy grail currently in infotainment systems. The only automaker moving in this direction currently is Ford by using blackberry's platform…

They are probably using QNX[1] which doesn't really have anything to do with Blackberry phones. QNX has a pretty wide adoption in the embedded systems community.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX