Hacker News Reader

I think you're missing the point of people saying that they want CarPlay/Android Auto. People don't want another system, they want another set of controls, screen, speakers and charging dock for their smartphone. They already have an intimate relationship with their phone. Phones are addictive. It's where people get their dopamine rushes from social media, sms and games. You can't compete with that. Even if someone is driving many, many hours per day, their relationship with their car will never be as strong as it is with their phone, despite the fact that they've paid more than 20x for the car. The more you try to compete with those systems on a feature-by-feature basis and try to impose your brand, the more you're going to lose. The more you design your system to be a natural extension of their phone, with as much looking and feeling like the phone's interface as possible, the more well received it will be. CarPlay and Android Auto are the easy answer to making it as similar as possible.

Trying to understand the issue from a technical or UX perspective is going to lead to a whole lot of failure. You need to understand the psychology. And what auto manufacturers resisting CarPlay and Android Auto are doing is akin to hitting on people in a committed relationship. It makes them angry and want to reject you, not dump their significant other. Accept that you'll never be more than friends and build the best platonic relationship you can, no matter how much you want them to love you.

>Even if someone is driving many, many hours per day, their relationship with their car will never be as strong as it is with their phone, despite the fact that they've paid more than 20x for the car.

I have paid much less than 20x more for my car and I care about it significantly more than my phone. If I had to choose between the two it would easily be my car. I also enjoy operating my vehicle much more than my phone. I think most would agree, although maybe not in the niche audience of HN comments.

I have similar affiliations with my car for which I paid far less than 10K. I can feel the horsepower in my car, but I can't feel the horsepower in my phone.

Most might agree, but you still need it to work without a phone with good interface and all the desired features.

Still not everybody has a smartphone. Or you have an older one and whatever software you need for the car isn't supported. Or you give the phone to the kid in the backseat to play a game...

And then having two very different ways to control stuff increases complexity. For developers and user.

No offense, but I have yet to find a infotainment system that I liked. They reflect the brand identity of the vehicle, yes, but badly. The majority of in-car-entertainment systems are clunky, slow, and look outdated. The hardware is already at release a few years behind, and you can't easily replace it. (This also applied to smart TVs, and to some extent to in-flight-entertainment).

What I would love is a simple standard for aftermarket radios, like you used to have. One connector, and it wires up to the speakers, a display (that you can replace), and all the hardware buttons e.g. in the steering wheel. You'd have a one-way connection from the car to the device for information like speed.

When I buy a car, I don't want an integrated entertainment system. I want to buy a system from a stereo manufacturer that integrates with the card.

And I want the option to buy an "in-car-ITX" barebone from NewEgg, pop in an SD card with a LibreICE distribution or whatever, and roll my own entertainment system if I like.

I want things like changeable themes, Spotify support, information about the currently playing radio song (even if not supported by the station), and so on. I want fluid animations and no latency, readable text, and idiot-proof usage. That really shouldn't be so hard.

> What I would love is a simple standard for aftermarket radios, like you used to have. One connector, and it wires up to the speakers, a display (that you can replace), and all the hardware buttons e.g. in the steering wheel. You'd have a one-way connection from the car to the device for information like speed.

That would be nice, but unfortunately it has a number of drawbacks:

1) "one connector" does not work well with today's 20+ speakers

2) display interface? Either you do it using DSI as interface (which is fucked up so bad that a Raspberry Pi supports exactly one specific type of display - and when even the Pi hackers can't get it done, I seriously doubt car makers can), or you use HDMI which will lead to vibration issues. Furthermore, the range of display resolutions, aspect ratios etc (you can have anything from 320x240 to retina FHD)... no way ever that radio/car makers will implement this.

3) Interface to rest of car (HW buttons, speed feedback, and maybe even GPS/IMU for navigation): no standard for this except CAN-bus, which is a security hellhole itself...

I agree that having the option would be nice but it's a real niche market.

I don't think it is that unrealistic. It seems that for 1), aftermarket radios are available for most cars and can utilize the speakers. There are various adapters available. For 2) I can imagine HDMI or DVI, if necessary with a more sturdy connector. Stock monitors have supported multiple resolutions for 20 years. For 3), it seems there is information available to access this from CAN or LIN buses or ODB. Lots of hobbyists do this. I can imagine you could buy an adapter for, say, "Ford 2010-2014", like you can do with various aftermarket parts.

It might be a niche market, but so are all kinds of aftermarket mods for cars. And I think if somebody did to car stereos what Nest did to thermostats, it would be phenomenal.

FYI, HDMI has an automotive connector (type E) as part of the specification, which is available from a range of manufacturers already and has a retention clip to avoid vibration issues.

Sidenote: Some cars still use composite interfaces, because with a reasonable comb filter it doesn't look too bad, and it only takes one wire and ground.

Thieves have largely stopped breaking into cars to steal car radios because, without a simple standard for aftermarket radios, the market for stolen radios shrunk and has almost disappeared.

Actually, that is very hard and also without any benefit for car manufacturers.

They could advertise support for the Bose/Sony/Apple/whatever premium entertainment system; a standard - even a very basic one - might also reduce development work, as you can use preexisting connectors etc.

And, at least for me, if I would buy a new car, repairability and replaceability or parts is a consideration. And if I had $1000 to spare, I'd buy a hifi unit from a dedicated manufacturer - and would prefer a car vendor that makes that easy. I've never heard the entertainment system be the decisive factor in choosing a car - but I know people who put off buying an e-mobile because they usually have annoying computers built in.

Finally, I don't think the car vendors would neccessarily do this. You'd probably have third party vendors selling adapters. Crazy cable tree in, nice plug out.

It just feels like nobody uses these things (or they're so resource constrained their first iteration made it into production). I bought a 2015 Honda Fit knowing it'd been out awhile and there was no change for 2016 (I hoped this meant many things, including their infotainment system had things ironed out). I also got the lowest-end infotainment system because I wanted a volume knob instead of soft buttons. It's funny how with professional cameras the high end have more physical buttons, while it's the opposite for car stereos. I'd rather turn a knob than grope the dash to mash down on a touchscreen while driving.

I've tried to "learn" the system.

* there's a mess of apps to download and it's unclear which work with the tier of sound system I got and they completely oversell what they do.

* there's no way they're going to do a better job at GPS and directions (my tier wasn't supported, but I didn't know that until I downloaded their app and figured it out myself)

* it makes no sense to have a separate voice dialing from Siri (it's unclear that it's separate, it's just terrible at it, and it's unclear on how to train new names)

* it auto-connects known phones and starts playing random songs. I know that's part of Bluetooth, but if the wrong device connects they bury device swapping multiple menus deep and you have to "disconnect" the old devices and "connect" the correct one instead of just connecting to the phone you want

* they separate bluetooth phone and audio--you have to connect your phone to each one. I get this is a "feature" but it just confuses things. I doubt most people know there's a distinction

* plugging into USB (to charge) does not mean I want to switch audio over--I use a cigarette lighter USB adapter to get rid of this confusion

* features differ between USB attached device and Bluetooth even for things that they both could technically support (i.e. album artwork doesn't show up over Bluetooth but does over USB). I would forget which is attached--I doubt most people understand the distinction. Again, not using USB solved this.

* and really, most importantly, don't crash. If you do (which happens at least monthly), don't make me turn the car off to restart it.

I'm not intending to rant at you. I've told my dealer about the crashing issue and asked if there were any updates (there weren't), the rest I've learned to live with since I don't plan on buying a new car for 10+ years. I now plan to write a letter.

> * plugging into USB (to charge) does not mean I want to switch audio over--I use a cigarette lighter USB adapter to get rid of this confusion

This is the biggest issue for me with so many cars. Why can't I just deactivate USB interfaces? I use USB to charge but only use Bluetooth for audio (tends to work much better for Spotify). Bluetooth is very reliable in most cars but whenever I start charging I have to switch back. A simple setting to set USB to charge-only mode wouldn't be hard to implement and a great win.

That was such a good comment I actually think you prewrote it for just this sort of comment reply. (But I suspect you really wrote it for your dealer)

“It’s not CarPlay” absolutely helps. I don’t care if Toyota makes a decent infotainment system. I will not buy a Toyota or Lexus until they come with a CarPlay option. Period. It’s a waste of time to elaborate on that (for free). I would rather save my breath and vote with my money by supporting a car company that does understand my needs (e.g. Honda/Acura).

Spot on remark. Consumers should be voting with their buying decisions. Markets will eventually correct themselves.

Have you or your employer ever had a customer say "oh thank goodness, I really needed BRAND's tech in here instead of just a convenient way to access the same software I already use for hours every day?" In any sort of user study or feed back? Or really ANY indication that NIH for infotainment systems is a good investment?

I don't think those... um, infotainment systems are a differentiator other than the ones that are so bad as to rule out the car entirely. I've never heard anyone, anyone say they liked their car infotainment system. Ever.

To be honest, I really hope they don't actually think of those systems as an important extension of their brand. Or if they do, they realize that Android or iOS are much better user facing tech companies and brands than any car manufacturer...

> I also think there are a lot of systems that people don't like because they never took the time to figure out how to use them.

This is 2017. If I need to "take my time to figure out how to use it", it is completely and utterly broken.

Think he's right. We're used to not having manuals but that doesn't count for driving. You really should understand your car before you drive, figuring out the system while driving is very dangerous. We're just not used to that anymore.

And it's not that figuring out an iPhone is that much easier. But you can click around until you found the right setting without endangering others.

> The Infotainment system is one of the most user-facing components of the vehicle. It's something that can reflect the brand identity of the vehicle, and most OEMs are not eager to cede that space to Apple or Google. Google and (especially) Apple certainly aren't interested in mixing their branding with a manufacturers.

It actually seems like most manufacturers are including CarPlay and Android Auto in new cars. In terms of CarPlay, Toyota is one of the notable holdouts. Mazda, the other notable holdout, is going to offer CarPlay in newer models and upgrade older models to support it. Jaguar was the other major holdout, and it seems like they will also support it in the future. I can't think of any other car brands sold in America that don't offer it except Tesla.

I have an ancient car. Do either offer customization to the manufacturer?

You can get aftermarket stereos with Android Auto and CarPlay. They start around ~400.

    > there are a lot of systems that people don't like because they never took the time to figure out how to use them. Cars aren't like phones. When you're in them, you're most likely driving and you don't have the bandwidth to figure out how to do something as well as drive.

Yes, it takes time to get used to the dash and this is why I dread car rentals.

I have to rent cars regularly and each one is a chore to figure out, especially at night after a flight when I just want to get moving with headlights on and a little music. Sometimes I feel like taking a picture of the damn things because they're so comically counter-intuitive.

What's the point of contributing feedback to the manufacturer if I will never see the result of that feedback because updates cost an arm and a leg?

We need more Wayland based systems. There is already enough Android around.