Live data from Hacker News

Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

theturnsignalblog.com

481–490 of 537 posts

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is $10 per customer per month more than they’d get if everyone was using CarPlay / Android Auto. It’s been proven time and time again that vertical integration is a massive money earner and you can bet that if Tesla were to release a smartphone then support for that in their cars would be a software update that follows immediately after. But since there’s no plans for a phone, the next best thing is a subscript…

Can carplay live stream video from hyundai’s cameras..?

You mean that feature I've never used?

I pay for premium data only because of Spotify and live traffic. Which I wouldn't have to do if it had CarPlay.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need premium data for online maps. Premium data is for sat maps, music and live camera views. Also at $10 per month it's actually quite cheap.

Are you saying you can't listen to music in a Tesla without a subscription?

I'm saying I can't get live traffic on my Tesla maps without a subscription.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or because they want to charge a subscription for "premium data" which nobody would buy if there was CarPlay.

You don't need premium data for online maps. Premium data is for sat maps, music and live camera views. Also at $10 per month it's actually quite cheap.

It's also for live traffic.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#484

I don't understand why they never formed a committee and decide core basic features an OS should provide, set up an open spec API (a good one), and have that as a basis for android, ios, and mobile phones. Something like that could easily hold up for 20 years. Obviously we could put in climate controls, but all the cars should have the same basic "position" and "heirarchy tree" of where basic controls/settings are. W…

Who is "they" and "we"?

Perhaps the group behind OBD II?

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/everything-you-need-to-kn...

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#485
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened is there are no real "budget" cars anymore. Mandatory safety, engine, emission, backup cameras (yes, they're mandatory) has steadily driven the base price of a car so high that the added cost of creature comforts doesn't actually increase the price of a car that much relative to the total price. Why would someone spend spend $40k on a bare bones car when they could get a well-equipped car for $45k? That…

I'm not really seeing why safety or emissions rules drive up the price of a car? Backup camera sure that's an extra $200.

Cars require hundreds to thousands of microchips these days. Airbags require sensors and circuits. Emission systems require expensive sensors, and engines require complex electronic and mechanical real-time tuning systems to constantly monitor and adjust fuel usage to limit emissions and meet minimum mpg requirements. Automatic transmissions are now extremely complex, including 8 to 10 gears or using CVT to achieve the best fuel efficiency. Backup cameras need a monitor, and it costs more than $200. And now that you must put a monitor in the car, you can't just have it be useless except for a backup camera, so now you have to add a bunch of software features. Meeting emissions requirements means making cars much lighter. This means more expensive composites and materials. This means increased manufacturing and engineering costs to meet structural requirements while designing cars with the least amount of material.

I don't think you realize how simple cars used to be. Engines were extremely simple and purely mechanical, essentially 50 year old technology. Transmissions were simpler, either manual transmissions or ATS with only a handful of gears. Engines and cars were made entirely of cheap steel. You had no expensive screens, no expensive sensors or electronics. You had no expensive research on structural design and materials science. You had no expensive emissions systems. You could fix nearly everything in the car with hand tools.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#486
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,…

> Cars from 2018 and up pretty universally support Carplay, and it's generally quite well integrated into the car's infotainment system. I don't know what cars you drive, but they are not budget or Chinese. I recently rented a bottom-of-the-line Nissan '24 and just getting audio from my iPhone was a struggle - and there was absolutely no Carplay in sight. Most Chinese cars I've rented (all 23 or 24 models) have adver…

I've got a cheap 2021 Nissan Versa, and it has CarPlay plus a bunch of useful electronics features (front/back proximity detection, auto-dipping headlights, etc).

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#487
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…

[dead]

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#488
post #425

Why can't we have a car that only has: (a) a standardized mechanism for attaching and powering your phone on its dashboard (think a "mini VESA mount" with options for USB/wireless charging) (b) bluetooth HID-compatible physical controls on the steering wheel and/or center console so you don't have to reach for your device (c) a minified car "radio" that only offers AM/FM radio and bluetooth audio connectivity All oth…

The same reason why we can't have: - TV's that only display images without syphoning user data; - One-time payment app purchase without subscription.

If you don't mean "make more money"/"squeeze out every penny possible", I doubt the reasons are the same. These are 3 totally different classes of products, with different development/support costs, and pricing orders of magnitude apart.

- A new car is an O($10k) investment.

- A TV is an O($100) investment.

- A monthly app subscription is typically O($1).

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#489
post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't matter, it's just music. And one car that failed the test was a $50K Suburban. If it's this flaky, maybe some other car works fine but one day it stops.

I think we should collectively start saying things like "wow, look at how horrible this system is. I wonder how bad the computer control for steering or brakes is!" The point being, further hurt the sales of any cars like this, because really, it could be true.

Eh, that's something a lot of people would notice and the government would get involved in, and it's been played out already. I generally trust GM's steering and brakes to work. Infotainment is not their expertise, and if they were releasing a self-driving car, I'd also be wary given their track record.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just pretends to be more accurate by using AI. A car tends to be more raw, which is what you want when navigating at speed. As someone who used to help out with Waze maps, raw GPS tracks from phones can be WAAAY off from actual roads and other GPS tracks. Your phone looks for the most likely road for you to be on and snaps you to that road. Your car does a similar thing but has much higher GPS resolution than your…

no it IS more accurate. When i am off-roading i always record my track and have to unplug my phone from the trucks system to get an accurate un-smoothed track. google maps does weird things but gaia just uses the raw GPS data from the phone and doesn't snap, however when you are plugged into carplay the phone seems to always consider the car/trucks data more accurate even when its clearly not. this could very well my…

AFAIK, and I could be wrong (though I did google this first), plugging your phone into CarPlay does not use the car’s gps unit. That’s just your phone trying to find a road because it’s connected to a car. Even if you are getting the car’s gps, it’s not going to give you raw values, but display values to show in an app, which should be smooth, IMHO.
Post reply on HN