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?"
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.
Or maybe you should be driving instead of playing with infotainment systems.
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.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
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,
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.
;-)~ So touchscreens in cars are ok for the roof mounted missile launcher!
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
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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
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.
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
If you're burping to change the radio station, it should just give you a DUI ticket.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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).
.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
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
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).
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
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.
http://blog.nexusuk.org