or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Organizational strife said to bedevil Apple's iOS in the Car intiative
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Organizational strife said to bedevil Apple's iOS in the Car intiative - Page 2

post #41 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

Seems like for this initiative to work well for Apple they need to bring in an executive who has automotive electronics experience to head the team.  It would not even need to be someone who worked for a car company - it could be a supplier or third party manufacturer like Pioneer.  Someone who understands integrating systems and hardware etc.

They probably have consultants or full staff for this project. Tony Fedell was an iPod consultant. That French fashion CEO is another consultant to Tim Cook.

We probably should take that write up with a bucket of salt btw. Hardware companies won't mess around with projects like a dotcom company. They are tight fisted with project investment.
post #42 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Astroturfing ? There are guerrilla marketing companies or so called reputation management companies you can pay for writing up bad news and reviews (or vice versa). It's rather popular in the gaming industry.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stealth-marketing-microsoft-paying-youtubers-for-xbox-one-mentions/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #43 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post
 

Right.  So the answer is to buy Tesla.  Re-design it so that it is truly great and Apple opens up a huge new front.

I like the way you don't think....

(and if I'm wrong about how far-fetched this is, I'll eat the pixels in this bit of snark)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Here’s your problem: You’re playing golf, Apple is playing football.

And here's Apple's problem: Lately it seems like they're playing touch rules while GOOG's playing tackle... 

 

...Also even granting the time between the iMac and the iPod, and then the iPhone and then the iPad, THIS team has to give the world a sense they still have more magical golden eggs to lay even with the chief goose gone. 

It's been a good while now. 

Iteration and refinement will only take an enterprise so far. The original laser took a humungous amount of vision, engineering, work and cash to be brought to market.  Yesterday at the Dollar Store I bought a laser pointer/flashlight keychain fob for a buck. Works fine for purpose.

And the Moto X I finally bought when Apple stubbornly refused to give the screen size I could live with (when they could have) has been a perfectly lovely piece of machinery for $350 complete.

"Good enough" commoditization and "production experience" lives....

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #44 of 84
Purely personal opinion, doesn't worth for me to even rub two pennies. Should find a job at Google
post #45 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post
 

 

I think Apple's doing just fine without a car product. Maybe what they're learning is that the problem is harder than they thought, or that they can't do it with the quality they'd like. Not every internal Apple initiative has been a success, and that's fine. Microsoft and Google may put something out only to have it be a dud, after all. If Apple doesn't do it, I'm sure they have good reason.

 

iOS and Mac OS have been so successful in part because Apple controls all the hardware -- that is to say, there are no driver issues. That's always been a weak point for Windows and other operating systems. In the car market, Apple is just not going to be in a position to tell all the car producers what hardware they have to install for safety sensors, etc. If Apple didn't want to play the discrete device single manufacturer thermostat market, why would they want to play in the hundreds-of-different-kinds-of-sensors-from-dozens-of-manufacturers car market? 

 

I could see Apple forming a partnership with a single car manufacturer. I doubt that it will be Tesla, because I don't think Apple will want to tie themselves to a niche brand. It'll be BMW or Mercedes or somebody like that if they want the historical quality factor. Toyota if they want the mass market. 

 

"I think Apple's doing just fine without a car product."

 

I disagree.  Losing the automotive integration battle could potentially go a long way to losing the platform war.  Don't underestimate the importance of in-vehicle integration.

post #46 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post
And here's Apple's problem: Lately it seems like they're playing touch rules while GOOG's playing tackle... 

 

...Also even granting the time between the iMac and the iPod, and then the iPhone and then the iPad, THIS team has to give the world a sense they still have more magical golden eggs to lay even with the chief goose gone. 

It's been a good while now. 

 

I agree. We are all waiting on the next big thing. I understand if it is going to be an entire new product or category it will take years of tweaking, refining, and testing before it gets released. But I hope they have some big new launches coming this year or next. I think home automation and car entertainment/navi systems are areas Apple does now want to let Google dominate. I suppose at least with Google and their open alliance that they would let iPhones work in cars with their system. They seem to be picking up steam though so if Apple wants to find a partner they better hurry. http://www.openautoalliance.net/#members

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply
post #47 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by itpromike View Post
 

The sleepy time that anyone . . .

[a sea of gray text]

. . . like even though you partner with them, you really are just working FOR them and that they know best, always, at all times, even when they don't.

 

Apple isn't going to bring what the car companies want. The car companies could hire anyone to do that.

Apple will bring what they do best — what users don't know they want yet — something that can evolve.

I don't think the problem is Apple's arrogance, it may well be the auto industry's yearning for built in differentiation. The car and the personal device don't have to merge (as auto designers seem to think.) They just need to work well together. You are right openness is the answer. Open basic standards that is, not "Android and Windows openness." Apple embraces open standards and then build unique UX on them. What you describe is more like ActiveX, et. al.

 

I suppose a good place to start would be to bring some kind of lower level standard data interface to the game. Automotive companies are good at cooperating, to some extent, on basic industry standards, but I imagine they'll be dragging their feet on creating a useful standard for interfacing with external devicesAuto companies have an f-ed up mental model for this type of thing. They have to please dealers, and trick customers into paying more for "luxury" features. They make all their $ on high end models and almost nothing on entry models. A GPS worth @ $100 is an $800 option! etc. This is just plain stupid. They should work with Apple and others to make some data standards that are neutral, low level, secure, and robust—a sort of a unix interface for car data. This would give everyone a place to start from without stepping on anyone's toes. Everyone could then do as they please, and the customers could decide who did the best job. Apple would be able to concentrate on providing a great UX and others could do a CLI, Amazon Crime, or Googifukation as they please.

 

Best of all, the vehicle/customer/auto manufacturer isn't chained to a crappy choice. If you don't' like just hook up the device of your choice with the app of your choice and viola!, personal auto nirvana! (or hell, as the case may be.)

post #48 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

I don't think Apple is a very good fit for this project anyway. In car systems need to be highly integrated with all the onboard sensors and vehicle safety features most of which has nothing to do with iOS. It is no surprise that they are having a difficult time because Apple historically doesn't work well with others. Unless they control a product from top to bottom, hardware and software they are out of their element.

Apple works well with the internet, ethernet, Wifi, the web, servers, etc. etc. They don't control those products from top to bottom. They want to control their part of the overall  widget. Far from the "if cars worked like computers" meme, the auto industry is the control freak. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to get access to trouble codes! (and it's still less than ideal.) When they advance into the 21st century and agree on an open standard interface with auto system, innovation can occur. 

post #49 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Apple works well with the internet, ethernet, Wifi, the web, servers, etc. etc. They don't control those products from top to bottom. They want to control their part of the overall  widget. Far from the "if cars worked like computers" meme, the auto industry is the control freak. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to get access to trouble codes! (and it's still less than ideal.) When they advance into the 21st century and agree on an open standard interface with auto system, innovation can occur. 

Yes, my sentiment so far, but I am usually more mellow.

The automakers may also complain about paying or subsidising Apple, and losing control over the UX. Then again, may be Apple need to carve out some room so that it can innovate without restrictions.

Read an article earlier that the car industry takes up to 10 years to plan a platform for safety reason. Apple probably don't have that kind of patience. We will likely see incremental effort as the relationship deepens.
post #50 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post
 

I like the way you don't think....

(and if I'm wrong about how far-fetched this is, I'll eat the pixels in this bit of snark)

You won't be eating pixels thats for sure.  But the idea is not far fetched, it will most likely be Google who eventually partners with Musk.

post #51 of 84
No one in this thread even mentioned OBD2 or the CANNBUS. That pretty much says it all about what people know about this space.
post #52 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

No one in this thread even mentioned OBD2 or the CANNBUS. That pretty much says it all about what people know about this space.

 

Actually I was referring to OBD2  and CAN here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post
 

. . . . the auto industry is the control freak. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to get access to trouble codes! (and it's still less than ideal.) . . . 

 

The auto industry didn't implement OBD2 because they wanted to, it was pretty much mandated for EPA compliance consumer rights. The CAN bus was a handy means to that end, but it doesn't cover all the bases and it isn't a free and open standard (although the terms may be reasonable.) Something along this line is where they should go, but I doubt they have been designed with the kind of features Apple et al might want or need. I'm sure Apple would be happy to use existing standards (or extend them) if they are adiquately robust, and reasonable in terms and use. 

post #53 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post


Yes, my sentiment so far, but I am usually more mellow.

The automakers may also complain about paying or subsidising Apple, and losing control over the UX. Then again, may be Apple need to carve out some room so that it can innovate without restrictions.

Read an article earlier that the car industry takes up to 10 years to plan a platform for safety reason. Apple probably don't have that kind of patience. We will likely see incremental effort as the relationship deepens.

 

It's funny. In many ways the auto industry are the original UX-centered companies that Apple emulated to become who they are. On the other hand, the auto industry is the ultimate moribund, big, dumb, incumbent entity that can't evolve or change with the times. There's no real reason a feed of data and some control over minor systems (radio, mirrors, seat position, a display, etc.) need to be coupled to the longer term development. But I'm sure the car companies can't see that.

post #54 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post
 

There's no real reason a feed of data and some control over minor systems (radio, mirrors, seat position, a display, etc.) need to be coupled to the longer term development. But I'm sure the car companies can't see that.

 

I don't really understand why the infotainment device even needs to be involved in any of the CANbus kind of stuff. Leave instruments, vehicle hardware and climate control proprietary. All the Android or iOS device has to do is navigate, play music and manage phone calls.

post #55 of 84

Apple's great gift is simplifying things so anyone can use them, which then greatly increases the uptake of said thing, making them money. In-car systems are definitely something that could do with simplifying, but they have the same problem they have with the TV: namely, they don't control the whole widget. There are so many overcomplicated tech things in this world, surely there is more low hanging fruit than this.

post #56 of 84
They need a leader not a manager! Development needs leadership skills, drive and vision.
post #57 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

And tens of millions of cars suddenly won’t drive faster than 25 or let you make a right turn without viewing an ad first.

 

 

Tens of millions without seeing an ad first

Millions without first having approval from Apple (within 28 days)

post #58 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post

If anyone had said "The disconnect is attributed primarily to overarching organizational issues that are said to place pressure on non-hardware products that do not fit within existing teams." to Steve Jobs back in the day, they would still be extracting SJ's boot from that person's posterior cavity. I miss SJ. Yes he was a tyrant but he never put up with this kind of nonsense and knew how to push people and products to extremes. I definitely do not like hearing things like this come out of Apple.
I never heard that coming from Apple. It is only one blogger's opinion. Last I heard, opinion =/= fact.
post #59 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by itpromike View Post

The sleepy time that anyone can see a mile away if they pay attention and their loyalties aren't so far ingrained in one company that they overlook obvious missteps. The sleepy time of not realizing that you can't control each and every aspect of every single product and that control has a point or curve where once reached experiences diminishing returns. If Apple would stop trying to control every single minute thing and worry about the only control that truly matters which is overall quality control they would be in a better place. Here is what's going to happen... iOS in the car WILL indeed be launched, it will then be received with lukewarm fan fair... it will be 'neat' for a bit and then because of the way Apple thinks and their corporate culture it won't go far because essentially carmakers are going to need to concede to add the functionality into their already functioning in-dash products which essentially perform all the functions that iOS in the car does but with an interface that's as pretty. THEN Google will start it's onslaught and through their partnerships with these same manufacturers will get Android as the actual operating on the in-dash units themselves. Rather than just essentially a plugin which beams or streams iOS data from the iPhone onto in-dash unit, Googles partnership will see Android actually installed directly on those units. This coupled with Googles approach to be less open and less controlling will give way to a LOT of developer support for the in-dash unit to customize the interface and make it as pretty and/or informative as said developer imagines and the users/customers of these in-dash units will have true choice over the look of their dash, the functionality, and the information they are presented. Apple all the while will be Apple and they will control their little app plugin and give the users no options for how it looks, no options for the information displayed, and real options for developers to tap into it's potential (just like with Apple TV). At the end of the day this will play out just like iOS vs. Android. iOS in the car will have a sizable following but Googles initiative will dominate the industry because they work WITH people instead of arrogantly always presuming on people and making an environment that feels like even though you partner with them, you really are just working FOR them and that they know best, always, at all times, even when they don't.
[/quote

You are wrong and you know. You found an opportunity to spew crap and took it.

The car companies will not allow developers to have free reign to design and develop whatever they want.

How stupid do you think car companies are?

First and last, car companies are responsible for everything that goes right and wrong in their cars. Opening up the car to let sloppy developers put apps in the car would be suicide for the car companies. Just one rogue app could kill a family and the lawsuits would pour in.

Google's car initiative has a lot of flash just like its TV initiative. Android will be a plug-in just as iOS.

And, if. Google does not enforce full control of its Android efforts it will not be in the car at all
post #60 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by itpromike View Post

The sleepy time that anyone can see a mile away if they pay attention and their loyalties aren't so far ingrained in one company that they overlook obvious missteps. The sleepy time of not realizing that you can't control each and every aspect of every single product and that control has a point or curve where once reached experiences diminishing returns. If Apple would stop trying to control every single minute thing and worry about the only control that truly matters which is overall quality control they would be in a better place. Here is what's going to happen... iOS in the car WILL indeed be launched, it will then be received with lukewarm fan fair... it will be 'neat' for a bit and then because of the way Apple thinks and their corporate culture it won't go far because essentially carmakers are going to need to concede to add the functionality into their already functioning in-dash products which essentially perform all the functions that iOS in the car does but with an interface that's as pretty. THEN Google will start it's onslaught and through their partnerships with these same manufacturers will get Android as the actual operating on the in-dash units themselves. Rather than just essentially a plugin which beams or streams iOS data from the iPhone onto in-dash unit, Googles partnership will see Android actually installed directly on those units. This coupled with Googles approach to be less open and less controlling will give way to a LOT of developer support for the in-dash unit to customize the interface and make it as pretty and/or informative as said developer imagines and the users/customers of these in-dash units will have true choice over the look of their dash, the functionality, and the information they are presented. Apple all the while will be Apple and they will control their little app plugin and give the users no options for how it looks, no options for the information displayed, and real options for developers to tap into it's potential (just like with Apple TV). At the end of the day this will play out just like iOS vs. Android. iOS in the car will have a sizable following but Googles initiative will dominate the industry because they work WITH people instead of arrogantly always presuming on people and making an environment that feels like even though you partner with them, you really are just working FOR them and that they know best, always, at all times, even when they don't.
Your argument has one glaring fault. You say google/android's lack of control will lead to more developer support but this is not the case. It's a phalisy that android supporters cling to. More developers want to create for android because it's more open....sorry but this isn't true. In reality more developers want to design for iOS, that's why apple is so successfull, why the App Store is do successfull. Live in reality. Who knows how successfull iOS or android will be in the car. Everyone just assumes it will be hugely successfull but maybe it won't be for either android or iOS??
post #61 of 84

mstone - I fully agree.

Furthermore, whichever car manufacture integrating any software from Google into its car control system is stupid. I for one would never trust it. However, a Tesla and Apple marriage would be highly beneficial for both companies. 

27" iMac, i7 2.8G CPU, 16 GB, 2TB Hd, Radeon HD 4850,  MacBookPro 13",  iPad2 64Gb, 2 x  iPhone4S 32Gb, 1 x 64Gb iPhone5S, 1Tb TimeCap,  2 x Apple TV.   Got my AAPL when they were $12.50 each.
Reply
27" iMac, i7 2.8G CPU, 16 GB, 2TB Hd, Radeon HD 4850,  MacBookPro 13",  iPad2 64Gb, 2 x  iPhone4S 32Gb, 1 x 64Gb iPhone5S, 1Tb TimeCap,  2 x Apple TV.   Got my AAPL when they were $12.50 each.
Reply
post #62 of 84

I think it's up to car manufacturers how they make their in-car systems and what software and hardware tools they use for that. Actually car user should not care what OS is behind user interface. It should just work nicely. I hope future in-car systems will be more elegant than just iOS or Android interface on screen. Anyway nobody stops user from bringing his iPad, iPhone or any Android gadget into the car and using it there.

post #63 of 84
Apple is a day late and a dollar short getting into the car -- this product should have been out a couple years ago honestly. There is nothing very good in these in-car systems, but they are rapidly improving and Apple's time to enter should have happened already.

Heck just Dash-docking an iPad would be enough -- just need the proper options from the car manufacturers to skip on their standard center console system and have the proper mounts and we're set.
post #64 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

People here rant on about the colour of icons or the rumors of different screen sizes on the iPhone.... little things that kick up a fanboy storm.

But THIS news is actually the important stuff and it's sad to see Apple drop the ball. The amount of time people spend in their cars (in certain cities) is something very significant, and having android-friendly google-designed-UI cars take over the market is worriesome. Phone connectivity, imo, is the next big push of technology - Apple have it almost nailed with airplay at home, but are about to be completely trumped when it comes to the car.
You talk as if google/android has actually already produced a car product? Google has only announced a partnership with a few car manufacturers so far, they haven't shipped anything. I'm sure google is going to have their own share of problems and delays with the auto companies just like apple. Funny how when google announces something it's automatically a huge success but not so for apple. Maybe don't count your chicks before they hatch.
post #65 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post
Heck just Dash-docking an iPad would be enough -- just need the proper options from the car manufacturers to skip on their standard center console system and have the proper mounts and we're set.

Yes, like in-car audio. I am not so much interested what company made car audio in the car. Option to remove it and put inside one of my choice is well enough.

post #66 of 84
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Tens of millions without seeing an ad first

Millions without first having approval from Apple (within 28 days)

 

Doesn’t quite work; that’s manufacturer timeframe.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #67 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanukStorm View Post
 

 

"I think Apple's doing just fine without a car product."

 

I disagree.  Losing the automotive integration battle could potentially go a long way to losing the platform war.  Don't underestimate the importance of in-vehicle integration.

 

This isn't a war, where the loser is going to close up shop or one brand of phone will suddenly no longer be viable. Drama much?

post #68 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 
I don't really understand why the infotainment device even needs to be involved in any of the CANbus kind of stuff. Leave instruments, vehicle hardware and climate control proprietary. All the Android or iOS device has to do is navigate, play music and manage phone calls.

Autos already do navigation, play music and manage phone calls. Why would you even need iOS if that is all it is going to do?

 

Just a few examples of why it all needs to be integrated:

  1. If you decide you want your distance in kilometers the nav system changes and so does your odometer.
  2. Likewise if you change the language it makes that change universal for the entire auto. 
  3. I agree the climate control shouldn't be touch screen controlled, unlike Tesla. I prefer old school knobs and buttons for that but the temperature could display on screen in your choice of centigrade or fahrenheit
  4. All settings for the entire auto are accessed using on screen menus, so it all needs to be integrated.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #69 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceek74 View Post

Great to see bedevil is still in someone's lexicon.

What is a "lexicon"?  That word's not even in my vocabulamary.  ;)

post #70 of 84

I also agree with what others are saying about Tesla. I know this is already been flagged as a "stupid idea by people who don't know Apple" but honestly, this would be a good play.

 

Currently, Tesla is the Apple of the auto industry. It's green, high customer satisfaction scores and competes in the high end. Apple can make Tesla even more incredible than it is today and they can integrate hardware and software together like they're used to.

 

Also, Wallstreet absolutely loathes Apple right now, this move would do wonders for their shareholders.

post #71 of 84
Originally Posted by dstarsboy View Post

Also, Wallstreet absolutely loathes Apple right now, this move would do wonders for their shareholders.

 

Even a partnership could be able to sate the moronic “APPLE SHOULD BE FORCED TO BUY SOMETHING EVEN WHEN THEY DON’T WANT TO” crowd.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #72 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstarsboy View Post
 

I also agree with what others are saying about Tesla. I know this is already been flagged as a "stupid idea by people who don't know Apple" but honestly, this would be a good play.

 

Currently, Tesla is the Apple of the auto industry. It's green, high customer satisfaction scores and competes in the high end. Apple can make Tesla even more incredible than it is today and they can integrate hardware and software together like they're used to.

 

Also, Wallstreet absolutely loathes Apple right now, this move would do wonders for their shareholders.

 

Agreeing to sell seems unlikely with Musk's ties to Google leadership. Also, Tesla's brand is moving down market, not up, with the Gen3 coming up targeting a $40k pricepoint. Nearly anyone can act like they can afford a $40k car.

post #73 of 84
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

Nearly anyone can act like they can afford a $40k car.

 

:lol:

 

I want to see Tesla vehicles with Apple controls and battery tech. No one does batteries better than Apple.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #74 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Autos already do navigation, play music and manage phone calls. Why would you even need iOS if that is all it is going to do?

Just a few examples of why it all needs to be integrated:
  1. If you decide you want your distance in kilometers the nav system changes and so does your odometer.
  2. Likewise if you change the language it makes that change universal for the entire auto. 
  3. I agree the climate control shouldn't be touch screen controlled, unlike Tesla. I prefer old school knobs and buttons for that but the temperature could display on screen in your choice of centigrade or fahrenheit
  4. All settings for the entire auto are accessed using on screen menus, so it all needs to be integrated.

Navigation is extra in vehicles. Imagine if I can use my iPhone as navigation but display it on the car's screen. As for music, we're talking about accessing songs easier.
post #75 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
 
Navigation is extra in vehicles. Imagine if I can use my iPhone as navigation but display it on the car's screen. As for music, we're talking about accessing songs easier.

As far as I know, unless you opt for the navigation package, I don't think you can get a screen. Have you used the BMW system? I find it very intuitive and selecting music is no problem for me, although the BMW voice commands don't work as well as Siri.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #76 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

As far as I know, unless you opt for the navigation package, I don't think you can get a screen. Have you used the BMW system? I find it very intuitive and selecting music is no problem for me, although the BMW voice commands don't work as well as Siri.

I have a screen in my car and no navigation. It's not a touchscreen though.
post #77 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

As far as I know, unless you opt for the navigation package, I don't think you can get a screen. Have you used the BMW system? I find it very intuitive and selecting music is no problem for me, although the BMW voice commands don't work as well as Siri.

I have a screen in my car and no navigation. It's not a touchscreen though.

Ok cool. I haven't purchased a car without the navigation package for several years and was basing my remarks only on the loaner vehicle that the dealer gave me which was identical to my BMW but without a screen as I recall. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #78 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by itpromike View Post
 

The sleepy time that anyone can see a mile away if they pay attention and their loyalties aren't so far ingrained in one company that they overlook obvious missteps. The sleepy time of not realizing that you can't control each and every aspect of every single product and that control has a point or curve where once reached experiences diminishing returns. If Apple would stop trying to control every single minute thing and worry about the only control that truly matters which is overall quality control they would be in a better place. Here is what's going to happen... iOS in the car WILL indeed be launched, it will then be received with lukewarm fan fair... it will be 'neat' for a bit and then because of the way Apple thinks and their corporate culture it won't go far because essentially carmakers are going to need to concede to add the functionality into their already functioning in-dash products which essentially perform all the functions that iOS in the car does but with an interface that's as pretty. THEN Google will start it's onslaught and through their partnerships with these same manufacturers will get Android as the actual operating on the in-dash units themselves. Rather than just essentially a plugin which beams or streams iOS data from the iPhone onto in-dash unit, Googles partnership will see Android actually installed directly on those units. This coupled with Googles approach to be less open and less controlling will give way to a LOT of developer support for the in-dash unit to customize the interface and make it as pretty and/or informative as said developer imagines and the users/customers of these in-dash units will have true choice over the look of their dash, the functionality, and the information they are presented. Apple all the while will be Apple and they will control their little app plugin and give the users no options for how it looks, no options for the information displayed, and real options for developers to tap into it's potential (just like with Apple TV). At the end of the day this will play out just like iOS vs. Android. iOS in the car will have a sizable following but Googles initiative will dominate the industry because they work WITH people instead of arrogantly always presuming on people and making an environment that feels like even though you partner with them, you really are just working FOR them and that they know best, always, at all times, even when they don't.

Well said. There is something to be said about only developing products where you can control every detail. Know what you can do well, and stick to that. It takes as much courage to say that this is not a project you can do well and take a pass. Otherwise, you had better be ready to change your culture a bit. When you buy an Audi, you are buying an Audi, not an iOS device that happens to be in an Audi. I don;t own an Android anything, but I think Android is better suited for integration than Apple, particularly embedded systems. Of course if Apple decided to make a car or something, then it would be another matter. Maybe they can buy Tesla or something. 

post #79 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

 

I don't really understand why the infotainment device even needs to be involved in any of the CANbus kind of stuff. Leave instruments, vehicle hardware and climate control proprietary. All the Android or iOS device has to do is navigate, play music and manage phone calls.

 

Who said it was an infotainment device? That's as short sighted as calling an iPhone "just a phone."

The point is, if you make the full data stream and some controls available, people will step up with interesting ideas.

Beyond nav, music and phone calls, why not have these very tasks integrate with the hardware as you would like?

•Control the radio with your device.

•Displaly extra info on what's playing on the radio

•Phone calls through audio system (obviously)

But why stop with these?

•Change mirror and seat settings (cars that do this usually only remember two people.)

•Why not read your vehicle's trouble codes with your "infotainment device"?

•Why not choose a custom display of engine performance or instantaneous gas milage?

•I'm sure people who love to hack the subtleties of engine performance would love to use an iPhone or iPad to record data and make adjustments (this gets into the safety issue, but people can do with their car as they please.) NASCAR could sell an app to their fans.

•How about an app that gives feedback on driving performance in terms of safety, economy, shifting choices, or whatever?

 

"If you build it, they will come." Until it's built though, nobody knows what people will want to do with it.

post #80 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post
 

 

Who said it was an infotainment device? That's as short sighted as calling an iPhone "just a phone."

The point is, if you make the full data stream and some controls available, people will step up with interesting ideas.

Beyond nav, music and phone calls, why not have these very tasks integrate with the hardware as you would like?

•Control the radio with your device.

•Displaly extra info on what's playing on the radio

•Phone calls through audio system (obviously)

But why stop with these?

•Change mirror and seat settings (cars that do this usually only remember two people.)

•Why not read your vehicle's trouble codes with your "infotainment device"?

•Why not choose a custom display of engine performance or instantaneous gas milage?

•I'm sure people who love to hack the subtleties of engine performance would love to use an iPhone or iPad to record data and make adjustments (this gets into the safety issue, but people can do with their car as they please.) NASCAR could sell an app to their fans.

•How about an app that gives feedback on driving performance in terms of safety, economy, shifting choices, or whatever?

 

"If you build it, they will come." Until it's built though, nobody knows what people will want to do with it.

 

These are cool ideas, but they just doesn't sound that life-changing. I'm cheap when it comes to cars, but my sister has a car that has all but a few of these features already, and she's not lavish with car expenditure either. Where's the "I have to have it" feature? The feature that only Apple can do right? I don't want Apple to get into cars just because a bunch of investors want Apple to do something new. Apple is a patient company that waits for the right opportunities. This doesn't seem to make investors happy, but I'm just a customer, not an investor. I'd rather have Apple focus on what it does well and what it thinks it can do well than make a bunch of bad investments that will please investors but distract management. But I guess everybody on AI owns shares (that they'll never sell yet obsess over every little twitch in the stock price of). 

 

Also, I'm sure each car company will be delighted to cooperate on common standards, provided all the other car companies agree to use its choice of standards, and pay the appropriate licensing fees to use them. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Organizational strife said to bedevil Apple's iOS in the Car intiative