Slashdot Mirror
Why Automakers Should Stop the Infotainment Arms Race
New submitter SomewhatRandom writes "Dailytech recently published an article titled 'Detroit Automakers Vie For App Devs Amid Infotainment Arms Race.' Unfortunately for auto manufacturers, they are in a poor position to complete with companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc... and they should give up the arms race and take a different direction. Mobile operating systems and their associated hardware have a rapid release cycle that significantly outpaces vehicle infotainment systems. Additionally, mobile OSs are developed by specialized companies that can spend dump trucks filled with money on their platform. I'm sorry Dodge, Toyota, Honda and all your friends; you simply can't compete."
SomewhatRandom continues,
"The in-house infotainment systems being brought to market by the automotive industry typically try to replicate a limited subset of features provided by a mobile operating system (ex: Android, iOS), while implementing a clunky interface that feels like a blast from the past. Replicating features that already exist in a consumer's device with a clunky interface does not offer any value to the end consumer.
Automakers should stop throwing money at developing a 'doomed to fail' in-house infotainment solution, and start catering to the consumer by developing a system that allows the consumer's mobile device of choice to control in-vehicle assets (speakers, in-dash touchscreen, noise-canceling microphone) directly.
Consumers would prefer to see a standards-based system that allows the interface of their existing mobile OS of choice duplicated or extended on an in-dash touchscreen, while having audio redirected from their device to the vehicle's speakers. Start focusing on technologies like Miracast and Bluetooth and how they can be used to augment a customer's mobile device, rather than replace it. Manufacturers that choose to adopt this focus not only provide better value to the end consumer, but also be able to reduce the size of their development budgets. Win-Win.
What are your thoughts? Am I crazy, or does it seem like the automotive industry has lost sight of what will best serve the consumer?"
"The in-house infotainment systems being brought to market by the automotive industry typically try to replicate a limited subset of features provided by a mobile operating system (ex: Android, iOS), while implementing a clunky interface that feels like a blast from the past. Replicating features that already exist in a consumer's device with a clunky interface does not offer any value to the end consumer.
Automakers should stop throwing money at developing a 'doomed to fail' in-house infotainment solution, and start catering to the consumer by developing a system that allows the consumer's mobile device of choice to control in-vehicle assets (speakers, in-dash touchscreen, noise-canceling microphone) directly.
Consumers would prefer to see a standards-based system that allows the interface of their existing mobile OS of choice duplicated or extended on an in-dash touchscreen, while having audio redirected from their device to the vehicle's speakers. Start focusing on technologies like Miracast and Bluetooth and how they can be used to augment a customer's mobile device, rather than replace it. Manufacturers that choose to adopt this focus not only provide better value to the end consumer, but also be able to reduce the size of their development budgets. Win-Win.
What are your thoughts? Am I crazy, or does it seem like the automotive industry has lost sight of what will best serve the consumer?"
Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft.
Pioneer AppRadio looks ideal - basically mirrors your phone's screen on it's 7" display. You need to do a bit of hacking to unlock the full potential, but the basic idea is brilliant.
The only real down-side is that the FM radio side sucks. If you mainly listen to playlists on your phone though it isn't a big issue.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If you are going to build something like this into a car, it must be upgrade-able and replaceable. Cars are used well over 10 years, any computer system would be hopelessly obsolete in half that time.
Mobile operating systems and their associated hardware have a rapid release cycle that significantly outpaces vehicle infotainment systems.
Let's hope car companies don't learn to emulate this, Engine Control Units actually work reliably.
I'm sorry Dodge, Toyota, Honda and all your friends; you simply can't compete.
That's why Ford is going to be laughing all the way to the bank - their 2014 Ford Focus will be the first car to include both MySpace and AltaVista integration via an exclusive agreement with CompuServe.
Some are already doing this.
These aren't dumb companies, remember there are a lot of consumer protection laws and if your vehicle has a problem.
Or maybe you should be driving instead of playing with infotainment systems.
... can we stop using that word? I don't know if it's the same for anyone else, but whenever I hear that word it sounds like something between the word "synergy" and an ice pick stabbed into my ear.
Theres definitely a difference between a rapid cycle throwaway crap vs I need this to work flawlessly for next 10 years stuff. Recently had the chance to troubleshoot an unconnect system which conked out, on the new jeeps and realized would gladly take an outdated stable interface vs bleeding edge stuff, especially when the only way to turn on a/c and controls is thru interface. Need beats fancy shit any day especially on 102F days :)
You change cars so much more often than desktop computers? Are you implying that desktop computer component builders should stop their line of work, because they can't compete with Microsoft, Apple, Google?
Maybe your phone's software is tied to your phone, but that's your problem not the new status quo.
And even if you planned to keep the same car for a decade, which may render the hardware obsolete, haven't you ever changed a part of your car?
Automakers could put in computers for passenger/driver use in cars and then also sell upgrades for those computers.
The driver doesn't need that many distractions. A radio is fine. Hooking up to your playlists is fine. Anything beyond that isn't.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Forget infotainment - I want fully-integrated driving gamification. Preferably provided by Rockstar North.
Modern mobile system lacking of two important features. First of all - it's lack of true realtime, how often per day you notice that interface on you smartphone is lagged? That would be pity if computer which controls your braking system will lag even on a 1/10 of a second. The second lack is reliability, that's not very common, but sometimes i got "application was closed" on my android smartphone(usually it's skype crashed). So i can't trust my life to Android or iOS.
Define an open and free standard for how to talk to and from the in-car systems and let the market deal with implementing it. Free and open means there are no reasons *except for ones with benefits to the company, not the customers* to avoid using it and you get a talking point of "Wide application support for infotainment on your mobile device!", without having to worry (or take blame) for some weird-ass Raspberry Pi or WinRT device not being supported.
Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.
Yes, there is nothing us app developers hate more than a stable, long-term OS that isn't constantly being upgraded to some new damn dessert. Must really suck to develop for a platform that not only has completely standardized hardware, but on has the same set of features for years.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
This is like someone putting a really good environmental piece on natural gas drilling, solving all issues with gas leakage, into Redbook for all homemakers to read. Whats the point, will you have greater then zero impact on your intended audience. Then again maybe im not giving the Dailytech editors enough credit. And then again, I really in enjoyed putting this here...and no one from the Dailytech is going to read this...hum...
You won't see a change as long as automakers can charge over $2,000 for a rebranded WinCE Nav Unit with some plastic mounts.
... rather than 'infotainment' devices?
All I want from an in car system is:
1. FM and/or DAB radio.
2. Bluetooth interface
3. Steering wheel controls with actual buttons for the most used radio and whateverplayer functions - i.e. volume, previous track, next track, previous station, next station. Less used controls on the front panel of the radio but still physical buttons. Not a touch screen.
4. USB power points.
I don't want a CD player, MP3 player, satnav or anything else. They will be hopelessly outdated in no time and touch screens are quite frankly awful for use in a car, and satnav updates for built-in car systems are generally expensive - compared to TomTom on my iPhone which gets updated automatically. Passengers can bring their own tablet if they want to watch videos in the back seat.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
They should go back to DIN hole, ISO connector, and keep the buttons for the AC and other non-stereo things separate.
My car was built in 1991. When I enter, my phone connects to the radio via bluetooth, and when I receive a call, I press the accept call button on the radio, and get the sound over the original speakers. But bluetooth didn't exist in 1991, cell phones hardly existed back then. You see, my car has just that: A DIN hole, and a regular connector that becomes an ISO connector with the help of a cheap adaptor. Old radio out, disconnect cables, connect new radio, insert into hole. Done.
And everything else still works, because that was just the radio, not the integrated kitchen sink that is both a radio (analogue, of course, which won't last another ten years), and the controls for the car itself, as is often found on modern cars.
1. Electric motors have maximum torque at zero rpm
2. IC engines have peak torque at some 3000 rpm
But till Tesla came out with a car using electric motors to beat the big "performance" car makers BMW, Porche, Jaguar and Benz, they kept messing with making the IC engines more and more powerful, with more and more complicated transmissions, in their acceleration pissing contest called 0 to 60 time. They have seen diesel - electric locomotives completely dispensing with transmissions, and using pure electric motors to produce oodles of torque needed to get a a mile long freight train moving. They should have added a small 10 or 20 HP electric motor to their high end cars, to go from 0mph to 5 or 7 mph in 0.5 sec and go fro 7 to 60 in 2 sec flat with their enormous 8 cyl, 12 cyl engines producing 300 to 500 HP. They could have done it 25 or 30 years ago. The technology needed to do it existed then. I am not talking about super efficient hybrid or regenerative braking or any such thing. I am talking about the pissing contest all these car companies took to heart and fought hard, and where there was big prize money awaiting the winner. Still not a single one of them thought of using a small electric motor to supplement their IC engines. But no, they were set in their ways till they were forced it eat the dust of Tesla with a liberal helping of crow.
When it comes to electronics, they think they will make big profits here by the "walled garden" approach. All companies pack their GPS in bundles and try to charge 500$ to 1900$ to get the GPS. Then they want 100 to 200$ to upgrade the maps. Hello! Google maps and spoken driving directions are free. They think they are going to make money of these things?
It is not just the auto makers who lack imagination and innovation. The whole industry reeks of anti-competitive behavior and following the rut. The dealers are lobbying to prevent Tesla from selling the cars directly to the customers.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I drive a 2013 Ram 1500, and it has a relatively large LCD screen with an 'infotainment' system. I see no reason why it would ever need to be updated. It basically serves the following functions: Radio, Media (usb, aux, etc.), Phone, Navigation, Climate Control, and Settings. There is an 'app store' but it is useless to me and there really isn't much there anyway. Since all of the existing functionality already works, and they provide all of the features I need, where is the need for an upgrade? If there was a bug in the system, I could see where an upgrade would help. But from a pure functionality perspective, it isn't necessary.
First of all, on ANY platform I DETEST rapid release and continuous improvement. What I want is MEANINGFUL releases of MAJOR changes in a cohesive, well tested release. I hate crap apps on my Android phone or Java run-time constantly f*ing looking to be updated for little changes. I especially ABHOR continual rearrangements of the interface (which Chase banking is constantly messing with)! All of this coming to my automobile. There are enough distractions on the road already!
To that end I am glad to hear about NY's increased penalties for texting while driving.
But what has me scratching my head is the wording, which says:
- -
What are the laws on cell phone use, texting or sending email while you operate a vehicle in NYS?
Under New York State law you cannot use a hand-held mobile telephone or send a text or an email while you drive. If you use a hand-held mobile telephone while you drive, except to call 911 or to contact medical, fire or police personnel about an emergency, or use a device to text or send email, you can receive a traffic ticket and pay a maximum fine of $100 and mandatory surcharges and fees of up to $85.
In 2013, several changes are being made to the penalties for these violations as described below.
Increased Driver Violation Points
- -
By my reading, this says you can't even use your cell phone to play music through bluetooth or use google maps navigation. Or does "use a hand-held mobile telephone" mean "make a phone call". I suppose it may depend on the mood of the cop who pulls you over?
What do you think?
And please add to my list of obnoxious continual improvement software iTunes!
Amercians should just give up designing cars .
you have to be using it in your hands. my iphone hooks into my car via a USB port and plays music. the steering wheel controls can control the device.
and by NY State law its also illegal to use your phone while at a red light. you have to pull over and park to use it without a hands free device
Everything should be analog.
at WWDC Apple had a quick preview of some car systems running iOS that will integrate with iphones using Siri and whatever else. Honda will have this on their 2014 models
The car is becoming a hub for a convergence of consumer equipment in a hostile environment. The environmental standards for car equipment is much higher than a domestic PC so do not expect to throw in a PC and the job is done. Even using USB is non-trivial due to power fluctuations.
Interoperability is the name of the game. However, consumer manufacturers are know to implement "standards" strangely. Apple is one of the worst for interoperability due to their proprietary interfaces and protocols. This means car manufacturers have to create Apple specific solutions.
Linux on ARM is the dominant solution in this market. Many car manufactures bring their own graphical solutions and put it on top of a Linux kernel. In theory, this same hardware could run Android instead of the car manufactures solution.
The system software is upgradable during a car's service so the system can be supported for the 10 year period.
There are attempts at making these systems standard in the GenIVI project.
...I gave up. I left the OEM kit in place and bought a £700 box that emulates a CD changer so that the in-car kit doesn't know there's a an iPod or bluetooth streaming going on. It's a frightful kludge, but it would have been even more expensive to pull out the stereo and display, the amp, and exchange the speakers (bloody Porsche (a used one, I might add) and stupid BOSE) - only to end up with a SATNAV system that's about 1/10th as good as the co-pilot install on have on my Note2 and none of the spotify goodness AND a potential hit on re-sale. Given the limitations, the Mobridge box works really well but it simply shouldn't be necessary.
Standard A/V connectors and some common support for touchscreen/steering controls would do me just fine.
I'm sorry Dodge, Toyota, Honda and all your friends; you simply can't compete.
I think perhaps they can.
In 2010, Toyota employed 325,905 people worldwide, and was the third-largest automobile manufacturer in 2011 by production behind General Motors and Volkswagen Group. Toyota is the eleventh-largest company in the world by revenue. In July 2012, the company reported it had manufactured its 200-millionth vehicle.
On May 8, 2013, Toyota Motor Corporation announced its financial results for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013. Net revenues totaled 22.0 trillion yen (US$ 216.7 billion, +18.7%). Operating income was 1.32 trillion yen (US $13 billion, +371%), net income 962.1 billion yen (US$9.47 billion, +339%).
Toyota
I worked in software development for OnStar. Posting as AC.
The short answer is - the article is very accurate. Development processes are horrifying, and the corporate mindset there (trying to patent parts of Agile) is absolutely ludicrous.
What they SHOULD do - make their systems and accessories easily available to third parties via a common and well-documented interface - is exactly what they WON'T do, because there's money in it. OnStar makes an OBSCENE amount of money for what it actually provides to the customer, for example, and any threat to that would make the difference between the organization being profitable and losing money.
So, whoever wrote this does know that this is all about car specific apps. making getting car health information easy. Being able to change what your speedometer looks like. Add/remove oil life warnings I suppose. Having nav in the console but the next turn info near the information cluster.
Climate controls will also go there.
Etc etc.
And car companies can integrate velocity into things like video calling to turn video off when in motion for safety.
Scedual oil changes from your car after your car prompts you to do so.
And if there is rear monitors, the main console could control those videos that your kids are watching.
And the Blackberry solution (alot of cars use QNX so don't be shocked here) would limit apps to those available in the manufacturers app store. This isn't going to necessarily allow angry birds to run in the console. Maybe pandoro but it is limited.
My point is, auto makers are not competing with Google and Apple and RIMM. It's not even close.
When I found out my new Toyota had bluetooth that linked to the cars speakers I was happy because I could get rid of that uncomfortable headset and there were even some nice buttons on the steering wheel, so I didn't have to take my hands off the wheel. The cheap headset could connect to multiple phones and would automatically bring up the voice activated menu on each phone. Surely my brand new car bluetooth will function the same way, right? Wrong. It can only connect one phone at a time and cannot work with the phone's menu. No dial by name, no caller ID, no nothing. In order to make a call, I would have to go into the phone, look up a number and hit call. That's just as dangerous as texting.
Why did they waste the time and money developing and installing this? Concentrate on making cars. Make the cars more fuel efficient. Make the cars safer. They shouldn't be an extension of your phone or TV or the internet with wheels.
Focus, auto-industry, focus. (I almost said Detroit, but who are we kidding?)
Not everyone has the same mobile devices and not everyone wants the same level of connectivity to their car. Just have a way of connecting the device to the audio/video in the car and let the device do the work.
See a gap more than 10 car lengths? You pass and nip in there. There's still 4 car lengths left!
Except now there isn't enough distance for safe driving now, and if you find yourself braking hard, you will now be rear-ended by someone whose fault this was not.
I don't want a touch screen in my car. I don't want my car to answer my phone. I don't want none of that crap, and when the salesman tries to offer that shit to me, I just want to ask him if I could get a model with normal controls rather than some touch screen.
But I know I can't, so I don't bother.
I use my phone in the car as much as possible while staying safe (I know that's impossible 100%, but hey, this is inevitable).
My gripe is that Android apps are buggy (almost the only downside to a lot of upsides over IOS, but even IOS apps are too buggy). All automobile apps I've ever seen are so much more stable. Clearly there's higher standards. So I'm actually not a fan of porting the phone directly to my car. So, hey automanufactures, I say this:
1. Form a consortium and develop your own mod of Android, allowing download of the top 3 apps. Hell, maybe each company has the resources to do this by themselves.
2. Test these apps on all of your infotainment hardware, and demand the app-makers to fix the bugs, until it meets your standards. Do not release any untested versions of the apps. Maybe make them more usable at the same time, like 'car-mode'.
3. Allow users to search for all the other apps. If they want one, they have to commit to spending $0.50/month (or whatever they want) on the testing of the app while they use it.
If the money commited makes sense, add that app to your partnership program, and start charging customers what they committed for the first 6 months, $0.50/mo after that. Keep testing new versions as long as the money makes sense.
4. Do the same thing with IOS, if you can.
5. Brand the thing and claim it works better than the other manufacturers'.
>> Am I crazy, or does it seem like the automotive industry has lost sight of what will best serve the consumer?
The automotive industry has lost sight of what will best serve the consumer.
If you typed that in, and read it out loud, and kept a straight face..
They cannot lose something they never had.
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
Why not using Android or WP8 for their "infotainment" ?
They do vpn over bluetooth to get you phone interface on the car infotainment system.
I drive a 2004 Acura TSX. I love the car but it is stuck with a quaint 6 CD changer integrated into the dash. ( I never sprung for the $700 MP3 player that you fed with a CD. Insane.) What I want in my future cars is a standard hole in the dash that will accept any vendors compute/display platform that can interface to standard interfaces provided by the car. Let the market fill the hole with up to date tech of the day. Standard interfaces are important to allow use of the "car" bits. for example: steering wheel buttons that interface to the "hole" like a keyboard/keypad, standard GPS/FM/HD/Sat antenna connectors, OBDI II interface at the "hole", vga/dvi/hdmi connector for dashboard monitors, CAN interface, etc., etc. With this I could see changing the guts in the "hole" a couple of times before I wear out the car.
Would the submitter please stop trying to speak for all consumers or even the majority of them? If you are excited about Miracast then you are obviously out of touch with the average person.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
To me the simplest and most straightforward solution is enabling a phone's touch interface to be extended to the larger dash screen. This could happen wirelessly or via wired connector (USB or HDMI).
This puts the phone's features on the larger dash screen where they are presumably easier to interact with. For safety reasons, you could consider a restriction that prevents use of text and video apps display while the vehicle is in motion (but still make it easy to short that wire to ground for those of us who don't want to be limited like this).
To make this work, iOS and Android would both have to support touch interfaces external to their device as well as better external display formatting (ie, not just the rectangular phone screen, but matching the aspect/size of the car display). Ideally there would also be some kind of standard that would support tactile physical buttons mappable to touch functions.
At this point, the car maker only needs to provide basic infotainment controls for the car radio and amplifier and climate controls.
In-car apps just plain suck. Please spare us the horror, Ford, and just give us a good flexible tablet dock in the middle of the console.
Buy a TomTom, or Garmin, or Magellan nav system. Clean, easy to use, minimalist while providing the information you need to drive (and usually the option to add lots more layers of info for non-driving use, if you really want it).
Now compare that to any in-dash OEM GPS (not simply one licensed from the big three mentioned above). Oh, sure, they'll show your car moving on a map, but good luck doing something as advanced and obscure as, say, entering an address you want to go to, without taking the six-hour prep course and clicking through three or more "You must not use this while driving! You agree to not hold Chrysler responsible if you die in a horrible fiery wreck because the GPS lied to you! You will go to church this Sunday!" warning/disclaimer screens.
And don't even get me started on the actual "entertainment" part of their crapware. A $50 standalone DVD player blows the pants off the crap Detroit seems to think we want. Really, why shouldn't I have a 10-band equalizer on the steering wheel, but it makes me visually navigate a touch-menu to change the radio station?
/ Warning for the just-plain-impaired: This post may contain hyperbole and traces of nuts.
Is my 1970 Volvo P120. It has an AMZING system to bring information to the driver.
1. A speedo. This shows an approximation of the current speed. This is really useful when you need to comply with the speed limit (which is most of the time).
2. An gauge for the fuel level. This shows you how much fuel you have.
3. A cooling temperature gauge. This shows you the temperature of the cooling liquid in the car.
4. A warning light for oil pressure. This comes on if your oil pressure is to low, indicating that you should stop the engine (and preferably the car).
5. A warning light for high beam. So you know that you don't blind other people on the road.
6. An indicator for turn signal.... dunno why this is there really. The turn signal turns off automatically after you turn. I guess it was left there not to alienate people who are used to driving older cars.
7. A warning light for parking brake. So you don't try to drive around with you parking break on.
That is all! Why should there be more stuff in a car? You are there to drive and the car is NOT a toy. This hysteria with trying to turn our cars into entertainment centers have to stop. It lowers the safety on the roads by making the cars distract you from the task at hand. When you plunk your butt down in the seat the car should go into "single application mode". Play at home, not on the road... Your car starts to roll all your gadgets turn off.
BTW. Rented a Ford the other day... It had 37!!!! buttons on the dash!!! thirty seven! (not counting turn signals and high/low beam) My old Volvo has 7! Seven!!!!! (that is including the choke) How did we go so wrong?
What I want is MEANINGFUL releases of MAJOR changes in a cohesive, well tested release.
That's called engineering. Sorry, but there's no money in that. What you want is agile development that can turn in an instant to follow the latest trend. If you want reliability, get a horse.
Your tablet/phone, with tiny ass buttons designed to be used when you're focused exclusively on the tablet is an absolutely shitty device to use in a car. They are in fact a danger to you and everyone else on the road.
Car 'infotainment' (god I hate that word) devices are designed to be dealt with at a glance, without focusing on the device exclusively. No matter how clunky you think Honda's interface is ... its 10 billion times better than your tablet interface after you plow into a tree because you couldn't hit the button without looking directly at the screen and precisesly hitting the right spot.
iPad/Android app developers in general have NO CLUE how to deal with the ergonomics of cars.
WHY do you NEED in car apps. You are supposed to be getting from one place to another. A GPS, some audio and a few other minor things are the only apps you actually should have access to in your car. You should not be able to run any random app just because you're too stupid to realize how dangerous what you are doing is.
I could ramble on for hours about why tablets as carputers are a bad idea.
Just because you think the car makers don't know what they are doing, doesn't make it true. Its your own ignorance thats the problem.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I drive a 2013 Ram 1500, and it has a relatively large LCD screen with an 'infotainment' system. I see no reason why it would ever need to be updated.
it isn't necessary.
Man happy with 2013 vehicle infotainment system in 2013. Video at 11.
So much easier to use and allow you to keep your eyes on the road. If a knob breaks, not much cost to replace. If a touch screen screws up... re-mortgage the house.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
The law likes to find an easy solution by claiming "you're always at fault for rear-ending a vehicle in front of you". That doesn't make it "right" or "just".
For example, the person who suddenly brakes when there's no good reason to do so, simply in the hopes of making a car behind them bump them? That happened all the time where I used to live, when someone wanted to commit some insurance fraud. (Already have some rear-end damage that you couldn't get covered? Just cause another accident that you can force the other guy to pay out on, and get it all fixed free.)
Not all vehicles have identically stopping distances either.... A lot depends on the tires, weight of the vehicle in question, etc. So even an alert driver can't always guarantee he or she can avoid rear-ending a car that unexpectedly does a panic stop.
Long term guaranteed
I am not an expert like people that apparently "rent a lot of cars" :) but am actually in the car infotainment business. I think you are missing some key points in the discussion here.
1. The biggest thing is that you have to develop features for a car differently than a mobile or computer based service because you have to be able to operate it "at speed". In other words it has to be safe while driving. Tying to the mobile world which does not have a dependency to the at speed model and you run the risk of liability. OEMs have to screen the apps that come in the car otherwise people will play Angry Birds on the front cockpit screen, get in an accident and sue the OEM.
2. Siri or Miracast (mirrorlink) are solutions that are specific right now to one handset manufacturer (apple or android). Frankly miracast is not even well supported by Android mfgs - they are taking a wait and see approach. For those that want an Apple or Google experience in their cars you basically shut out the other 1/2 of the phone market or even worse as an OEM you are forced to develop to both standards. Hence why you see more unique OEM implementations.
3. Money, Money Money - So I put in the latest Apple or Google experience in my car, and I have spent millions of dollars to do this integration and then am forced to upgrade on monthly cycles as these services change and evolve. Look at analog output on an iPhone this was recently shut off in IOS5 forcing an OEM to have to work on a digital solution retrofit. How does an OEM recoup that money? Up-front perhaps but then long term how do you budget for a piece of metal that's been sold to the customer. Are all of you willing to pay the monthly upgrade fees to cover that? Studies show that won't happen. You might come back to me and say mobile does upgrades all the time - yes well mobile doesn't have to deal with litigious lawyers and lemon laws that after so many defects an OEM has to buy back the car. This is why OEMs create these proprietary systems to try and recoup these up-front and ongoing costs.
Keep in mind I am also not naive enough to think that people will flock to develop apps for OEMs - the volume is simply not there. We are talking 100s of thousands to million of units a year on a program that generally has a 4-5 year sales life (10 year total support lifetime). Who frankly would develop for something like that when you combine it with multiple OEMs with different app implementations.
I am not sure a 100% solution exists but there are ones that are coming close in the next couple of years - cloud-based services that are updated on the back-end without requiring head-unit upgrades
Auto manufacturers have had decades to standardize controls like windshield wipers and they haven't managed it. They're different in each brand of car, causing drivers to stare at the stick trying to figure out if an up arrow means lift up, twist a knob up, or push the stick towards the dash. They haven't standardized radio controls, AC controls, or anything else other than pedals and turn signals. Even trying to adjust the seat in an unfamiliar car is a pain. A handle that tilts the seatback in one car will actually lift or lower the entire seat in another. The chances of something complex like computer interfaces being standardized is a pipe dream.
Just supply and audio jack, and volume control, a secure place to put my phone... that's all I ask
you have to be using it in your hands
Yes, that's my point. We actually have a car that can control the old i-things through the car stereo (a Hyundai Sonata). However, with a slashdot ID of 15368, I need to use the linux-based Android devices you insensitive clod!
But seriously, I believe the new i-things don't work with the car controls since the lightning connector doesn't support the telnet/ssh access that the old connector allowed, even with an adaptor. And furthermore, I think even if you had such a car and an old i-thing, most people still just prefer to point and click the i-thing.
...not an entertainment system. Wait, scratch that, it's one of the best entertainment systems available. Right after a plane, a hang glider, and a few water-craft. Certainly not every car is a sports car. But if they'd stop making really comfortable, really smooth, really cubic, really roomy cars, they wouldn't be so boring to drive that they need lane change notification systems, front-collision mitigation systems, movie players, satelite radio, and thirty-seven days of music just to keep the driver awake.
I work for a company that develops infotainment systems for auto manufacturers. I totally agree that I would love to have the full capability of my smart phone OS of choice at my finger tips. I would love to not have to re-learn a new UI for every car! That said, one of the primary concerns of auto-makers when it comes to UI is safety and driver distraction. This is a big deal because as of today there are relatively light government restrictions on what can be done in a vehicle, and the auto makers want to keep it that way. To do this they try to be self policing. Simply mirroring a smart phone screen onto a larger in-vehicle display relinquishes too much control and allows end users to do things that can (reasonably or otherwise) be deemed unsafe while driving. I know there are apps that aim to prevent this, and there are other solutions being considered as well, but it is important to understand that this is the driving force behind independent UI designs, not just an overblown auto-manufacturer ego or cost cutting solution.
You're right. I'm getting nostalgic for actual engineering and fore thought in product design. Better is Agile approach to cater to the social app whims of teenage girls.
Since they've been introduced. I've been completely turned off by them. I need focus on friggin road. I don't need trying convince stupid touchscreen center console work while i'm driving. The car makers are out of ideas. I guess they can't do anything new with old car to make it worth while to buy.
When Google Cars become reality, then Infotainment Systems would be useful. Since your not distracted driving.
If my one car had a computer system built in when manufactured, it would still be running OS/2. On a VGA monitor.
Disclaimer: I do work most of the time inside one of the major brands within the infotainment development.
There are some good points given, and actually they are well known within the industry. They might some day really change the development, but most likely only for entry level cars.
Reasons why premium cars will always keep their own systems:
- standard interfaces make it hard for brands to provide added value by intelligent car logics
- touch is a very poor interface while driving
- screen layouts need to radically be different from normal apps to best support knobs and buttons as control, so the market for apps developers would be just as small as it is now using car interfaces
- voice control can only be additional to other interfaces as both google and apple require a quite good internet connection. Which is exactly not the case when driving through the country side. But this is exactly when you get bored most and think about using your infotainment.
- if the user cannot see the work for fine tuning base interfaces he will not appreciate it and therefore there is no money to earn. But most work is spent exactly there: giving you the illusion of perfect GPS between skyscrapers or inside tunnels by including wheel movement, synchronizing every single pixel and color between different displays, etc.
And finally the quality of normal apps would never made it to the customer in premium brands. They spent up to one year in testing with several dozens of cars and remove every single bug they discover. I do not want to "discuss" with my device when moving with 100 mph over a minor ambiguity.
Because they cause crashes!
The situation you describe is the logical course of action from the consumer's point of view.
Unfortunately, what's best for the consumer takes a back seat to the interests of the companies involved. Carmakers are used to selling multi-thousand-dollar SatNav systems, similarly priced DVD systems and other things that would simply cost significantly less if they were accomplished with mobiled devices. They continue to want to build their own solutions because most people won't bother with complex after-market solutions and will still opt for their crappy and overpriced solutions.
Meanwhile, Apple wants custom solutions that only work with their platform to help lock in customers. How likely are you to switch from iOS to Android if your car has a Siri button and a lightning dock that don't work with Android?
Google is their typical schizophrenic self with some groups churning out really useful in-car technology that still requires you hold the phone in your hand and another group trying to eliminate the driver from the equation entirely.
So you've got a situation where open standards are not in the interests of anyone with the power to change anything. This, not any technical reason, is why it's not happening.
I'm waiting patiently while Google develops their amazing chauffer/secretary car with fully-integrated Android functionality...I can see it now:
The GoogleCar is driving me home while I watch a movie. I get a text from the wife saying she's stuck at work and won't be home for dinner. Without even pausing the movie, the car drives me to the nearest brewpub and then let's me know I'm on my own for dinner. To hell with the flying car...the thinking car seems pretty sweet!
And all that happens is people crash.
When someone tries to drive away with your car, âoePlease insert memory stick into the car before driving." When you get stopped by the police, âoeTurn off your car. Remove memory stick. Hand it out the window." Of course, that means that there will have to be pirate programs showing you never speeding.
It's a race between automakers adapting to fast moving CE v/s CE makers building h/w made for car. However simple it looks, Google/Apple have a lot of catchup. For example, FM Radio @ 300kmph is a different ball game (diversity, multiple tuners, alternative channels, Digital Radio etc.,). Multi zone audio/video is yet to catchup on Phones. My 10yr old Honda just fails to fail (touch wood) and the same goes with the infotainment unit in the car. On the contrary, I have been forced to change my fruit/desert phone every 2yrs (broke or cheap upgrade). And the app that I bought, for 99cents, is not usable on the new phones either because of super high resolution or screen format. The car makers will still have to build a ton of electronics (with display) for Driver Assistance, Comfort controls, Cluster (Self Driving !!) etc., and none of this can tolerate the availability/reliability of phones. In terms of complexity, Phone/Audio features are really simple when compared to rest of the electronics in modern day cars. While Google/Apple is busy taking taking over the Phones/Music player functions in the car, Automakers are busy building significantly complex electronics/display-devices for cars. BTW, what happens to my driving directions, when I forget my phone at home !!