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
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.
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.
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.
Daytime too. It's helps with targetting, especially for cyclists. Those bastards can move so fast sometimes it's hard to pick them off manually.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
Well, here's my take on the satnav ...
My wife's previous car had built in satnav. It was driven from a DVD. Apparently upgrading the DVD would have cost around $800 or so from GM. This for older tech built into the dash. And the display tech was pretty lame and outdated.
My TomTom cost me under $175, comes with lifetime maps, and I can move it from my car to the wife's car, to a rental car, or to my parents car when I'm visiting. It doesn't require a data plan, no company gets to serve me ads or track where I go. It's got the really nice split screen to tell me "you need to be in one of these two lanes, definitely none of these three".
I just don't see value in the satnav being built into my car. It will be older tech very quick, much more expensive to replace, and you're stuck with it.
When you factor in the cost of these accessories when they come in the car vs buying an aftermarket device, it's just really not a cost effective way to do this.
And as far as speed and fuel ... unless you're a race car driver I'm having a hard time believing you can't check these two things safely while driving. People have been doing it for decades, and only the most beginning of driver can't watch his speedometer and drive.
And, hell, my TomTom displays my speed as well. And I can look at it and barely take my eyes off the road for a fraction of a second.
But I'm not spending a bunch of extra money for this to be built into my car. It's just a way for car companies to pad the bottom line.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Exactly. The problem is what we might call the UI bottleneck. If the vehicle has 48 features and I loathe 45 of them, I still have to fight my way through 48 confusing, often poorly identified, controls in order to use the three functions I like/want/need. If it's not a tool I use all the time I may well give up before I find the control I'm looking for. Or worse, I may turn on some incredibly annoying "feature" whose Off button is hidden behind some improbable sequence of actions identified by more or less incomprehensible icons that look like squashed grasshoppers or overturned ice-cream cones.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
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".
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.
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
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.