Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto

#91

Post by solarmist »

Zetice wrote: post #89
solarmist wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with him about the car talking to an external server. That is a disgusting grab by car manufacturers. For me, I don't care about my car having a computer, but I don't want it to talk to services without my permission and building their own thing shows a disregard for that desire. I love CarPlay/android and not offering those two most popular options doubles down on that disregard for customer interests.

Fully agree re: CarPlay/Android Auto support. But the default of "privacy good at all cost" seems like massive overkill IMO. If there's specific evidence that a car is doing something that will specifically cause you harm in some way via data sharing, that's one thing. If it's a vague, general distrust, that falls into the "luddite paranoia" category.

No it's not that. It's that I believe they will be profit seeking with that data unless forced to be otherwise.

The last decade has worn out my optimism and tolerance about privacy concerns. If a company wants my trust, they have to proactively earn it by excessive transparency, at least GDPR level, on their part.

If they can do that, I’ll consider it; otherwise, no thank you.

Re: GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto

#92

Post by Zandikar »

gopher2000 wrote: post #50
JohnFen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Darn. I got excited for a moment thinking that a major car manufacturer was selling a car that didn't have any infotainment features at all. Oh well.

Why wouldn't you want any infotainment features? Surely it's a positive if done well.

I can't speak for who you're asking but personally, there's an important nuance here:

I want (some) infotainment features. I do NOT want them baked into the car. Some of my main reasons:

1. Honestly, the reasons are long (I'm a gearhead, I know cars better than I know code, and I've been coding for 20 years), and largely centers around the idea that in my opinion, EVERY single modern automotive manufacture is terrible at UX in their infotainment. Tesla's UI (not UX) is okay. It doesn't deserve the praise it gets imo but at least it's usable, but that's a pretty low bar imo, but the fact that Tesla wants the touchscreen to be the primary interface ruins anything they have going for it.

2. Additionally, one of the beautiful things about Android Auto/Apply CarPlay is that you bring your accounts and media with you in your pocket. When your car is a separate device as opposed to something you just stream to like with Carplay/Auto, that's another thing to trying to sync accounts/creds and manage data, and I refer you to my above complaint on why I have an issue with that. I mean, it could literally INSTANTLY sync the things that I want flawlessly, and that still doesn't actually add any value to me. It at best reaches parity with the phone that's already in my pocket with android auto, and that's assuming the entire rest of the infotainment functions well.

3. I quite simply don't trust ANY automotive manufacturer to do competent user facing software, and I can't think of a single automotive manufacturer I would trust personal data/credentials to (yes I'm already aware they do that to extent, it's why I'm against it, they already suck at it, last thing I want to do is hand over more data into yet another walled garden).

4. Walled garden's suck, and as this is a value add service with no announcements yet (that I'm aware of) of any other manufacturer working with GM's initiative to establish/adhere to standards/specs or facilitate any sort of portability or openness or flexibility. If it's not a walled garden, great, but I'm assuming it will be, and I don't want it.

Re: GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto

#93

Post by JohnFen »

Zetice wrote: post #88
JohnFen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a cleaner UI and larger screen to show you the contents of that device? I haven't seen an in-car system that provides a better UI. Regardless, that's not actually important because I'm not interacting with the device or screen while I'm driving anyway. A larger screen doesn't seem like a big deal. I'm not spending much time looking at the screen anyway. > why do you care if your car has a computer on it or not? I d…

Computers are built these days mainly to talk to other computers, due to the considerable value gained by offloading computational effort to a central location. Not wanting a computer to talk to other computers is like not wanting your oven to heat food except by friction. And "overly paranoid, bordering on luddite" is no insult, it's a description that your comments fit. If these words are insulting, stop fitting so…

Eh, whatever. I think you're more interested in picking a fight than engaging in a useful or interesting conversation.

Re: GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto

#94

Post by CamperBob2 »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #79
CamperBob2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You laugh, but I've always thought that would have been a good intermediate step towards full self-driving. Provide the option to delegate it to humans in a building 1000 miles away, similar to how the US military conducts drone warfare.

Latency makes it totally impossible to do that securely. Reaction times in case of a problem is the difference between life and dead and you cannot "outsource" that to someone 1000 miles away: network latency, monitor latency, input method latency (I send an "emergency braking order", network latency a second time. Impossible within our current understanding of physics: I mean... You could do it, but the added delay…

There are workarounds for that -- think satellite service augmented by local pseudolites -- at least until the customer drives into a tunnel without said pseudolites. At that point you'd fall back to a limited self-driving model like what many cars have today.

Agreed that it isn't something you could do solely over the public Internet.

Re: GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto

#95

Post by JohnFen »

Zetice wrote: post #89
solarmist wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with him about the car talking to an external server. That is a disgusting grab by car manufacturers. For me, I don't care about my car having a computer, but I don't want it to talk to services without my permission and building their own thing shows a disregard for that desire. I love CarPlay/android and not offering those two most popular options doubles down on that disregard for customer interests.

Fully agree re: CarPlay/Android Auto support. But the default of "privacy good at all cost" seems like massive overkill IMO. If there's specific evidence that a car is doing something that will specifically cause you harm in some way via data sharing, that's one thing. If it's a vague, general distrust, that falls into the "luddite paranoia" category.

> If it's a vague, general distrust

There's nothing vague or general about it. We have years of examples of how such data gets used. You may be fine with that, and that's OK. I don't understand why you get so upset that others aren't fine with it, though. Why is this so emotional for you?

Re: GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto

#96

Post by JohnFen »

solarmist wrote: post #82
JohnFen wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, backup cameras are required to be included with the car to be sold. There is no law that I'm aware of that prevents people from disabling or removing them after the sale. EDIT: I think I was incorrect. The law says "an altered vehicle that was completed on or after this date that was equipped with a rearview camera that already meets the new rearview requirements must continue to meet these requirements af…

It hasn't been tested to my knowledge, but at a minimum you will need to “restore” your car’s functionality to sell it legally. It sounds like installers won't be able to do this modification moving forward either, so you would have to do it DIY.

Yes, that's the part I'm unclear about. And, honestly, backup cameras aren't a thing that I'm bothered by. It'd be interesting to know what the law actually means, though!

Re: GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto

#97

Post by CamperBob2 »

csdvrx wrote: post #87
SkyPuncher wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I refuse to use a cellphone, so I will not buy a car that has Android or Apple stuff. Then, you're also not buying an EV it sounds like... All of these fancy headunits require a cell phone modem.... ----- CarPlay is entirely optional. Your headunit will have all of the basic still built in.

> Then, you're also not buying an EV it sounds like Then I won't? Instead, for a fraction of the price I may get a nice second hand muscle car, with no feature I don't want to be present. It may even have an old school CD player, I like retro :)

That's great, but this thread is about something else entirely. No one at GM (or anywhere else, apparently) can make recurring revenue from you, so your needs and interests will be even less relevant to automakers than those of the rest of us.

Sucks, but that's how things are shaping up. Too late for the proverbial pebbles to vote.

Re: GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto

#98

Post by Zetice »

JohnFen wrote: post #93
Zetice wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computers are built these days mainly to talk to other computers, due to the considerable value gained by offloading computational effort to a central location. Not wanting a computer to talk to other computers is like not wanting your oven to heat food except by friction. And "overly paranoid, bordering on luddite" is no insult, it's a description that your comments fit. If these words are insulting, stop fitting so…

Eh, whatever. I think you're more interested in picking a fight than engaging in a useful or interesting conversation.

I think you're dismissing what I'm saying because you don't have a good reason to disagree with it, but you find it important to ape the "pro privacy" line, as that's what you see others do online.

Re: GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto

#99

Post by Zetice »

JohnFen wrote: post #95
Zetice wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully agree re: CarPlay/Android Auto support. But the default of "privacy good at all cost" seems like massive overkill IMO. If there's specific evidence that a car is doing something that will specifically cause you harm in some way via data sharing, that's one thing. If it's a vague, general distrust, that falls into the "luddite paranoia" category.

> If it's a vague, general distrust There's nothing vague or general about it. We have years of examples of how such data gets used. You may be fine with that, and that's OK. I don't understand why you get so upset that others aren't fine with it, though. Why is this so emotional for you?

Nothing emotional in what I write, just pointing out that you have precisely zero examples of how shared data from your car has been used to harm you specifically.

It's not about what I'm fine with or not, it's about what you're posting on HN in advocacy of. You claim "years of examples" but you have literally nothing specific, because nothing specific to you exists.

You fear new technology because it is unfamiliar to you, and that is the very definition of luddite.

Re: GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto

#100

Post by Zetice »

solarmist wrote: post #91
Zetice wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully agree re: CarPlay/Android Auto support. But the default of "privacy good at all cost" seems like massive overkill IMO. If there's specific evidence that a car is doing something that will specifically cause you harm in some way via data sharing, that's one thing. If it's a vague, general distrust, that falls into the "luddite paranoia" category.

No it's not that. It's that I believe they will be profit seeking with that data unless forced to be otherwise. The last decade has worn out my optimism and tolerance about privacy concerns. If a company wants my trust, they have to proactively earn it by excessive transparency, at least GDPR level, on their part. If they can do that, I’ll consider it; otherwise, no thank you.

Why is profiting from data collection considered de jure bad? Why does collecting data cost your trust, and why does not collecting data earn your trust?
Post reply on HN