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

61–70 of 376 posts

Re: Apple CarPlay

#61

Post by arethuza »

archagon wrote: post #43
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…

Do you seriously think we'll have widespread self-driving cars — and not just the bare bones technology, but ones that we can ride in without any control at all, even while intoxicated — within a timespan short enough for every other advancement in car technology to not matter? I am almost 100% certain that we won't see that kind of thing even within the next few decades, if ever. Self-driving cars have way too many…

"Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet"

After having a couple of cars with automatic gearboxes (including a 4.4L BMW - so lack of power wasn't the problem) I find that I am much happier with a manual gearbox.

NB I'm not resistant to new technology in cars - my current car has automatic parking and I use it a lot and normally leave the lights on auto as well.

[Note I am in the UK]

Re: Apple CarPlay

#63

Post by Marazan »

archagon wrote: post #43
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…

Do you seriously think we'll have widespread self-driving cars — and not just the bare bones technology, but ones that we can ride in without any control at all, even while intoxicated — within a timespan short enough for every other advancement in car technology to not matter? I am almost 100% certain that we won't see that kind of thing even within the next few decades, if ever. Self-driving cars have way too many…

I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet.

That's because automatic transmission is the worst and invented by the devil.

More seriously, using an automatic transmission results in trade-offs, for instance fuel usage was the historical number 1 sticking point with automatics guzzling up the petrol compared to manuals. Modern engineering has closed that gap but there are still issues related to control - ironically a move to fully autonomous cars would solve most of them (principally in non-autonomous cars drivers in manual transmission cars can use knowledge of future road conditions to make gear selection decisions that an automatic transmission cannot make as they have only a limited input set)

Re: Apple CarPlay

#65

Post by rimantas »

archagon wrote: post #43
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…

Do you seriously think we'll have widespread self-driving cars — and not just the bare bones technology, but ones that we can ride in without any control at all, even while intoxicated — within a timespan short enough for every other advancement in car technology to not matter? I am almost 100% certain that we won't see that kind of thing even within the next few decades, if ever. Self-driving cars have way too many…

  > I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic
  > transmission yet.
For the good reasons.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#66

Post by MrScruff »

lutusp wrote: post #56
archagon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you seriously think we'll have widespread self-driving cars — and not just the bare bones technology, but ones that we can ride in without any control at all, even while intoxicated — within a timespan short enough for every other advancement in car technology to not matter? I am almost 100% certain that we won't see that kind of thing even within the next few decades, if ever. Self-driving cars have way too many…

> I am almost 100% certain that we won't see that kind of thing [self-driving cars] even within the next few decades, if ever. Come on -- self-driving cars are already legal in California -- "Self-driving cars now legal in California" : http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/tech/innovation/self-driving-c... -- and the military are testing self-driving trucks to prevent IUD casualties in hostile areas -- "Army tests self-driv…

As I understand it current self driving car technology fails whenever the situation becomes sufficiently complex (eg. icy/wet roads, some other unexpected traffic situation) and require the driver to take control at this point. My inference from that was that the 'simple' problems have been solved, but to have technology that can safely drive an intoxicated person home would require solving another set of much harder problems. Ie. the ninety-ninety rule.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#67

Post by gnaffle »

mbel wrote: post #53
josteink wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carplay seems to be just Apple reinventing the wheel. To be fair, that's basically Apple's business models. Just add some proprietary standards and some software patents and you are good to go.

Yeah, I'm absolutely aware of this; it just seems to be so wasteful from engineering point of view.

Well, if you look at Airplay, they had a technology that worked well for _years_ until the "leading standard" caught up. They do support other standards such as A2DP though.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#68

Post by lostlogin »

beaker52 wrote: post #60

As a consumer, that is an expensive way to find yourself locked in to increasing Apple device prices.

Why do you say they are increasing? I paid the same for my 5s as I paid for my 4. Thats a decrease after inflation. Macs are much cheaper than they used to be.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#69

Post by netcan »

beloch wrote: post #16

If I were an auto manufacturer, I'd be pushing Apple to open up the standard for interfacing this with phones. iOS and iPhones are great, but are still only used by a fraction of potential customers. Why limit your market so Apple can score some lock-in?

Or (probably more Apple-like approach) make it stand-alone and interact well with iPhones and leave it open to Android support later on or maybe start by offering the kind of support for android other mid-high end systems offer.

So the thing is usable without a phone: GPS, music, etc. You can answer calls for any bluetooth enabled phone. Advanced functionality like siri would only work with an iPhone.

This is a new market with new use-cases. Starting by making the basics work well is a good starting point.

I think that what iPhone (and Android shortly after) did for phones can be done for a bunch of things, including conventional PCs. Apple is uniquely capable of targeting the high end but they are not the only ones capable here. They'll need to execute very well.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#70

Post by emeidi »

pedalpete wrote: post #10

It looks as though this is running your your iPhone, virtualized in your cars built-in display. I'm happily surprised to see Apple go this route, as I suspect/hope I don't have to have an iPhone in order to make use of the cars built-in display. Also, if auto manufacturers are going the virtualized route, their is very little preventing Android/WP/Ubuntu/Firefox/etc. to work just as easily.

"virtualized"? I'd rather call it "mirroring".
Post reply on HN