There's an interesting (and apparently often misunderstood) article called "IT Doesn't Matter" [0]. In it, Carr is largely arguing that IT, as a business differentiator, was over for many of the things people thought were differentiators. That is, things that helped a company (say American Airlines) get a lead on their competitors in the 1960s had become commoditized. Now every airline was offering flight search and booking online (directly and through aggregators). The IT edge had become table stakes, you didn't do it to beat out a competitor but just to stay in the game. And, even more importantly, many of the things that used to be IT differentiators became commoditized.
Car infotainment was once a differentiator for car manufacturers or for classes of vehicles within the same manufacturer. Today, it's table stakes. Not all the manufacturers have figured that out (have any?).
[0] https://hbr.org/2003/05/it-doesnt-matter and https://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=99
Imagine if car manufacturers started offering cars with no infotainment OS, and as users having a choice of open source OS distros to install on them..
If that system is required in order to control a car's functionality (windshield wipers, etc.), then its existence is not just a disincentive, but a dealbreaker.
Planned obsolesence. Without proper CarPlay/AA integration, car manufacturers get to decide when those whiz-bang infotainment features stop working. You'd have to replace the whole car to get those features back instead of just buying a new phone.
Without constant updates, software that is part a a larger ecosystem will eventually breakdown.
This is why we should be so skeptical of tight software integration with durable hardware (e.g., cars and appliances with operational lifespans 10+ years easily). Software has a pretty short half-life, especially software that integrates with internet services; vulnerabilities get discovered in third-party components and remote APIs shift out from under you.
Durable goods manufacturers have little skill or interest in long-term software upkeep (maybe they like the profits and the rent-seeking, but not the actual maintenance), so the most sustainable design is one where the software is easily seperable and replaceable from the core durable item. Manufacturer-specific internet-connected infotainment in cars ain't it.
No, the most realistically sustainable design is one where the software is built into the durable item and not connected to the internet, so it never changes and doesn't need to worry about security issues. You can keep using the thing until it fails from mechanical issues and can't be easily repaired.
If it's internet-connected for some reason, then the software should be open-source so interested parties can take over maintenance after the OEM decides they don't want to bother any more. However, I don't consider this "realistic": how many manufacturers are going to do this in reality? Almost none: they want you to buy a replacement device.
How would that work in a car, where people expect map updates and streaming music or radio over the internet?
For a car, I really don't know. I don't see any way of putting up-to-date navigation software into a dashboard without a significant security risk, which means needing the ability to keep software updated. Even CarPlay/AA are non-trivial and would need security updates.
My car isn't connected to the internet, it has not received any updates. However Google enjoys messing with the Android BT stack for whatever reason (there was a period in the mid 2010s where BT on Android was dramatically ~broken~ rewritten every couple of years), so accordingly my car has lost functionality.
It’s far from ideal but at least I have zero expectations for my next car.
There are also dash-mounted "carplay screens" that are both much cheaper and much easier to install but lack integrations/require hacky solutions to get, say, audio out.
This isn't "we're going to deprecate your car, buy a new one". People will buy them anyway.
It is "You're going to pay for AOL, even though we have the internet"
And when you sell your car, some other dumb schmuck will buy it used and sign up for AOL-of-cars.
Drivers don't car, but I think car buyers actually do. Remember that many people are not buying cars for themselves but for other people, usually family. They fall into the trap of thinking that those other people might want such features, if not now then in the future. Look at automatic transmissions. I know many people who much prefer manuals, but they always end up buying an automatic because they believe that other people will want the automatic. And a few years later, all the cars are automatics. The same is happening with in-car entertainment systems. We buy them not because we ant them but because we think other people do.
Can you explain this? I guess maybe the devil is in "many"?
But CarPlay is darn close; I'd not say I'd never buy a car without it but having it means I don't need to worry if the infotainment setup is crap or not, because I won't be using it.
By the time they are old enough to be in the front they have their own phone and headphones and care less about a mounted display than they do about a TV.
I think a key thing to consider is that there are in fact three separate questions at play here:
1 - Does infotainment/software UI differentiation matter in the car market? Is there a significant enough market advantage for having better UI that anyone should care?
2 - If there is an advantage for better UI, is it enough of an edge that would compel you to build your own? Or is it the case where it simply has to be good enough?
3 - If there is enough differentiation to be worth building your own, is your company good enough at software to pull it off?
Personally I think the answer to #1 is YES. I think cars with better UIs - while not sufficient in and of itself - have a market advantage.
Where car makers start veering off from each other is the answer to #2. If you believe that you just need a "good enough" experience to not be actively awful, then you buy off-the-shelf. You see this with Volvo/Polestar and Google Automotive. The "skin" around the stock experience is minimal at best, with only minor customizations.
If you believe that being excellent at it confers some advantage, you'd try to roll your own. This would include folks like BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
Now, where the latter strategy really goes off the rails is question #3. That said, if you believe the answer to the first two questions compels you to roll your own - would you easily surrender to a third-party? Or would you at least try to level up your software orgs to make a serious play?
I might be unusual in my preference but I really expect people to have preferences as strong.
So unless it costs a lot of money to integrate, not picking AA isn't about building your own that's better, but it has to be about control. Or at least independance from a big tech, which I can understand.
Every time I rent a car it's a HELLSCAPE of figuring out whatever crappy UI this brand of car created for that year ... until I get my phone hooked up. Man I just want to get to my hotel not futz with some garbage UI in the garage forever.
obviously i rather have carplay if i could but i am worry about security implication, plugging to a car i don't know
IMO it's more about control over the user experience. You don't want your customers' UX to be dependent on the whims of Apple or Google, because now you're implicitly building a long-term dependency with a third party that may not be acting in your interests in the future. You're moving closer toward a future where the vehicle becomes commoditized, and now you have more trouble differentiating from competitors. And keep in mind: it's only very recently that the "Apple car" project was cancelled.
That said, traditional automakers are also famous (or infamous?) for sourcing tons of components (including infotainment systems) from the same parts manufacturers. But I guess at least that retains the ability to pivot and use it as a point of differentiation in the future.
Unfortunately, I don't think they're planning on offering it free to my model or earlier, and I don't know if the same deal exists for ICE cars.
Also, the Mazda infotainment in the mid-late 2010s was made by Johnson Controls. The newer systems might be too, I don't know.
Japanese road network is a disorganized weighted node graph and absolutely not a grid, and a bulletproof navigation unit has been a must for a car in Japan since its inception around 1990. It is also preferred that they are 2DIN compatible so it can be later upgraded. AFAIK, those are not high priority checkbox items elsewhere, but all cars nevertheless follow the Japanese manufacturer layout because of manufacturers' collective dominance. Cars before 2DIN navigation units seem to have had 1DIN AM/FM radio units with radio buttons[1], by the way.
That dominance leaves a 4:3 8" diagonal hole in immediate view of driver for all cars globally that must be filled with something of value. That doesn't have to be a touchscreen but usually are, and it ends up being a navigation-audio combo unit, and it's outsourced to the lowest bidder. It is not the primary interaction point for cars by overwhelming global demands or principles of automotive product design. That leads to jarring subpar experience that appear to be but are perhaps not intended to be part of core UX of the whole car. I think.
1: https://www.alamy.com/1956-mercedes-benz-190-sl-steering-whe...
Also with an aging population a phone screen is just too small for many.
BTW, to parent's point VW has been trying different approaches with a top mounted GPS/infotainment unit that can be omitted on cheaper trims.
Entering Japanese addresses IS tricky, though; here, custom-built Japanese solutions outshine. There are (mainly) no street names; instead, you specify your location by filtering down from Prefecture (Tokyo), City (Ota-ku), Commune (Kugahara), District (1-Chome), Block (26), House Number (1).
Japanese systems allow you to enter it this way - with Google (or, even worse, Apple Maps), it's a bit hacky. You would specify it as Kugahara 1-26-1 and hope for the best.
On one side, it can't route through a bunch of valid paths. I first assumed it could be because of residents asking Google to cut traffic, but sometimes it's not even through residential areas. I see routes on the map that are avoided in favor of bigger loops, and when trying the shorter routes they're perfectly fine. Or perhaps it's the vehicle size and they optimize for SUVs ?
On the other side it will happily route you through paths that are restricted to specific categories of cars. It's up to the driver to carefully avoid them, but it really wants you to go through and reroutes you there when you deviate, so it's a huge PITA in areas you don't know and try to navigate while ignoring the navigation instructions. Cops seem to have noticed it, We've got fined the first time we fucked up, and now that I'm aware of the issue I see the cops in many of these spots basically waiting for the jackpot.
At this point at google, I wouldn't be surprised if they were selling your route to advertizers to "optimize your driving experience."
https://web.archive.org/web/20230129231747/https://www.waze....
The weird part is Maps will accept them for search, but not display the plus code except when looking at POI (randomly selecting a point on the map doesn't show it for me, I only could get that from the /pluscodes/ map)
This seems genuinely useful, but as usual we're having the chicken and egg problem to get it adopted ?
But yeah, nobody uses it in the real World. If I need to share a point with someone else I'll just send them the Google Maps share URL instead, which has its own shortcode
https://www.daihatsu.co.jp/lineup/move_canbus/03_exterior_in...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-Zenith_Satellite_System
> The Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS), also known as Michibiki (みちびき), is a four-satellite regional satellite navigation system and a satellite-based augmentation system developed by the Japanese government to enhance the United States-operated Global Positioning System (GPS) in the Asia-Oceania regions, with a focus on Japan.
...
> The primary purpose of QZSS is to increase the availability of GPS in Japan's numerous urban canyons, where only satellites at very high elevation can be seen. A secondary function is performance enhancement, increasing the accuracy and reliability of GPS derived navigation solutions. The Quasi-Zenith Satellites transmit signals compatible with the GPS L1C/A signal, as well as the modernized GPS L1C, L2C signal and L5 signals. This minimizes changes to existing GPS receivers.
Its got a neat orbit that does a figure 8 with the apogee over Japan (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tundra_orbit )
(CarPlay can provide car GPS to the phone though.)
Like waaaaaay better and more accurate
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 phone so it is more likely to be right.
It’s a play on the quote “Life is a series of choices and reactions” from “Before The Fall”
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 specific truck (dealer has refused to look and i don't have another to compare to) or a general tacoma thing but it both smooths the GPS data to make "nicer" looking lines and often introduces drift over time as likely some processing it does compounds an error
(i also realize i said the wrong phone, iphone 14 not 12 but even with the 12 it was notably better then the truck but the 14 pro has a much improved GPS and it shows)
> If your vehicle has wireless CarPlay, the iPhone's GPS chip is completely ignored.
> If your vehicle has wired CarPlay, the iPhone's GPS chip may be ignored, depending upon what the head unit tells the phone to do.
this happens when near roads or not. the truck is doing something weird and wrong with the GPS data and forcing the phone to use it
Cars can theoretically have better GPS antennae, and can do better dead reckoning using wheel position and wheel rotation speed. But do they? I haven’t seen any evidence that any car actually does better than a modern phone.
Especially inside a dense city, WiFi location can be much more precise than GPS.
Japan has local satellites to help with this (QZSS) and local cars may handle that better than global phones.
With back up cameras being mandated in the US (and other jurisdictions?):
* https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-required-...
There needs to be a screen: I'm not sure what the incremental cost is of it being touch-sensitive. And I think a lot of designers (or cost cutters) may have figured that since they have to have software anyway, it may easier/cheaper to deal with software buttons than with moving parts like physical buttons and dials.
Some stuff can be managed from steering wheel, but instead of putting there things like AC there are voice controls, while we all know very well this increases danger on the roads and calls shouldn't be made while driving.
That being said, I choose (used) cars based on many metrics, and this is just one of them and not the most important one. So its sort of self-inflicted move to worse.
None of which some up on a spreadsheet in the manufacturer's accounting department.
Similarly: open concept offices with hot desking lowers the amount of rent (per employee) that shows up on an expense report, but the productivity drop of open offices does not.
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.
Touchscreen will probably run atop whatever OS powers infotainment system. In theory touch events CAN be handled on the same 8-bit uC, but converting click coordinates to button-press messages requires knowing what is visible on the screen, which either hinders expressiveness of touch interface (fixed islands for controls) or complicates implementation (constant updating of element-coordinate maps). The moment safety-critical control runs along with non-safety software huge validation challenges arise - the performance characteristics of the whole system, including UI, must become at the very least bounded.
Hard button solution can be internally commoditized, whereas soft button solution requires constant babysitting throughout development lifecycle. One is much more expensive than the other, however, once the move is made incremental cost drops dramatically.
What Japan lacks are addresses that can be found easily without using a map. Apart from Kyoto, roads in Japanese cities don't have names (or number), so addresses within cities are not "{number} {name of street}". Cities are cut in areas smaller and smaller all the way down to a block. The last number will be the house on that block. So addresses within cities are "{name of area} {sub-area number} {block number} {house number}", with some variations from city to city.
An address might be "Nantokacho 11-16-8", which means the 8th house around the 16th block of the 11th sub-area of the Nantoka area. Good luck figuring that out without a map!
Reminds me the Township & Range system in the US, which is still used in public land management: https://web.gccaz.edu/~lynrw95071/Township%20Range%20Explana...
Basically, their goal in life is to be a worthless middleman who takes peoples money while providing no real value to society.
That said, $10 is far too much for what it is, should be $5.
Why do they even bother charging - just bundle it in with the headline price. It’s a tiny portion of the revenue, nobody is going to think “oh that $87,345 Tesla is too much I’ll go for the $86,145 one”
Toyota should also plan to expand their manufacturing capacity to pickup GMs lost sales to anyone under the age of 60.
Lol
I wish any manufacturer offered a 250-class electric truck with a basic trim line. They probably want to sell more cars per battery for now.
It’s analogous to a TV and monitor manufacturer saying they are no longer providing non-wifi inputs, app side loading, or supporting screen casting from local devices.
Then the manufacturer would charge a monthly fee for the monitor to keep working.
Hopefully, next, the CEO acts surprised when reporting the resulting massive drop in shipments.
For me, there is no room for GM to become a player here. I have friends' addresses, etc. in my iPhone's contacts and they show up on Maps. GM isn't going to do that, so GM isn't going to get my business. I'm starting to look for a new car right now, and this is a hard no. If it doesn't support CarPlay and Android Auto (both--I've used both in the last five years, and might switch back again to Android in the lifetime of my next car), it's outside my observable universe.
I use Organic Maps on GrapheneOS and add businesses I want which aren't there (hence I had to look them up in Google Maps in Firefox Focus, which is painful enough that I don't want to have to repeat it).
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.
Good. It works.
I use Apple rather than Google as I try to avoid Google as much as possible but it’s the same principle. I want long term stability in software, not new changes put in to earn a PM a promotion.
My ideal "infotainment" is a button that lets me pair bluetooth and volume/skip controls on my steering wheel. I have a phone mount, like almost everyone does. I don't need a display on my dashboard.
AA/CarPlay (and everything else) are genuinely just distracting annoyances that take up space. Especially in newer cars where the screens are for some reason, no longer matte and often angled upwards so that they just blast reflected sun into your eyes.
It’s usually terribly implemented. iOS doesn’t support it for third party apps or first party podcasts, and apple music’s support is a shit show. Android is better, but it is hit-or-miss depending on the car.
I wish the government would declare this a safety feature and mandate recalls for incorrect implementations (including phones and cars).
Last time I had a car I had an old mp3 portable mp3 player constantly hooked up to the car with 4GB of music inside. I would just hit play and drive and would only adjust volume from the steering wheel if I needed to. If I had a car again I would probably do the same, that is the lowest distracting way to have music in your car.
Perhaps you should reconsider your driving needs vs safety?
Disney's "The Magic Highway" might be dystopian to some but the relaxing vehicle seems pretty cool to me
But if you can call a reliable self-driving one-seater within 5 minutes guaranteed?
The tech giants are not component suppliers you can symbiotically partner with to add value to your product. They are predatory and parasitic goliaths. They are wolves more powerful than governments with designs on your hen-house. It is frankly insane to let them own the primary interface to your customer and auto will likely regret letting them get this far.
Google/Apple infotainment ventures cannot even be called trojan horses given how open they are in their investments and desires to seize the auto industry the moment tech/profit makes it feasible. Unattractive low-margin manufacturing keeps them at bay but they are gambling on "software eats the world" long-term. For now, they will drain every available high margin service for themselves.
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 Golf now has similar tech as a BMW and with the transition to EVs, drivetrains and handling won't be the same differentiator as before.
> Now, the focus has moved to the interior. Infotainment systems have become a central part of that, so carmakers are coming up with unusual concepts to set them apart, both in hardware and software. CarPlay 2 is going exactly in the opposite direction, more towards standardizing the in-car software.
But I think a great differentiator for upmarket brands would be to offer as few screens as possible and as many buttons as possible. Electronics are a plague. Some features are very useful: mainly, route planning and the ability to play music in the car. But the rest is a nightmare.
I don't want to talk to my car; certainly not when passengers are sleeping during a trip, and even not when I'm alone. There's a subtle humiliation associated with talking to a machine. More importantly, I don't want to randomly target zones on screens to set up things, and I don't want to look at the screens because I don't want to take my eyes off the road. Give me buttons that have a fixed location, and that I can feel without looking.
Touchscreen is not better than physical buttons but at least I can still look forward while operating it.
This audi is the first time I actually started using Siri - and not because I like it.
If it was user-focused, they wouldn't make unnecessary changes to the UI every release. If it was user-focused, they would put more effort into refinement and fixing bugs.
No, CarPlay is Apple-focused.
CarPlay doesn't prevent car makers from tracking vehicle activity.
In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. It sucks, or it's AA/CarPlay. The first generation of iDrive showed that rich people people will buy cars in spite of the in-car stuff. In fact, most car infotainment sucks, yet people still buy cars.
Let's turn the question around: why would car makers want to spend millions of dollars a year rolling their own infotainment system? So they can make incremental revenue selling ads and user data? So they have control? Control over what, exactly?