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?"

Comments

AppRadio

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:AppRadio

[FireFury03]

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.

I really don't want to be using a touch-screen interface while driving at all. If I want to change radio station/volume/whatever I want nice tactile buttons that I can feel without taking my eyes off the road, touch screen systems in cars are a disaster.

Re:AppRadio

[Chrisq]

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.

I really don't want to be using a touch-screen interface while driving at all. If I want to change radio station/volume/whatever I want nice tactile buttons that I can feel without taking my eyes off the road, touch screen systems in cars are a disaster.

I agree. My car has some simple radio controls duplicated on a stalk, up-down channel, volume and mute. I can use these without looking, which is great,

Re:AppRadio

[pixelpusher220]

This. Whenever I go to buy my next car with something like this, I'm going to cover the salespersons eyes and say 'ok now change the station to preset #5' and laugh.

Touchscreens have absolutely no place in cars with relatively untrained people driving. I'd love to see the studies and training for airline/fighter pilots on using the touchscreens vs having tactile controls you can just feel and learn to use without sight.

As a counter argument perhaps you don't want a fighter pilot firing a missile without actually looking at the control to do so ;-)~ So touchscreens in cars are ok for the roof mounted missile launcher!

Re:AppRadio

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

From a professional driving standpoint, there is a reason that the radios, CBs, atc. with tactile buttons sell much better than any touch screen. In aircraft, at least in all of the ones I have been in so far, the LCD is bracketed by a set of hard buttons. I have yet to see any interface that is FAA approved that does not have all critical functions on tactile buttons. That is not to say that there are none, but most pilots I know prefer the buttons.

As for the missile, missile engagement requires operation of anywhere from 2 to 8 individual controls to arm and fire. I think it should stay that way.

Re: AppRadio

[NatasRevol]

If you're burping to change the radio station, it should just give you a DUI ticket.

Re:AppRadio

[businessnerd]

I will agree on this one, and I speak from experience. I travel a lot for work, and as such, rent a lot of cars. Every week I get to fumble around with whatever asinine "state of the art" infotainment system each manufacturer has come up with. Lately I have seen Toyata, Ford and GM's take on this. I have seen none that are better than just plain old buttons. Even just forgetting the fact that there is no tactile feedback for a second, the actual UI of the system is not conducive to operating with quick glances. The make it such a "rich" interface that I can't easily tell what is info and what is an actionable button. Then add in the fact that once you find a button and tap it, the whole screen changes and you have a whole new set of information and buttons to try to process (and god forbid the buttons stay in the same place or follow and common pattern from screen to screen). With the old classic buttons, I could generally hop in the car for the first time, take a quick look over the dash to figure out where volume and seek are and how to adjust the A/C, get those all set once, and then from then on, adjusting on-the-fly was easy, since I had already figured out everything that needed to be figured out. Not possible with these touch screens and I often catch myself fiddling while driving (which I really try to avoid, but these tend to lure me in much more easily).

Ford decided to take the idiocy to a new level, though. And I guess this makes sense given their relationship with Microsoft. So Ford was probably hearing all of these complaints about no tactile feedback and needing buttons and they say, "you know what, you're right, and boy do we have the solution for you!" They decided to put buttons in, but instead of regular old buttons (cause those are for losers!) they use touch sensitive buttons built into a textured panel. They function similar to those buttons that are not really buttons that some laptop and TV manufacturers started using a couple years ago (which I HATE) and the main Android buttons on many smartphones.So it looks like your old buttons, with each function having a dedicated location and being raised up from the dash with painted on labels/logos, but a little slicker since there are no gaps/seems around the buttons since nothing needs to be pressed in. At first glance, you think, neat, Ford gets it. Then you try to use it like your old school button interface, and that's where it all breaks down. You feel for the radio station seek buttons. There is a + and a -. You what to seek up, but your fingers find the down first .Ok, just gotta move over one and I got it, you think as you blindly feel around. But it's too late! you have already touch + and the radio station has switched in the wrong direction. You try to correct, but this time, when you again try to reach without taking your eyes off the road, you brush against the thermostat, and you've set it to full blast hot. An it's July. In Arizona. So now you are stuck literally sweating to the oldies while you barrel down the highway in a car you are not very familiar with. I'm sure if I owned these cars, I would get used to them, and it would be a little safer over time, but is it any better than what we had before

I'm OK with including a touch screen, but it can't be the only way to interact. It has to be a combination of buttons and touch. Buttons should be there for all of the standard, commonly used functions like volume, input change (i.e. FM, AM, SAT, AUX), seek, etc. If you want to then make all of the audio tweaks (Bass, treble, balance), car setup, device pairing, or other odd functions, sure, put them on the touch screen, since those are things I will typically only do when I'm not driving. Or if it's something like answering the phone, it just becomes a big touch screen button that I can mash with my hand quickly without the need for much accuracy. I think some manufacturers get this, or at least used to get this, and have done what I suggest (My parent's VW has such a system) but so many are getting carried away with turning the car into an iPad that they forget where they are putting it (a car) and what you will also be doing while trying to operate it (driving).

Re:AppRadio

[plover]

What amazes me is that companies like Ford refuse to acknowledge this. To me, it's incredible that they can be so stupidly focused on trying to make a product that can never be made to work properly, because humans don't work that way.

And it's not like they aren't being told this repeatedly. Consumer Reports states in every article featuring a Ford product that has their "Ford MyTouch" system that the car lost somewhere between 4 and 8 points on its overall score due to the crappy interface. And in many cases those points would take the vehicle from the middle or bottom of their grouping to the top of their category. This has been going on for every MyTouch equipped vehicle they have released since the 2012 model year.

After looking at this carefully, the conclusion I have come to is they must have some hyper-egotistical VP of infotainment who has an MBA or marketing degree but no engineering background, and he has deemed by fiat that "touch screens are what people buy on their phones, make it happen on the dashboard", ignoring the advice of his safety engineers and human factors team. Microsoft was overjoyed to sell them their misnamed SYNC system (it actually syncs with nothing) as a base product, which they then had developed by some team who had no idea they were writing a car interface, and who still think popup "Are you sure you want to exit?" dialogs are appropriate for a vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if their next release has the Windows 8 interface, complete with animated tiles trying to tell the driver that he has a new Facebook follower, three emails, and a coupon offer for a free trial of Angry Birds.

If Ford can't change under pressure from engineers and consumers, I expect that there will be several lawsuits from the victims of distracted drivers. And that's a tragedy.

Re:AppRadio

[plover]

Take a look at what the "local maniac" did to install an iPad mini in the dashboard of his truck: http://hackaday.com/2013/01/02/a-very-dash-ing-ipad-mini/

Of course, not every stereo installer is going to custom sculpt a trim ring for each stereo they install. But when they do, the results can be impressive.

Re:AppRadio

[FireFury03]

The make it such a "rich" interface that I can't easily tell what is info and what is an actionable button. Then add in the fact that once you find a button and tap it, the whole screen changes and you have a whole new set of information and buttons to try to process (and god forbid the buttons stay in the same place or follow and common pattern from screen to screen).

I think half the trouble is they are trying to make a good first impression rather than a good lasting impression, because its the first impression that sells - people look at the cars *in the show room* and fiddle with the entertainment system and obviously they prefer the one that looks really flashy. The only time they get to use it in anger, where functionality is more important the flashyness is after they've parted with their money.

Same reason why most laptops are now glossy screens instead of antiglare screens - in the showroom the glossy screens look brighter and sharper, so people spend their money on those machines; but in real-world use, the anti-glare screens are nicer because they don't have horrendous reflections all over them all the time while you're trying to work.

Re:AppRadio

[Russ1642]

In a plane you can stare at a touch screen for quite a while without crashing. In a car you have to have your eyes on the road as much as possible.

Replaceable computer

[jfdavis668]

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.

Re:Replaceable computer

[Cenan]

That is why you would rely on a standard interface, like Bluetooth or USB, for connecting devices. Don't replicate what you think people want, give them a way to put what they actually want on the screen, job done!

Re:Replaceable computer

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Most systems in cars nowadays accept Bluetooth phone and audio music streams. Most have a USB so you can dump songs on the radio.

But general iPhone or Android units themselves might be more time coming. Radios have safety ratings with respect to touching the vehicle electronics and in-car networks. Even if a giant OS could be reasonably proven crash-free, every dinky app you might want won't be.

And who gets sued because a 3rd party app crashed, distracting the driver? Ford, GM, or Chrysler.

All of this doesn't even address legal issues like you can't play video where the driver can see it while the car is moving.

These super-radio nav systems and instrument panel clusters have massive constraints from legal and liability issues. Don't think an iRadio is going to be radically different and "open". Even the idea of pre-qualifying apps is fearsome. Who pays for the recall? Maybe Angry Birds could afford it. Maybe, but that's it.

Re:Replaceable computer

[thegarbz]

Sorry but that still don't work. If I look at my car I would see that it was released the year the first WiFi standard was ratified, it would be running DirectX 5, the USB 1.0 spec would have just come out, the Bluetooth Special Interest Group wouldn't have been created for another 2 years let alone actually made a usable interface for anything other than a mobile phone accessory, real media was the cutting edge of music formats, the monitor would have been a 640x480 CRT, and it would potentially have come with a ZIP drive.

I think you are underestimating just how quickly a standard interface can be replaced in our rapidly changing world of technology.
- No bluetooth device released even 2 years after my car was would handshake properly with any modern equipment (standard not to be ratified for another 5 years), but if it did it would be woefully slow maxing out at a top speed under ideal conditions which would take more than 30 seconds to transfer a typical MP3, and no one ever saw that speed in practice.
- If my car had WiFi it would not be able to connect to any modern encrypted wifi network as lack of encryption is not backwards compatible.
- And if it had USB what device should it emulate? It would be another 8 years before USB hosts would seamlessly support all mass storage devices in a standard way.

My car is 15 years old and showing no signs of dying or being replaced. Yet any technology in the entertainment systems which existed back then simply would not work any more even using completely open standards. I don't know what the computer world holds for us in 10-15 years, but I don't think anything I currently have would be compatible with it, and this is not even taking into account that the car industry is about 5 years behind in technology development.

Re:Replaceable computer

[bitingduck]

My 15 year old car has a cassette player. A CD changer was an option that the dealer could install. My iPhone communicates with the car via FM transmitter in a Jabra Freeway bluetooth speakerphone. The setup is pretty reasonable, though I find it easier to put the speakerphone in the middle of the dash instead of the visor. The FM transmitter on the Freeway isn't as good as the one that was on the Cruzr2, but it handles multiple phones better. Wheel mounted controls would be nice though.

Re:Replaceable computer

[MozeeToby]

You bring up a good point, but I guess what I think of when people say "standards compliant" in this context is making a new standard listing:

Form factor
Mounting bracket size/position
Standard connection for power (including voltage levels and minimum wattage).
Audio out (for music)
Audio in (for voice recognition)
Antenna
Discrete lines for key signals
A dumb serial bus

You can the bluetooth, wifi, USB, etc on the head itself; dozens of tablets do it already and without a need for a battery there is even more room to spare. You can get away with a dumb serial bus because the amount of information the car should be sending to the system is absolutely minimal, at most a few lines of text per second. The only reason to use anything else would be because it's newer, not that it's more appropriate to solving the problem. If you want a little more flexibility let the car define which discrete pin is which at startup over the serial line.

Good thing car companies are behind

[ebno-10db]

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.

Ford Tough

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Or maybe

[foghelmut]

Or maybe you should be driving instead of playing with infotainment systems.

Re: Or maybe

[thegarbz]

Being rear-ended is never the fault of the person getting rear-ended. If you can't safely stop when the car in-front emergency brakes then you're driving too close. Yes it's an invite for someone to jump in front of you but that's not the point.

Re: Or maybe

[pr0fessor]

I had a couple parked cars totaled by texters. This is not counting the hit that didn't total the car or the two mirrors that where nipped off. If this thing does face book I'll need to put up a fence with barricades to keep them from hitting my house.

Re: Or maybe

[Drathos]

Not entirely true.

If someone cuts in front of you and immediately slams on the brakes, there's not always enough space to avoid a collision. I've had that happen multiple times in the DC area (luckily no actual collisions, but many close calls).

There's also people who intentionally get themselves rear ended for insurance/lawsuit claims. Supposedly, the reason everyone seems to have a dashcam in Russia is because this is so prevalent there and I've seen vids of it being done in California, too.

That being said, in normal driving conditions, the person doing the rear-ending is generally at fault.

"Infotainment"

[gmarsh]

... 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.

Why they should really stop

[AuMatar]

The driver doesn't need that many distractions. A radio is fine. Hooking up to your playlists is fine. Anything beyond that isn't.

Car companies innovate very poorly.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Forget electronics, even in their bread and butter cars, engines, torque and power these companies fare very poorly. We have known for about 100 years, some basic facts:
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.

Re:Car companies innovate very poorly.

[Rich0]

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?

Yup. I'm as much of a gadget guy as anybody, and the last thing I wanted in my car was the manufacturer's GPS system. Feature-wise they can't come close to Google Nav and the latter is $2k cheaper and actually accurate all the time.

Yet, what is the one feature no car seems to have?: A simple way of mounting a phone to the dash. There should just be a standard-sized socket to mount a holder onto, and then device vendors can make a coupler specific to their devices.

RAM 1500 'Infotainment' system

[1000101]

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.

Re:RAM 1500 'Infotainment' system

[nblender]

Great. It's a 2013. What about installing new maps when the truck is 10 years old and the likes of me can afford to buy it from you?

Re:RAM 1500 'Infotainment' system

[hackertourist]

Navigation: I have a Volvo V40 that's 10 years old. It has a navigation unit built in. 5 years ago Volvo stopped providing map updates for it. And even if updates were available, its user interface sucks, it's slow and the CD player (it reads the map data from CD) is becoming increasingly unreliable. So yes, I want to be able to upgrade the infotainment, and not be stuck with 10 year-old technology that can't be removed from the car.

What we need is the return of the DIN standard for car stereos, with some additions:
1. a standard video connection to the screen that's usually found at the top the dashboard.
2. a standard protocol and connector so the steering wheel buttons can control the stereo etc.

Re:RAM 1500 'Infotainment' system

[dj245]

What we need is the return of the DIN standard for car stereos, with some additions....

As much as I love the idea of the DIN standard, car radio theft is a huge problem with DIN style radios. Removing the faceplate every time you leave your car somewhere is a pain in the butt, and doesn't guarantee the radio won't be stolen anyway (radio theives aren't the smartest bunch). Car makers moving to nonstandard radios is the biggest reason car radio thefts have almost disappeared. I would much rather have bluetooth, a USB charging point, and an Aux port. Maybe we won't be using USB and bluetooth as a standard in 15 years, but I guarantee an adapter for USB->future power standard will be available, and you have to try really hard to make something incompatable with an AUX port.

iOS is coming to cars

[alen]

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

Re:I don't want any of that

[Errol backfiring]

All I want a car to be is:

• a car

What I do NOT want a car to be is:

• a rolling airco
• a rolling ghettoblaster
• a rolling home theater
• a rolling tube light
• a rolling home computer
• a rolling communication device
• etc.

Is that really too much to ask for?

Re:Microsoft

[Lumpy]

Yes it is. the ECM and BCM are the most complex system, then the Safety restraint system the Infotainment system is the last and threfore the simplest.

I know I have worked on all this stuff. The car stereo is the simplest part, it is nothing more than a freaking UI to the canbus.

Re:Too-close overtaking?

[LateArthurDent]

And braking. At some point I'm going to start actually reading what I've written while in preview, before I submit.