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

501–510 of 537 posts

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#501

Post by hedgehog »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #240
hedgehog wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The car probably has odometry and inertial sensors to do position updates while GPS is unavailable. That's actually how some of the original car nav systems worked even pre-GPS in the 80s.

I strongly doubt that. Cars simply have bigger, more power antennas because they don't have to be packaged in a phone. One of our cars has a wireless modem that can be used for a hotspot. I've driven to plenty of areas where my phone has no service (think remote and hilly terrain), but the car still has two or three bars.

The sensors are there and report on CAN bus, I just don't know enough about how the nav systems are integrated to know if they actually use the data.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#502

Post by wvenable »

tssva wrote: post #331
wvenable wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly my 2014 CX-5 is not supported.

I replaced my 2014 CX-5 head unit with a 3rd party unit which supports CarPlay/AA, integrates with the steering controls, the factory Bose amplifier and retains the ability to change the car settings through the head unit. Took about 2 1/2 hours to install it.

Which head unit is that? I looked into it years ago but I definitely couldn't find one that still allowed you to change the car settings and I felt that was a bit of non-starter.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#503

Post by nradov »

nswest23 wrote: post #457
bambax wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why would car makers want to spend millions of dollars a year rolling their own infotainment system? This is addressed 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 Gol…

Don’t you think it’s possible that car makers are moving in this direction in anticipation of a day when you no longer have to be paying attention to that extent while driving? Or do people still think that day is very very far off because based on my experience with FSD we’re not as far as everyone thinks.

That's the danger of FSD. It's just good enough to trick poorly trained, unskilled drivers into thinking that they no longer have to pay attention. This works fine ... until they encounter an edge case that FSD isn't programmed (or trained) to handle.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#504

Post by astrange »

withinboredom wrote: post #490
katbyte wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it does use the car's GPS unit if it's provided to the phone. Which is why I started this thread by saying it did.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#505

Post by babypuncher »

lokar wrote: post #283
babypuncher wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You pay for cell service on your phone, which lets you access things like Google/Apple maps, spotify streaming, etc.

GM wants to charge for a separate internet service tied to your car, that still goes over the cellular networks, in order to access these exact same features in their head unit. It is completely redundant. CarPlay already offers a near perfect experience in this regard, without charging an extra monthly fee.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#506

Post by babypuncher »

hatsix wrote: post #292
jdminhbg wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Tesla sells internet connectivity for $10/month.

While Tesla does have a $10/m plan, you still get basic Internet without paying for it... Tesla's free is better than any other company's paid subscription. That said, $10 is far too much for what it is, should be $5.

[dead]

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#507

Post by js2 »

wnissen wrote: post #494
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

I have installed that unit but I wouldn't characterize it as for the "least bit handy". It involves removing all the panels from the screen, center console, and shifter, and fishing some wiring behind the climate controls. Definitely do-able, but not for the faint of heart. The wiring is easy to connect, to be sure, Japanese are outstanding at that. Totally worth the money. I just wish I could put in one of the facto…

That's fair.

You also have to update the software first, which is a 45 minute process that requires touching the brake pedal every 20 minutes to prevent the head unit from going to sleep.

I've installed it twice: a few years ago in a CX-9 and two-weeks ago in a Mazda 3. There's YouTube videos for it so you know what you're getting yourself into. I found the procedure straight-forward. Mostly you need to know which parts to pull off and where the bolts, clips and fasteners are. If you're someone who'd install their own dash cam, you can probably do it.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#508

Post by jacooper »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #350

Two things scare me about Android / Apple car integration - I’d be interested in experiences others have had: Obsolescence - ‘your phone is too old to use with this car’ or your car being too old for your phone. Double points for software updates to either which disable functions or features. Vendor lock-in - are the players mutually exclusive? Does having a phone from one manufacturer limit my car choices?

> Vendor lock-in - are the players mutually exclusive? Does having a phone from one manufacturer limit my car choices?

Realistically it's going to be the other way around

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#509

Post by zbentley »

dagmx wrote: post #178
51Cards wrote: post #72

>Continuing with the above example, let's imagine I just downloaded a new podcast app on my phone (one that is also available in the automotive Play Store). The next day I have to go on a long drive and I want to listen to a podcast episode I downloaded on my phone. When I enter my car, I have to go to the Play Store, find the app, download it, log in, and then download the episode. When I use CarPlay, I only have to…

The author is talking about Android Automotive which is different than Android Auto. Auto is driven from your phone whereas Automotive is running on your car directly.

> Android Automotive which is different than Android Auto

I know this isn't the highest value comment in the world, but god Google's product naming/differentiation is terrible. I can't imagine a more guaranteed-to-confuse (or worse, more guaranteed to lead to misleading second-party marketing) nomenclature.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#510

Post by numpad0 »

jajko wrote: post #411
toast0 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Touchscreen is such a stupid low value move for driver. Physical knobs are safer in many ways, last much much more, I don't need to lose contact with whats happening in front of the car to manage these, just muscle memory. BMW has nice big physical knob (turn&press) to control all menus, much better than hunting on flat glossy screen with fingers. Some stuff can be managed from steering wheel, but instead of putting…

I used to agree, but the point I made in GP is that the touchscreen front and center could be a requirement, with what to do with one being open to local market interpretation.

IF that's the case, and that's one big if, debating touchscreen vs buttons might not be meaningful, because touchscreen MIGHT be a requirement that cannot be removed. With un-eliminable touchscreen, buttons becomes just added cost, rather than being a resilt of cost calculations between all-touch vs all-buttons.

Post reply on HN