Seems strange to me that you still have to plug in your iPhone. Nowhere does it say that you can connect via Bluetooth.
That will be added in the second iteration, as a new innovative feature.
Apple CarPlay
81–90 of 376 posts
Re: Apple CarPlay
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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.
But they already have cars that drive themselves, without human interference. Google (and other companies') engineers have been driving them all over the country on test runs. Obviously if the car will drive itself to a specified destination autonomously, the physical state of the occupant is no longer an issue.
> Ie. the ninety-ninety rule.
Yes, fair enough -- I'm sure there are still edge cases, but the OP said, with respect to this technology, "... we won't see that kind of thing even within the next few decades, if ever."
The turning point will be when the technology's edge cases are less dangerous than a human driver's edge cases. That won't take very long.
Re: Apple CarPlay
#83As a consumer, that is an expensive way to find yourself locked in to increasing Apple device prices.
Increasing? Like you need to pay more to get the same?
In reality the trend is either you get more by paying the same, o you get more, by paying less.
Re: Apple CarPlay
#84Yay, 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…
Basic slow models are availble now , so that's a good sign:
http://ideas.4brad.com/navias-induct-officially-sale-250-000
Re: Apple CarPlay
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. But they already have cars that drive themselves, without human interference. Google (and other companies') engineers have been driving them all over the country on test runs. Obviously if the car will drive itself…
> when the technology's edge cases are less dangerous than a human driver's edge
> cases. That won't take very long.
Re: Apple CarPlay
#86Apple map is still scarily inaccurate [1,2,3]. Why should I or anyone risk this in the car?
[1] http://bgr.com/2013/09/25/apple-maps-disaster-runway/
[2] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
[3] http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/11/new-clas...
Re: Apple CarPlay
#87Not that it's any surprise, but it's nice to see an emphasis on Siri. Voice control is very well suited to car interfaces: the car is a relatively-quiet, private space where you can be heard by the interface but not bother a stranger, and voice is as hands-and-eyes-free as it gets (not that this is the only challenge with car interfaces – divided attention from the road will only be solved with full autopilot). What…
Voice control works fine in Windows Automotive since at least 2008 [1].
Remember both Microsoft and Apple are using the same voice technology and sound libraries from Nuance Communication [2]. You can change the radio, mp3-playlist, do phone calls, listen the SMS, etc., though the internet enabled services are missing in older editions.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Embedded_Automotive
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuance_Communications#Partnersh....
Re: Apple CarPlay
#88I was hoping for some kind of airplay for the car.
The main use case would be a third-party navigation or music app seamlessly integrating with this, with some kind of two-way communication with the phone to send back use input.
This feels strange and needlessly wall-garden, exactly like the apple TV before airplay.
Re: Apple CarPlay
#89Yay, 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…
> going at speeds the human brain has never evolved to appropriately deal with. Not to discuss your other points, but who are you to say the human brain has evolved or not to deal with X or Y ? The human brain is actually very capable of dealing with multiple sensory signals, and the fact that most people can drive cars on motorways without crashing in each other's every 2 seconds suggest that the human brain is perf…
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.
Re: Apple CarPlay
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. But they already have cars that drive themselves, without human interference. Google (and other companies') engineers have been driving them all over the country on test runs. Obviously if the car will drive itself…
> when the technology's edge cases are less dangerous than a human driver's edge > cases. That won't take very long. Just a couple of decades.
That seems about right. For American drivers, maybe a bit too long. :)