Slashdot Mirror
Many Drivers Never Use In-Vehicle Tech, Don't Want Apple Or Google In Next Car
Lucas123 writes: Many of the high-tech features automakers believe owners want in their vehicles are not only not being used by them, but they don't want them in their next vehicle, according to a new survey by J.D. Power. According to J.D. Power's 2015 Driver Interactive Vehicle Experience (DrIVE) Report, 20% of new-vehicle owners have never used 16 of 33 of the latest technology features. The five features owners most commonly report that they "never use" are in-vehicle concierge (43%); mobile routers (38%); automatic parking systems (35%); heads-up display (33%); and built-in apps (32%). Additionally, there are 14 technology features that 20% or more of owners don't even want in their next vehicle. Those features include Apple CarPlay and Google Android Auto, in-vehicle concierge services and in-vehicle voice texting. When narrowed to just Gen Yers, the number of vehicle owners who don't want entertainment and connectivity systems increases to 23%.
People in general (there's always exceptions) just want something simple that works, not something loaded with useless and expensive gewgaws.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
... but only if it is like a jet figther HUD, only relevant data like speed, fuel remaining and alerts (like "low oil")
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
WTF is that anyway ?
who where what when now?
As long as percent of non-users is below 80-85% there is still strong market for that feature.
Entertainment/connectivity systems in cars are either poorly designed, proprietary/incompatible, or both. Plus, if I buy an Apple-enabled car today and upgrade to an Android device two years later, the car then needs an upgrade too. I don't know many people who upgrade their car as frequently as their phone.
I'm not surprised one bit by this study.
Interfaces for in-car systems have traditionally been fucking terrible, as manufacturers scramble to cram as many funcions in as few buttons and switches as possible. This was true in the 80s with radios with built cassette players and remains true today.
This is why we need Apple to build a car and give these morons a clue on how to design a proper user interface.
(OT: next we need Apple to teach SAP about UIs too)
Concierge service belongs to the Don Draper era of Hiring A Girl To Do That For You. Nowadays, everyone has a smart phone, and a variety of internet services do the same tasks while letting the user feel like he's Doing It Himself, while the web app does most of the work the secretary used to do. Some concierge functions, like contacting family members to notify them of this or that, seem like antiquated holdovers in an age of cell phones.
It's analogous to the demise of travel agents, who have almost totally been replace by the likes of hipmunk. The younger generation has likely been heavily imbued with the smartphone and the web app and have never seen nor considered using a travel agent. They probably have never seen a concierge and would not know where to find one in real life. Concierge service in the car seems superfluous to them: they just want a bluetooth audio link to the speaker system, and it might be nice if the screen displayed a map.
Cars like pc's/phones/tablets are coming bundled with bloatware so what! I think the issue is when this shit comes with your car it isn't obvious how you uninstall the crap.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
An empty double-din slot in the dash so I can install my own choice of equipment. Rather than doing that, manufacturers are integrating their systems so tightly that replacing them can become a nightmare.
Look, I understand what this survey and report is trying to say and to some extent I agree (I sure as hell don't want or need an in-car concierge), but a lot of these technologies are being pushed not with current drivers in mind but with future drivers in mind. There's a generation of drivers coming that have never known a world with dial-up internet or without cellphones. To a certain extent, I'm sure their opinion (and the way they 'interact' with their cars) will differ from ours. Now I don't know whether 18 year olds five years from now are going to want an in-car concierge but I'm pretty sure they're going to want more than four on the floor, a subwoofer and windscreen wipers.
My graduating class was literally the last class at my high school that was not required to use a graphic calculator. If you ask me what I want/need in a calculator, it's going to be markedly different from what the graduating class after me would want in a calculator. You throw a graphic calculator in front of me and I'm probably not going to use or want to use a whole bunch of different features... but I'm sure those younger than me would or at least could utilize them.
I've also been living in Japan for a long time. Japan's addressing system is pretty much what pushed Japanese electronics and automotive companies to come up with onboard navigation systems for cars. Fifteen years ago before I started living here, few people had and I'm guessing few people would have admitted that they wanted or needed GPS navigation. But it's become ubiquitous and dare I say it, extremely useful not just in Japan but worldwide.
Just because people don't want it or don't use it now doesn't mean they won't in the near future. Except maybe that in-car concierge; that still sounds kinda stupid.
Just wait until the marketing department of Apple produces slick ads that show cool kids using their in-vehicle tech, and finds a way for people to easily advertise their car as “Apple-powered”. As long as Apple keeps on playing the conspicuous consumption card, they'll sell. The fact people won't use it is totally irrelevant.
The main reason people don't want/use them is because they're too expensive:
in-vehicle concierge (43%): $350/y + voice/minute + data, easily adds up to $500/y+ for a device you use maybe 1h/day. On the other hand your mobile phone with Bluetooth has the same services for free (Siri, Hey Google, Cortana, ...)
mobile routers (38%): same problem, we already have data plans on our cell phones, if we want routers we wouldn't use our cars for it which are usually inconveniently parked for reception
automatic parking systems (35%): besides a few specific interactions, they are useless and/or broken. They still require you to press gas/brake pedals, they don't park any faster or better than doing it yourself
heads-up display (33%): distracting and useless information
built-in apps (32%): distracting and useless information and the ones you do use are generally too pricey or require one of the above connective features that are too expensive
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The five features owners most commonly report that they "never use" are in-vehicle concierge (43%); mobile routers (38%); automatic parking systems (35%); heads-up display (33%); and built-in apps (32%).
Let's see:
* In-vehicle concierge is generally expensive and most people have no experience using such a service and many probably don't even know their car has it.
* Mobile routers are pretty much pointless if you have a data plan for your phone AND the car companies often charge a premium for it.
* Automated parking systems really only do parallel parking which any competent driver can do plus many people don't really trust it yet and if it screws up the results are expensive.
* Heads up displays are very new and on very few cars but I can see some people finding them annoying.
* I've never seen any apps for a car that were anywhere near as competently done as those on my phone and frankly pretending a car is like a smartphone is kind of stupid. Car makers aren't really thinking through the interface here. I shouldn't be staring at a touchscreen while driving.
Additionally, there are 14 technology features that 20% or more of owners don't even want in their next vehicle. Those features include Apple CarPlay and Google Android Auto, in-vehicle concierge services and in-vehicle voice texting. When narrowed to just Gen Yers, the number of vehicle owners who don't want entertainment and connectivity systems increases to 23%.
I've never seen a car with either CarPlay or Android Auto in person so I don't know if I'd like it or not. I think smartphones could be usefully integrated with vehicles but I don't think car makers have figured out the best way to do this yet.
I'm not willing to pay a premium for concierge service so they may as well leave the electronic out if it isn't included with the vehicle. A smartphone serves roughly the same purpose and I already have one.
Voice based texting is in my experience invariably a flawed and frustrating experience. I speak with a clear and bog standard midwestern US accent and I've NEVER found a voice recognition system that gets better than about 80% of what I say. My current car has a voice recognition system and it is nearly useless for any practical purpose. Furthermore texting while driving even through a voice system would be distracting so it can just wait until I park the vehicle.
Cars are already too expensive. Purchase, maintenance, repairs, insurance, fuel, and general upkeep are awful. Everything they add increases the likelihood that it will need repairs, thus increasing the cost of owning the car. THAT is why the car makers/dealers love adding technology.
Big business has turned the jobs we do into pay-as-you-go. They'll keep you on the payroll just long enough to replace you with a lower cost option then kick you to the curb. We are following this model to its eventual conclusion where everything, including the air we breathe, becomes a pay-as-you-go service.
I don't want to own the house I live in, I don't want to own the car I ride in, I don't want to own the clothes I wear, and I don't want to be married to the pussy I fuck. I want to be someone's pet that gets fed, housed, transported, and cared for until I die. I'll do my best to earn my keep as long as my body/eyes/hands last. When the end comes, I'll go out the same way I came into this world, alone, naked, and crying. That is how it always has been, that is how it should be.
All these fancy gadgets need a USB type connector or USB itself so they can be replaced by the driver and not someone in a garage who's going to charge and arm and a leg for upgrades, removals, etc. Honestly I'd be happy with a mid-1900's vehicle with no computers on board and hand crank windows for AC. Simple, easy, and cig lighters can be used to play a USB media device for music on the existing radio system.
Closed source, insecure, bug ridden, computer systems. If I can't get that, I'll find something with a carberator, thanks.
I do have a technology, engine immobilizer, popularized in 90's. I assume that this was a selling point back then to prevent car theft.
Reality is that currently it costs $2 to $20 to cut a key. However, the price is up to $350, or more, to program transponder in the key at the dealer.
My car right now is 10 years old and I do not need some sort of protection for the car whose value is less than $2000. More importantly, once, immobilizer stopped recognizing native original key, which required mechanic tinkering with the immobilizer and car computer.
We are talking about redundant entertainment technology? How about unnecessary technology, a software, which can disable your car in the middle of your trip.
Speaking about car electronics - currently cars can perform the self check, auto diagnose an tell you what is wrong with the car. Can, and actually do, are different things: all the car is doing is only telling you to return to the dealer for "Maintenance", when the "Maintenance indicator" lights up.
I wish automakers would follow the philosophy of low cost airlines - all the features are optional, and not forcefully shoved to the consumers.
You replace your phone or tablet (on average) every couple of years. In two years, it's obsolete. Not fast enough, not enough storage, doesn't run the lastest apps or the latest OS updates.
You replace your car far less often -- and as cars are lasting longer and longer (remember when 100,000 miles was end of life?) one of the ways to get your car to "need replacing" is to build in technology that looks ancient in 2 years. What do you suppose the resale value of a car is that is 3 years old, has less than 40,000 miles on it, but can't run the latest dashboard operating systems or applications?
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
I want a car, not a phone with wheels. Phones go in your pocket.
One of the few cool pieces of tech I've seen in a car lately is the backup camera, because it's directly applicable to the task of driving. The rest of this is just stuff nobody cares about
Yes, the backup camera is amazingly useful in a lot of scenarios. Probably the best new car tech since they added blinker lights to the mirrors.
Automatic parking would be an advantage in some environments and utterly useless in others. Lots of people almost never need to parallel park.
I know how software is made. I know how buggy and unreliable it is. In my car, I want things that are rock solid, or that at least fail gracefully. Also, I don't want distractions, like screens changing their content, or having to fiddle with a display while I am driving. I want fixed controls that are simple and display a single thing. Also, I don't want my car second-guessing what I want - there is nothing more annoying that the car deciding, "He pushed the window button to go down, but it is cold outside so he must only want it half way down" - I want my car to do exactly what I tell it: I don't want it to try to be "smart".
My car came with an Alpine head unit in a double DIN slot. Out on the highway, road noise makes listening to music no fun. Although it has USB, I've given up trying to get my iPod to work reliably with it. The navigation is lame. There is a backup camera, but I haven't even been bothering with that lately. I've thought about replacing it with a better unit, but really I can't be bothered. When I'm in the car I want to drive, not fiddle with electronic gadgets.
There's probably some kind of feature to work "hands free" with my phone, but I haven't really looked into it. Not worth the effort.
The car's interior is spartan. It doesn't even have power steering, and I like it just fine that way. I guess I'm just living in the past.
The car. . . A 2011 year model Tesla Roadster.
All I want is a feature to find the nearest decent bathroom for my wife and 2 girls.
A secondary feature would be to find a decent restaurant that serves vodka martinis for my wife to make the trip more bearable for me.
The latest systems can park in narrow spaces for you, too, as well as pull out of them so you can get in.
I can park in any space the automated system can most likely. I can probably do it faster too. I don't really recall ever being unable to get into my car based on where it was parked. Sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me.
People just aren't familiar with them. They don't think they want them because they've never seen one, and if they have, it was from the eighties.
Probably true though I stand by my statement that I think a LOT of people (especially older drivers) will find them irritating and/or distracting and turn them off. Someone like me might like it but I would be shocked if my parents would. My in-laws particularly are positively Luddites when it comes to anything new, novel or different even if it would actually make their life easier if they'd give it a chance. I can actually see a well designed HUD being useful but I also see lots of people not liking them at all or being unable to cope with the data and distraction.
I just don't want a car that pulls over when law enforcement (or a malicious hacker) pushes a button.
If we get truly automated self driving cars, you can bet that it will have a feature to pull over when directed by law enforcement. Absolutely guaranteed that will happen if self driving cars really become a thing. And if that feature is there then the hackers will have access to it too. I don't see one happening without the other. I think this will be true even if the controls to override the self drive system are present because the government will see an opportunity and be unable to resist.
The more complicated vehicle tech becomes, the more often I tend to want updates to fix the features that the vehicle has and to bring in new features. There is no way to get such updates. I can do it myself, in which case I may screw up my vehicle. The dealership can do it but they'll charge me $200+ for the update. I've updated the OS on my phone three times since I've had my vehicle but at least on my phone there is a procedure that I know will be safe if I follow it. Buying a feature rich vehicle is like buying a phone that will always be stuck in time, so I would rather just keep my phone my phone and my car my car.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
because like it or not, driverless, pay-per-mile transportation is the future laid out for us.
In the future a human driver will be looked at with the same scorn and disgust as a person who chooses to smoke cigarettes.
Going to lunch with my co-worker while texting him a string of profanity never gets old.
... understanding this is what made Apple so successful in the first place ...
Really?
What kind of 'understanding' Apple had to get them to produce that "Newton" thingy, huh?
It shouldn't be Apple which get the credit - instead, the credits should go to the late Mr. Jobs - he's the one had a clear understanding of what the world wanted
Case in point - after the untimely demise of Mr. Jobs Apple has yet to come up with anything which is worthwhile
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
When narrowed to just Gen Yers
Who is Gen Yers and why should I care what a Swedish person has to say about any of this?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I just don't see value in the satnav being built into my car.
I have both a portable Garmin GPS and have built in GPS in my daily drive car. Given the choice I almost always prefer a built in GPS. Why? Bunch of reasons including:
1) While my built in unit is older it works quite competently for 99.9% of situations and I have a smartphone for the other 0.1%. My portable Garmin is great but it adds minimal to no navigation value to me unless I'm using a car that doesn't have built in GPS.
2) No need to find a place to put the portable GPS and no need to run cords.
3) Unless someone steals the car I don't have to worry about losing the built in unit.
4) The screen in my built in GPS also serves other purposes like displaying my backup camera, etc
5) Generally easier for the passenger to enter route data on the built in unit while underway. (usually)
6) Unless I put an external antenna on my car my built in unit gets a GPS signal MUCH faster than my portable unit though both do it competently
7) The screen is bigger which can be helpful at times.
Now what do I not like about my built in GPS?
1) Goes obsolete faster than milk. The one in my car was state of the art 10+ years ago and it looks like it.
2) Minimal upgradeability. While I can get more recent maps (for $$$) no new features will be added. Ever.
3) No traffic or weather overlays, at least not with my system. Have to pull out the smartphone for this.
4) Stupidly expensive especially given that it is almost certainly not state of the art when you buy it.
I think the best solution would be to have a minimal built in GPS but allow your smart phone to integrate smoothly and take over or supplement some of the functions. Portable GPS units like a Garmin or TomTom are great for a lot of circumstances but I think a built-in GPS with good smartphone integration would be substantially better.
Most Americans drive trucks, which even don't offer the security features that Benz, BMW and VW and the Japanese brands have in their cars.
They just want bull bars and the confederate flag on their trucks.
Essential: powered steering, powered brakes, electric ignition, electric window wipers, proper lighting
Nice to have: electric window opening/closing, electric mirrors, radio, electric pump for spraying window cleaner liquid
I think that completes the list quite nicely. Did I forget anything? I do not think so.
The only technology feature any car should have, other than a radio, is a screen that can sync to your phone's display, wirelessly. The user gets into the car and their phone's screen comes up on the dash. This should be wireless, Bluetoothy. It should not be anything like the YouTube WiFi screen sync fakery.
All of the technology features should come from the phone. Anything built into the car will be out of date before it leaves the showroom and will not be updated regularly after the fact. Not to mention that the built in stuff will also be ridiculously expensive on a monthly basis, which is part of their intent.
Concierge service? Screw that.
GPS? It's already out of date and what happens to the six year old car that hasn't had an update for three years or more?
Cellular or WiFi? Do you any to get hacked, or do you like ass rape from the service provider?
Self parking? Screw all that self driving shit. It just encourages more bad drivers, poor driving habits, increased distracted driving and dependency on technology.
Screw all the shit! I want a radio and a tablet sized in dash touch screen that mirrors my phone. Nothing more.
AND I want all of my car's controls to be physical buttons and switches that never change function or location. I should be able to blindly stab and manipulate any vehicle control.
Cars are for driving, not web surfing, texting, phone calling, etc. Period. Phones are bad enough.
Which is exactly the value offered by Android and Apple car integration. Both can offer superior mapping at lower cost than an auto maker.
Only in places where there is a cell phone signal. If you drive somewhere where cellular service is sketchy you'll need a "real" GPS system. Speaking for myself I go to places with iffy to no cell service often enough that the GPS in my cell phone is useless for long periods. Not to say a smartphone GPS isn't useful but it isn't without some very significant flaws.
All the car needs to provide is a display and audio.
What you really want is the two systems to complement each other and be more than the sum of the parts. Furthermore what if you don't have a smarphone with you? Sometimes I don't carry mine but I'd still like GPS navigation while driving. Have a "real" GPS receiver in the car but let the smarphone provide traffic, weather and location overlays. Have basic functionality built in to the car but allow the smartphone to supplement it and make it better.
We already have most of that stuff in our phones, why would we want it built into the car too? Maybe it used to make sense back in the 1990s when the tech was big and bulky and being able to keep it in a vehicle was convenient. But that's no longer the case at all. When this stuff is available as an option, it's a very expensive option, way out of line with the functionality provided -- it's just a profit center. When it's "standard", it's used to justify the increased price of the "luxury" model.
A dedicated GPS unit in the car just seems dumb at this point. And unless the car has a network connection, that road data isn't getting updated and you don't have realtime traffic. My phone already has a network connection, and is thus infinitely better than the one that's built into the car. Same for everything else, including music players, concierge services (haha!). At this point, the only thing that should be built-into the car are technologies directly related to driving. Everything else could be handled by "dumb terminals" driven by a smartphone. For the luddites who refuse to get a smartphone, the car manufacturers could provide a shim device.
I don't really want my car to have it's own cellular network connection until I can stop having to pay for every device's bandwidth individually.
What we need more of is science!
I buy a car and expect to have it for several years. I buy a phone or computer and expect to replace it in only a couple years.
If my car is tied to some tech, it becomes obsolete before I am done with it. Tech is also FRAGILE. Car repair men are EXPENSIVE.
I would rather have as little tied to the car as possible. Let me replace the parts CHEAPLY.
Thank goodness nobody uses these things. Maybe they will watch the road instead.
No, they are probably not using any of the cars tech because they are using their slow, clunky texting interface on their tiny 4 inch screen, taking 3 miles, 4 lanes, and 7 near-collisions to compose a 5 word sentence.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Its not for the next generation of drivers, its another vector for monetization for car manufacturers. Just like smart TVs, you are not watching, you are being watched.
The end result will be that your car tells you that you are very low on gas and must fill up immediately. At the same time it sells this information to nearby gas stations who immediately raise their prices. You driving habits will be sold to insurance companies, your destinations to restaurants and motels, etc.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
What the car manufacturers should do is work together to create a standard for a display in the car and also a standard for how a mobile device can use it as a display. Make it completely agnostic to the manufacturer of the mobile device. If it also doubles as the display for some sort of normal car functions - HVAC/radio/ect, then fine. Seems like a perfect selling point.
I have one of those cars loaded with tech. Going through the top five list from TFA: :) Saved about $2500 by not buying the nanny bundle.
- concierge: came bundled free for the first 3 years, never used it so far. Not worth it in itself, but I think the bundle includes some other things I like, such as controlling various things on the car using my smartphone. We'll see at the end of the free period.
- mobile router: don't have, don't want, smartphone hotspot ftw
- Automatic parking system: was available, did not get the package. I'd like to feel that I am driving the car, plus I can parallel park myself
- HUD: gads yes please. Best tech toy in the car. Love it. Wish more info was available on it, right now it can do speed, nav directions, playlists/radio channels, phone notifications and general car warnings. I'd like to see at least the RPM along with the speed.
- Built in apps: have them, don't use them, simply because they suck compared to their smartphone counterparts. Would love to use them if executed well.
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
We've got a 2014 Prius v and a 2006 Prius.
The 2006 Prius has a much more useful navigation system, and isn't loaded with a ton of crapware and terrible design decisions like the 2014. In the 2014, it's so bad that I just use Waze on my phone.
Who wants to configure and pay for their car to do what their phone can? What people would really like is for better ways to control their phone from the car's screen.
love is just extroverted narcissism
And more: when a better model of satnav comes out, you can upgrade to that for the price of a new satnav ($150), not the insane amount for the in-car one. For example, about 6 or 7 years ago they got a massive improvement to the GPS unit which made them work much better in cities. Well worth the upgrade. Would have been fucked if I wanted to upgrade the in-car one.
The trouble with in-car tech is it's expensive, often badly made compated ot third party offerings and almost always amazingly badly dated, and something that eventually breaks and is insanely expensive to fix. A car lasts far longer than in-car techn stays current.
A satnav suckered to the windscreen is a vastly better proposition than one built into the dash. I'm not against tech in a car, but I'm against these sort of things being built in because that's a recipe for suckage.
Anyway as far as tech goes, if I can get my favourite country station on AM, I'm good to go.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Like everyone else, I think the in-car navigation is done better by anyone else. Tom-toms, Garmins, or in my case, Waze on my phone.
What if the in-car entertainment system had a set of APIs that could be controlled by an external device like a phone? That external device could then have a variety of different apps that could use the APIs, even set up several competing apps to take advantage of them. If car companies write off the tiny incremental income from the people who use the services, or even offset it by having their own branded apps cost money, perhaps they could concentrate on making those APIs secure and decrease the impact of successful hacks?
A car company that was able to do that successfully would have quite a selling point to people who were in BYOD and security.
in most vehicles is complete and utter shit.
I'd like to expand on this...
Built-in GPS pros:
The thing I like most about the built-in GPS is that it works very reliably. I never seem to lose a signal.
Built-in GPS cons:
It's out of date starting as soon as it's installed.
It lacked update and dynamic features seen in phone GPS.
Dedicated mobile GPS pros:
Not much better than car GPS, but seems to have more information like restaurants and gas and better ways to access them.
Not as much as an investment as a car GPS and can be replaced.
They paid some attention to detail on navigation terms.
Dedicated mobile GPS cons:
Also gets outdated, but is cheaper to update/replace if needed.
Can take a while to sync up with satellites or lose signal.
Small screen.
It can be stolen.
It can run out of juice if not plugged in.
If it's not mounted on the dash (illegal in some states), it's about as distracting as a cell phone if it needs to be looked at or handled.
Phone GPS pros:
It doesn't get out of date. You can always find the latest information about points of interest or addresses that a dedicated GPS will never include on their DVD.
It integrates with traffic to give me a better route to take than the static routes programmed into car or mobile GPS.
It seems they add more and more detail each year, like lane information or exit number changes.
It's "free" with most smart phones these days - I'm talking about Google and Apple maps (not Verizon directions).
Phone GPS cons:
Does not reliably sync position (problematic on an older Android phone).
The app sucks a lot of juice from phone if not plugged in.
Your map application is tracking your location and what you look up.
For the car industry to get it right, I think they need to complement phone app developers rather than try to duplicate effort. The phone app developers will always have an edge in mapping technology. Car manufactures could:
1. make a their factory-installed GPS device available to a phone via bluetooth to provide a stream of location and time for use by phone apps. Such a device will never get out of date and complement new GPS and mapping technologies. Were I Garmin, I'd find a way to make an after-market GPS device something we can install in most cars (roof antenna powered by a lead from the car battery) to make bluetooth GPS data available to phones.
2. develop a standardized "bluetooth display" that allows a phone display to be seen on the fixed larger touch screen in the dashboard. Even if it doesn't have a fast update rate, it'd still be good enough for GPS. If a wireless display technology can take care of playing movies for kids in the back seat, so much the better.
3. better integrate bluetooth pairing with car audio so that phone audio is mixed into the car audio rather than interrupting. Our phones somehow cheat with bluetooth audio and give GPS directions to cars in what seem like short phone calls. "Turn left in half a mile. [Call ended.]"
4. allow us to talk to our phones over bluetooth audio when we press a button on our steering wheel instead of using in-car voice recognition that never seems to really work well (and may never will).
So what they're saying is that 80% of people have used these features and do want them. The story makes it sound like nobody wants these and it's a pointless endeavor, but 20% of people not wanting these features in their next car is not some catastrophic failure of the product. Don't get me wrong, I'm not even happy about the extra buttons my car has for the XM Radio I will never use, I understand people not wanting the features. But what's the story here? Some folks aren't interested in around half of the 33 high-tech features in their car? Is this even a slow adoption rate for new technology?
How many people buy high end "Sports Utility Vehicles", designed to go off road, through rivers, up mountains, then never leave the pavement - effectively using them like you would a minivan?
How many people buy convertibles and keep the top up all year long?
Cars are sold based on desire, not on need.
I personally would disconnect any antennae/radio function of a vehicle - it helps the car company track and control my car more than it helps me. But people buy what they want, not what they are going to actually use.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The Android Auto stuff is sorta like vnc. Most of The Google stays inside the phone. I do not know how it has actually hit the street, but based on the broad strokes of the design it may be that not pairing the phone is a thorough opt-out, so it's no big deal.
Hell, we bought a car 8 years ago that had a push in slot for an ipod... the old ipods. Now that the new ones have the smaller plugs (old one broke after many years of use), the car's interface is useless. I see the future coming.... and I'll watch it from my 68 Camaro.
This is often because in-car tech is terrible. The user interfaces often seem to be reminiscent of something knocked together for Windows CE in the mid 90s, they are often awkward and laggy and counterintuitive. And basically they are ossified to the car's manufacture date, and you have to pay through the nose for data updates. When I last changed my car, the car was 18 years old - would an in-car satnav/other tech still be supported 18 years after it came out?
All I want in a car today is this: some USB charging ports, some point on the vehicle interior that allows you to attach a tablet or phone holder, and a decent Bluetooth implementation. It's far easier to update my phone or tablet than anything actually built into a car, and I can also take it with me and use it in a rental vehicle, on my bicycle, in my house etc.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
remember when 100,000 miles was end of life?
If you even somewhat kept a regular maintenance schedule it wasn't at all difficult to surpass this with cars 40 years ago. My dad had 1971 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme with a mileage indicator that rolled over at 100k miles. It did that 3 times and almost a 4th before it went to scrap.
(A) the car itself has to not suck ... it's pointless to have good tech if the car fails to get me to work
(B) efficiency - I'm OCD about efficiency, it's an engineer thing. so I want respectable MPG.
(C) I want to be able to recharge my cell phone. so I want USB power socket
(D) I like the backup camera thing, especially on models where rear visibility is poor
(E) I like the mini-mirror in my side mirrors, that has the different angle, really improves visibility for changing lanes (this is low tech but a great thing)
(F) GPS system, as an option, is nice. I won't use it 90 percent of the time, but its nice to have in case I want to go on a road trip somewhere I haven't been.
That's pretty much it. I won't use park assist, mostly from pride, but it also means I won't PAY for a car with park assist because I figure it's factored into the price. I don't want any kind of mobile / facebook / onstar crap. I don't want any kind of satellite radio subscription.
The best way to make me not want to buy your car is to have lots of expensive-sounding features which I don't need or want, included in the basic package, because I assume you're charging me for them, somewhere.
So, the lesson is: KISS -- Keep it Simple, STUPIDS
80% of new vehicle buyers are OLD PEOPLE. 20 somethings can't afford a $45,000 new car, unless they are financially stupid or landed that $100K a year job right away.
And then they dont want the utter crap locked in garbage that the auto makers want to deliver us.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Have a Volvo and it has the Sensus 3.0 stuff in it, which includes apps such as Pandora and a few others. The tech package came with a 6 month trial for everything, but that has since expired and I don't drive enough to make it worth it. What's frustrating is that it won't even let you pair it with your hotspot phone to use those apps, so it is just a complete waste of money to have it in the car. The tech is also slow, interface created by committee, and NOT car friendly. Give me Google Maps with a Siri interface and that's it. I should be able to say "find the nearest Arby's restaurant" and that's it. Garmin Nav or any iPhone/Android navigation app is much easier to use.
The main issue is that people see the technology as a way for car makers to extract more money from you AFTER you've already shelled out 20, 30, 40, or 50k for their car. That is just crazy. Car manufacturers need to include these as actual features instead of a way to get money out of your wallet.
This would be akin to giving you free air conditioning for 6 months, but if you want it to work after that then you have to pay a monthly fee. We bought the car, I don't want to keep paying for that. If you can't do that, then take it out of the car, reduce the price of the car, then people will be happier about it.
In the fall of 2013 I bought a Subaru Forester that was fully loaded and had every tech feature on it that was available. In the beginning I liked all of the technology; the Eyesight collision avoidance system, the information center, the navigation system, the entertainment system, etc. However, over time I started finding a lot of this technology annoying. The adaptive cruise control would adjust your speed down to match the car in front of you so slowly and at such a distance that you would find yourself driving several mph below the speed limit instead of realizing that you needed to pass the driver ahead. Every Monday morning, which is garbage day in my neighborhood, the Eyesight system would "warn" me about the trash bins on a particular street, picking them up as obstacles. The same system would often warn me about other non-existent "obstacles". In rainy driving conditions it would warn me that I was swerving out of my lane when no such thing was ocurring. The navigation system was horrible. It took way too much time to set up a route, and on at least two occasions it was just plain wrong about my destination. The touch screen was very unresponsive and far too small to be useful. The information center was always nagging me about stuff ("please refuel"). Finally one night, while I was driving with my girlfriend, the car told me to "Please refuel", and she remarked, "Oh, isn't that nice! It tells you when to get gas, and it's so polite." What I found annoying, she found endearing, and I suddenly realized, "Damn! I'm driving a car made for women!" I considered how much I had been driving my second vehicle, which is an old pickup. I think I was subconciously rebelling against the forced feminization of my driving experience.
So, after a year and a half, I traded in my Subaru on a Jeep Wrangler. It lacks alot of the tech that the Subaru has, It has no annoying navigation system. It doesn't give a damn about obstacles or lanes. It doesn't talk to me. When the fuel gets low it simply chimes and turns on the low fuel light. It has an information package, but it only gives me information when I look for it. In short, if forces you to pay attention to your car and your driving. I feel more connected to my Jeep even though it has no "connection" systems.
Don't get me wrong. I liked the Forester, and Subuaru builds great cars. If you really want a small SUV with good horsepower that is very safe and can go almost anywhere I can highly recommend the Forester. I liked the Forester, but I didn't LOVE it. On the other hand, I love the Jeep. It's a simple vehicle that is fun to drive and offers a great deal of utility.
Proverbs 21:19
Here is the interior of a stock 2000 Ford F-150, the most popular car model at the time.
> https://www.adventuresindiy.co...
The only actual improvements (not necessarily F-150) since then have been:
* Replacing "eject", "panel & floor", "lo / hi" and other words with pictographs
* Bluetooth connectivity
* Rear-facing cameras
* Upright alcove above radio to place cell phone for navigation
Everything else has been a fucking failure, distraction, or quickly obsoleted.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
I have two cars: a '96 Jeep Cherokee and an '01 M Coupe. You know what I love about both of them? The climate control system is analog. I user a slider or knob, feel the resistance, and know the temperature will adjust. The radios are simple: a few preset (physical) buttons, a volume knob, and a tuner knob. Sure, bluetooth would be nice, but I have a cigarette lighter dongle that works just fine over FM for streaming music and taking calls (I actually still have the cigarette lighters for both cars, too).
My wife, OTOH, has had a stream of cars with electronic climate control, complex infotainment systems, and all sorts of other bells and whistles. You know why we got rid of the last one? The climate control system kept thinking it was 20F outside and adjusted the heat accordingly. This in the summer in Texas. The automaker, despite repeated visits every summer, couldn't resolve the issue.
Oh, and navigation? For the few times I don't know where I'm going (really, it's scary how people rely on nav systems for drives they do every day), a quick glance at Google maps on my phone orients me (usually before I get in the car).
I'll allow some local microprocessor control for drivability and performance, but when it comes to the creature comforts and extras, I want them simple and functional. I want my car to talk to me through the engine, not the speakers.
-Chris
So you're telling me that about 1/3 of people are old luddites? Duh?
The main purpose of my car is to get me from point A to point B. If it has tech that relates to that without distracting me, that's fine. If it doesn't relate to that, or if it's a distraction, I don't want it.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
When I get in my car, the most that I want to do, besides putting on the seat belt, turning on the radio, and starting the car, is to drive to where I want to go. I do NOT want to sync my car to my phone. I do NOT want a GPS unless I am navigating somewhere that I have never been before (and my phone does that nicely by itself, thanks). Let's get back to simplicity, PLEASE!
Two years back, I bought a plugin-hybrid. My first (and probably only) new car. Gas prices were high - but the most important reason was that my introduction to technology was when my father showed me how to repair an electric lamp back when I was in kindergarten, which makes electric cars really cool for me. I didn't care about all the extra features - they just came with the vehicle I bought off the lot.
The thing came with a lots and lots of additional features, like:
The Voice Control lets me get into an argument with my car. It screws up about 5% of the time (and 95% of the time, all I'm doing is asking it to turn the FM radio to my favorite station. When I'm trying to set a navigation destination, it's nearly 95% of the time.)
The AM/FM radio doesn't come back on properly 95% of the time. The Infotainment system claims it's on, but I have to change stations to get it to work, which means changing stations back and forth after I start the car.
The backup camera is a nice feature. I hear a system like it is mandated for new cars in the future. Unfortunately, it's more necessary in this car than my previous car because the sight-lines in this care are so dreadful. It's more of a compensation for bad design (or allows more bad design.) I can see where it'd be very helpful for people with limited mobility.
The one time I really needed the GPS/Navigation system, it couldn't find the address at all (Google maps on my phone worked just fine.)
I have a flash drive plugged into one of the USB ports for music - I haven't played anything from it for a year. I've never used the CD player.
The automatic gate opening system (intended to make it easier to load the back of the car when your arms are full of packages) works about 20% of the time. I've stopped using it, even for entertainment value.
The only part of the Infotainment System I really use (FM radio) - fails to work properly. The rest of the features are largely negative value for me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That is easily one of the most negative and idiotic summaries I've ever seen. When you write a summary that focuses on the smaller number of people, it clearly denotes your bias. After all, most intelligent people would focus on the positive numbers. Let's see:
-----
The five features owners most commonly report that they "never use" are:
in-vehicle concierge (43%) - that means that 57% do use it
mobile routers (38%) - that means that 62% do use it
automatic parking systems (35%) - that means that 65% do use it
heads-up display (33%) - that means that 67% do use it
and built-in apps (32%) - and 68% do use it
-----
In other words, in all instances, a majority of people _DO_ use the feature.
And next:
-----
Additionally, there are 14 technology features that 20% or more of owners don't even want in their next vehicle. - alternatively, it can be viewed as approximately 80% of owners want it in their next vehicle
-----
Focus on the smaller (to say the least) number of people with the negative stance rather than the (significantly) higher number of people who have a positive view. But, hey, those larger numbers and positive stance doesn't allow someone to paint a negative picture. After all, positive facts aren't negative.
Before I get in my 3,000 pound weapon, I look up my destination on Google maps, which is still useful (if dog-slow) in its new form.
I want to know WAY ahead of time where I am headed.
Too often I see driving-by-satnav drivers frankly changing lanes while they stare at their groins. Often those lane changes could be done any time in the next 3 blocks, but they will even stop several lanes of traffic to change NOW.
Also, when you don't really know where you are going, you drive tentatively. This will drive others crazy and is generally recognized as Not Good (tm).
Then there is your unit making a mistake. Even Google Maps consistently gave me the wrong directions to one place -- the road didn't go through (and still doesn't).
Like Harold Hill said, you gotta know the territory.
Besides, most of a new trip is an old trip, with a new ending. Do you really need a gadget, or even a printout, for that?
I come here for the love
I don't WANT GPS tied into the vehicle.
I don't WANT Google or Apple connected to my vehicle.
I don't WANT OnStar opening the doors.
I want a separate entertainment system - air-gapped from everything else.
I want a GPS system air-gapped from everything else.
I am NOT a "consumer."
The IoT stuff scares me. Mainly because I don't want to be watched all the time - not by the fridge, TV, computer, bruray, dvd player, Microsoft, apple, smartphone.
I simply do not trust these companies to respect my privacy.
Would be nice to have a blank area on the dash with a hidden power connector where you could doc your portable SatNav or phone. Maybe use a magnetic surface so we could easily dock and undock.
Or you can get a $20 bluetooth GPS, and put it someplace with a good view of the sky, like under your rear parcel shelf if it's not made of metal.
Which does you no good at all if you are driving somewhere and don't have your smartphone handy. Not saying that your idea is bad but personally I'd rather I have navigation assistance even if I have to leave my smartphone behind for some reason. I use the built-in GPS in my truck 99+% of the time even though the data in my smartphone is generally more up to date and accurate.
Yes, it requires an internet connection
I hate them, what is wrong with manual ones? Electric ones get stuck open. Won't open when you have an electrical fault. Not to speak of the fun of escaping from your car when drive into a river or lake.
push to start/keyless ignition. It seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It seems like it causes more problems than it solves.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
In car navigation is obsolete and the upgrades are not free (!). Google voice recognition is also much better. I am looking forward for Android Auto.
The only "tech" things I ever seem to use in a car are cruise control and the entertainment system. On a recent trip I had a rental car with all the in-car controls on a touch screen. I appreciated the convenience of being able to adjust the cruise control and climate control, play tunes, tune the radio and so on, all from a common interface. This is a car, dammit, not a mobile computer laboratory. Techie toys must do more than be cool. They must solve problems.
I'm reminded of airplane glass cockpits. Pilots rarely need exact numbers, most of the time they just need a glance at an analogue display. "Full power...confirmed! Gauges green...airspeed alive...rotate..."
...laura
Why does every car manufacturer reinvent the tech interface?
Each should provide a simple standardized tech unit that could be replaced in the after market.
This way, the car manufacturers could better concentrate on what they do (or should do) best: making a decent-riding car with a good engine and a good transmission.
Yeah, I don't need all the fancy tech especially when my phone can do all that stuff. A stereo, bluetooth, and manual transmission is all I need. If it's RWD even better (almost mandatory).
They should have asked "which of these features would you actually pay for if it wasn't bundled in the base price ? "
I'd like to be able to speak "where's the cheapest gas within 5 miles?" or "where's the nearest some chain restaurant?" for example and have the car look it up and display the answer. That would beat pulling over to search on a phone or tablet, or worse, trying to use one while in motion.
The problem with integrating any of this technology is it limits choice. I remember when every car could be upgraded with an aftermarket stereo inexpensively. Today almost no car stereos are upgradable and the integrated technology is locked to a specific technology company who may be dominant today or nonexistent tomorrow. For instance how many android users felt unhappy about being stuck with a car with IOS integration and how many IOS people really wanted a particular car then realized it only had android or Microsoft integration and realized you would have to settle for a reduced level of integration as you do not have the ability to swap the radio in the car.
If this was done in an intelligent way then maybe things would be better, why cant the industry come up with a standards based module slot in the glove box or under the dash that would allow consumers to purchase and install their own technology package? Apple users could pop in an Apple module the size of a minidisc and have all the Apple apps and integration displayed on the screens and buttons, Android users could do the same. Hell maybe you are a Pandora user and you opt for the Pandora module.
This is the direction we should be going, come up with a standard interface so that when I slap My Android module under the dash it boots up and says your car has the following standards based features it can use. Some cars could have a display or backup camera and the module would use those, others may only have a Bluetooth hands free interface. Car manufacturers can still create packages to gouge people, forcing them to purchase the luxury package if they want the video screen, while consumers can pop in any aftermarket software "flavor" module they desire. Since your standardizing all the different modules and making them speak a standard protocol, you could even bring back the aftermarket upgrade scene.
Yeah, what I'd like to see is not a bunch of shit baked into a stereo unit that will be obsolete 3 months after release, but open standards for communicating with the devices we already have.
Bluetooth (A2DP) audio is a nice thing to have, though I admit sound quality isn't always consistent between devices. For GPS and similar things, why not just have stereo head units with a decent display and widi enabled, maybe something to bluetooth tether the touch-screen (they can even lock it so it doesn't accept input while driving). That would allow people to use the GPS/navigation on their phone - which likely is more up-to-date than the aging car unit - and other such useful functionality.
For the kids, have a rear-facing widi display that similarly allows video to be streamed from the phone. That or just make connecting phones to HDMI easier/consistent and have little charging/display ports that also broadcast to the internal displays.
... is to provide a "standard" interface for smartphones to your car's infotainment system.
This is just about the right thing to be doing. A car company is never, ever going to be able to provide a decent built in tech package. By necessity, such a system must be extremely conservative (cars are a LOT more expensive to fix than phones), thus are always going to be obsolete even before they get out the door.
Intead of that crap, the auto makers need to work with the real tech companies to provide an ecosystem where the auto makers only provide a (standardized) platform for a modular system. The car maker should only provide:
* A place for a (replacable) screen ( and a default screen )
* Speakers (already fairly "modular")
* An OBD-II access port
* A standardized access port for climate/radio/etc control.
* Simple physical controls for the core functionality of a car.
* Some place to dock a processing module and/or consumer mobile device.
Then the tech companies can provide the real functionality.
This is, essentially, what Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are the (very) rough beginnings of. The problem is the car makers don't want to actually provide the above, because there are too many economic incentives for them to keep screwing their customers by providing built in tech. They can gouge the shit out of customers for the sub standard crap they put in, and when even slight improvements are made it provides incentive for the most profitable customers (those that buy new cars often) to return even sooner.
Because batteries are for starter motors, headlights and 8-track decks.
Henry didn't have EMS, rearview cameras, GPS routing, Lojack; even if it were available to him, I don't think the Model A would've been equipped even as an option.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Mod parent WAAAY up.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
False dichotomy alert: not having Apple or Google infesting my car does not mean that I do not want in-vehicle technology. Or (removing the double negative) I may want in-vehicle technology even if I do not want Apple or Google to supply that technology.
In my opinion, neither Apple or Google is steered by a shred of moral principle, and allowing either to control my automobile or any significant portion of it constitutes a clear and present danger to my privacy and security. Both these organizations envy and aspire to attain the level of corporate depravity pioneered so successfully by Microsoft.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
What do you suppose the resale value of a car is that is 3 years old, has less than 40,000 miles on it, but can't run the latest dashboard operating systems or applications?
Very, very high. Have you not looked recently at the values of used cars? They're holding their value better than ever; there's lots of cars for sale with 100k miles on them at pretty significant prices, and they look like they've been barely driven. The crappy economy is partially driving this too; people are economizing, so that's pushing the cost of used stuff up.
Why link to an article and not to the report?
http://www.jdpower.com/press-r...
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
I predict that an "outdated" smart dashboard has a significant negative impact on the resale value over having equipment in the car that is relatively age insensitive. I won't be buying one (as long as I can avoid it reasonably)
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Because JD Power didn't publish the report, at least not that I can find. They just published their summary about the report.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
https://xkcd.com/1559/ .
When it comes to adopting new technology, its got to be able to make me do something I wasn't able to do before. I like my backup camera in my SUV because it provides a much better view of whats behind my car. I hate my Sync system because it doesn't really add anything special to the vehicle.
Relief! I am not alone. I don't want all this keyless start, Nintendo interface stuff in my car. I hardly use the radio/CD. I have added an aftermarket HUD as our speed limits are a ludicrous fraction of what modern cars can deliver. I certainly do not need bluetooth, pinktooth, android, schmapple "built-in". You do n-o-t talk and drive, just as you don't drink and drive.
I've only had one car that had it, and yes, temp sensor troubles wacked it. Even when it worked it sucked...set temp for 70 degrees, fan blows at FULL SPEED until cabin temp hits that point. Unless I'm freezing or dripping with sweat, I really don't want to hear the fan that badly.
I have a great temp sensor--I call it "me"--and adjusting the temp takes all of two seconds to move my hand the 10 inches from the steering wheel to the temp knob. Honestly, auto climate is an expensive, buggy solution in search of a problem.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
In my experience nearly all of this built in entertainment stuff is just a bad idea for several reasons:
- It's usually at least half a decade outdated on a brand new car, let alone an older model.
- Car makers are hardware people and have little clue about software. Designing it, making it, managing it, etc.
- None of it is modular and easily upgradable.
What I want is for my car to work well with my other electronic gadgets and for that it needs to have standardized interfaces and be easily upgradable and extendible.
When I got my first iPod, around 2004, I first mucked around with FM transmitters, but then bought a Pioneer single DIN DEH-P65BT car stereo with the CD-IB100II Ipod connector. I could also use it with my Nokia S60 N70 "smartphone". This has worked fine for almost ten years and several iPods/iPhones, until the 30-pin connector went extinct. I have now replaced it with a Pioneer DEH-X8700DAB talking to my new iPhone.
Over the past ten years this has given me more options than even the newest cars on the market could offer me at any time, and I never had a car less than half a decade old: My TomTom updates automatically over the cellular network (iTunes/App Store), I've got Spotify, Youtube, WhatsApp, Skype, internet radio, weather info (buienradar), traffic info, and many more. Every time I upgrade my phone, my options improve. Every time my phone got an OS update, my experience would usually get better. Pioneer could do a better job sometimes, but overall the experience has been miles ahead of anything that the car manufacturers offer.
The only thing that doesn't work reliably is SIRI, for three reasons: Cars are noisy, SIRI can't control third-party apps like Spotify and I'm multi lingual and SIRI can't easily be switched between languages.
I've just bought a new car, and one of my most important selection criteria was how easy it was to rip out the existing entertainment system and add a more sensible after market one. I have skipped many otherwise nice options because they had horribly hard to replace entertainment systems.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Most drivers have never experienced a car where tech makes the driving experience better, safer, and *less* cluttered and attention taking. Wait till most people have driven a Tesla or a future Apple car and see if they would choose to go back.
Pat
Because car companies wouldn't know a good user interface if it slapped them in the face. They need more open and secure systems. Don't try to lock us in. Let us use whatever device we want. people use the open systems. Look at Bluetooth.
One never knows when one might need a rotten tomato... - King's Quest IV: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow
And yet try telling the car dealer that you want them to remove the SIM from the vehicle before you'll accept it. I don't care if they're paying for the cellular data - recent stories about information security in vehicles prove that there's no such thing.
Does not want all that bullshit in my car, all it does is distract the driver. I had to special order the last new car I bought to get it without all the stupid bells & whistles.
I don't want any of that crap in my car. In fact, its presence makes the car much less desirable to me.
Those are the main functions of car interface and optimum functionality requires independent or phone-linked cellular connection. Everything else is just due to the fact that someone else might like extra features and it's difficult to customize them for each individual car. Ideally those things will be installable/uninstallable like mobile apps.
Electronics? I just wish I could buy a truck with a manual transmission. There are almost no new truck modles left in the US that offer manual transmissions. I may drive my 2002 Toyota for the rest of my life. That means I won't be worrying about the so-called "high-tech features." I consider mechanical devices to be higher tech.