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
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
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.
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".
Out of curiosity have you tried out Navit? I use it on my phone when I am traveling and I don't even have a data plan. Granted it will eat battery substantially faster than other cell navigation apps as it has to actually compute and render things but that isn't a concern if it is plugged into the 12v adapter. If you download the data set for the entire planet it is about 17GB currently. The data that is used comes from OSM so depending on where you are it can be really good or still better than the base maps that come with most GPS receivers.
Time to offend someone
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.
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.