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
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.
WTF is that anyway ?
I'm guessing, because our cars don't have it, that it's a service, delivered via OnStar (or similar) that lets you contact someone to make dinner or entertainment reservations from your car. Now that I think about it, my son had it on a BMW he had (briefly).
My wife usually does it on her cell while I drive. So I guess I do have it :-)
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)
Think On-Star where you say "hey, can you find me a Sushi restaurant?"
Apparently that is an actual thing, I'm not sure.
These aren't features I want. They're fiddly gimmicks I'm not interested in.
I don't want apps (I don't even know what they'd be), or things to facilitate texting. I like the idea of stereo controls on the steering wheel, but I won't want anything overly complicated.
My current car stereo has an AUX input so I can feed it from my iPod, it has Bluetooth so it integrates with my phone ... the rest of this reads like a bunch of stuff I want no part of while I'm driving.
And it amazes me that while we're seeing texting and driving made illegal car companies are focusing on giving you alternative ways to text .. text with one button, or voice to text. I have a better idea ... stop being distracted by texts, and focus on driving your damned car. It's still going to be distracting.
To me this is all marketing crap. And I don't need Google or Microsoft or Apple in my dashboard, collecting analytics, and otherwise intruding on my driving. I rank all of this stuff into the big giant "DO NOT WANT" category. But for some reason the car companies are very obsessed and hell bent on adding every piece of tech to a car they can.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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.
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".
I generally agree with you, but I think a 'concierge' could be helpful. I'd argue it's best placed in my phone and then give me good integration, but there you go. The use case I'm thinking of is to be able to say "get me out of this traffic" - even my GPS can't really do that very well.
I think car makers now have a significant perception problem. They 'shot their load' (so to speak) years ago with the most horrible systems known to humanity. Now, no matter how good they make it, all previous victims will view those features with suspicion.
By way of an example, we have a 5 year old Honda CRV. It's got voice-rec, which even the dealer told me "we usually show this last" because it was so noddy and crap. You can use it to turn the fan speed up and down - honestly, unless your left arm falls off during a long drive, there's literally no way you'd want to do it. Trying to get the thing to "phone home" or "phone wife" or whatever results in the AC going on and off and fiddling with the radio stations.
Now, after I've witnessed that crap for however long we own the car, does Honda think I'm ever going to say "yeah, I'd like voice rec in my future car"? Nope - as I say, just integrate (well) with someone else who can do these things properly and be done with it.
Except by the time someone wants it or uses it, it'll be way behind the times. I'm sure the car manufacturers were "future proofing" their cars by putting in 8 track players too.
Make it replaceable if you want to plan for the future. My 1997 car has a better radio (not stock) that works far more reliably than my 2013 car with an integrated touchscreen infotainment system. I can also upgrade the 1997 radio again in 10 years, whereas the 2013 radio will be stuck with the same shit as long as the car lasts.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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.
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.
or voice to text
Like this:
Driver: Text Wife
Car: Ready
**Driver gets cut off by another car**
Driver: Stupid Bitch, Stop Texting and Learn to Drive
Car: Text Sent.
--
JimFive
Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
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.
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
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.
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
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).