gatorguy

Blackwhitepanda said:

Right move. What Prosser did, was not a rumor. It was stealing secrets. 

whitehusky said:

chasm said:

Thanks for this eye-opening article. This is a lot more information than I would have guessed smart TVs collect. We watch, but we are truly being watched as well.

One alternative way to minimize this issue is to use the Apple TV hardware device rather than your smart TV's interface, which is usually ad-cluttered and poorly-designed anyway. The Apple TV's interface is far more pleasing and doesn't offer any direct ads, though it does show images and previews of shows for various services (including Apple TV+) at the top. This can be

I don't have one of the brands profiled above, but it's likely that some degree of what's detailed in the article is probably happening with most other brands, or soon will be.

If you don't have an Apple TV box, get one. If you can't get one for some reason, disconnect your smart TV from the internet after first checking for a firmware update and allowing that if one is available. Most cable companies now offer services like Disney+ and Netflix (et al) through your cable service rather than you having to subscribe directly, and in some cases that works out cheaper (and consolidates those services into one bill).

You can reconnect the TV to an internet connection on an annual basis to check for firmware updates, but I'd suggest leaving the TV "dumb" as much as possible for your situation.

This is what we do - the TV is not connected to the internet/wifi, and we watch literally everything through all Apple TV box. Maybe one a year or so I'll look online to see if there's a firmware update and update it manually. I just want the TV to be a dumb monitor and Apple TV to be the box I watch everything from.

MplsP said:

gatorguy said:

MplsP said:

AppleZulu said:

cropr said:

sflagel said:

robin huber said:

sflagel said:

it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better. 

Who said all? We’re talking about user-facing information systems. Car manufacturers have farmed out components and subsystems from day one. Brakes, batteries, transmissions, gauges, radios, generators, on and on. More to the point, putting Bose, Harmon-Kardon and many other name brand audio systems is a selling point. Why should this be any different?

CarPlay Ultra is not just the display of car metrics, it also is the interface with, e.g., A/C, suspension settings, drive modes, alarm modes, etc. Apple CarPlay Ultra is upstream from the control systems and chips; before long, Apple will be dictating which chips the car manufacturers should use and what software architecture they should build. There is a big difference between buying batteries from Bosch and letting Apple control the central nervous system of the car.

Are you sure of that.  I thought CarPlayUltra is offering an API to the car internal system, but it does leave the choice of any car component to the car manufacturer.

But I do agree that car manufacturers are reluctant to hand over control to an external party who manages the display and its UI for everything that is not music.  What if  Car Play Ultra drives, for whatever reason, a car critical component in a such a way that the car is about to crash.  Who will take responsibility?

The car manufacturer might not have the best skill to develop a great UI on a touch screen, but a car manufacturer has much higher skill level  than Apple when it comes to handling car critical exceptions in real time.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Ultra is meant to do. It will Apple-ize the instrument cluster display (with carmaker-branded customization) and perhaps let you control some things like A/C via touchscreen or Siri, but I don't think they're moving control of features like adaptive cruise control, emergency braking or lane assist onto your iPhone. Displays related to these things might be tweaked with Apple fonts and color schemes, but the features themselves would still live in the car, and revert to the car's default display if your iPhone crashed while you're driving. I'm pretty sure the carmakers' and and Apple's lawyers would be in complete agreement about that. 

This. If you are confused, watch one of the videos. 

As far as I can understand, one of the more obvious differences between Android Automotive and CarPlay Ultra is that Apple requires an iPhone running iOS12 or higher and Apple Services to make it work. Using Android Automotive does not mean automakers also have to accept Google Services, or that the owner must have an Android phone. But if you do have a phone it will operate the same whether it's Android or iOS. Apple CarPlay Ultra will not.

I see things as Apple trying to limit the advantages of in-vehicle smartphone use to iOS devices since the CarPlay Ultra interface won't work without one, disadvantage anyone who owns not-an-iPhone. Android Automotive doesn't care.

TLDR: Android Automotive works as the UX whether the owner has an Android phone, iPhone, or no phone at all. CarPlay Ultra will not.  If my understanding is wrong, feel free to post a correction source. 

Again, you appear to be conflating the manufacturer’s use of Android Automotive OS with Android Auto and CarPlay. Yes, google totally botched the naming, since Auto is short for automotive the names are incredibly confusing but the two are separate. 

The car OS, whatever it is, interfaces with either an iPhone or an Android Phone. 
If the car OS allows it and the phone is new enough, the driver can take advantage of CarPlay ultra features.
If the phone is older or the car doesn’t allow for CarPlay Ultra features it can still use CarPlay Classic or Android Auto
Note GM uses Android Automotive as an OS for its cars and doesn’t allow either CarPlay or Android Auto. 

The compatibility is entirely dependent on the manufacturers implementation and decisions. Likewise, you can use Android Automotive to build either a stellar interface or the world’s crappiest interface. Google just makes the basic OS, the manufactures write the code that runs on it.

CarPlay Ultra is not an OS and is not assuming control of any of the car’s functions. It’s an extension of CarPlay whereby the car OS uses the CarPlay interface. It’s essentially a ‘skin’ for the car displays.

See the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Automotive

“ In contrast to Android Auto, Android Automotive is a full operating system running on the vehicle's device, not relying on a smartphone to operate.”

MplsP said:

AppleZulu said:

cropr said:

sflagel said:

robin huber said:

sflagel said:

it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better. 

Who said all? We’re talking about user-facing information systems. Car manufacturers have farmed out components and subsystems from day one. Brakes, batteries, transmissions, gauges, radios, generators, on and on. More to the point, putting Bose, Harmon-Kardon and many other name brand audio systems is a selling point. Why should this be any different?

CarPlay Ultra is not just the display of car metrics, it also is the interface with, e.g., A/C, suspension settings, drive modes, alarm modes, etc. Apple CarPlay Ultra is upstream from the control systems and chips; before long, Apple will be dictating which chips the car manufacturers should use and what software architecture they should build. There is a big difference between buying batteries from Bosch and letting Apple control the central nervous system of the car.

Are you sure of that.  I thought CarPlayUltra is offering an API to the car internal system, but it does leave the choice of any car component to the car manufacturer.

But I do agree that car manufacturers are reluctant to hand over control to an external party who manages the display and its UI for everything that is not music.  What if  Car Play Ultra drives, for whatever reason, a car critical component in a such a way that the car is about to crash.  Who will take responsibility?

The car manufacturer might not have the best skill to develop a great UI on a touch screen, but a car manufacturer has much higher skill level  than Apple when it comes to handling car critical exceptions in real time.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Ultra is meant to do. It will Apple-ize the instrument cluster display (with carmaker-branded customization) and perhaps let you control some things like A/C via touchscreen or Siri, but I don't think they're moving control of features like adaptive cruise control, emergency braking or lane assist onto your iPhone. Displays related to these things might be tweaked with Apple fonts and color schemes, but the features themselves would still live in the car, and revert to the car's default display if your iPhone crashed while you're driving. I'm pretty sure the carmakers' and and Apple's lawyers would be in complete agreement about that. 

This. If you are confused, watch one of the videos. 

AppleBighter said:

gatorguy said:

IreneW said:

Both Renault and Volvo are mentioned in the article, and both of them are flagship partners implementing Android Automotive.
So it is not a question of total control, I guess, but in what way the product is offered.

There's a good reason for that. Android Automotive does not require the manufacturer to commit to Google services. It can offer most if not all the same UX benefits of Car Play Ultra while letting the manufacturers determine the services. Android Automotive is also user-friendly for both iPhone and Android owners.  Want to use CarPlay under Android Automotive, no problem.

I don't know whether Car Play Ultra offers the same freedom, but perhaps someone here knows the facts. My sense is it does not, thus more reticence on the part of automakers to rely on Car Play Ultra integration.

I have a car with Android Automotive (Perhaps the most confusing name ever) and it's an abomination.  And no it does not, at least on GM, work with CarPlay or Android Auto.  The whole system in confusing to use and horribly laid out and after over a week at the dealer, over the course of a year, for software updates, is still buggy as hell.  I would suggest that anyone thinking of buying a car with "Automotive" consider their tolerance and patience for crappy software. 
And to be clear, The UX benefits are not what make CarPlay so useful.  It's the fact that I have my information, usage records, everything on one device - my phone and don't have to transfer it between the car and my phone.  I'm not an Android user and probably never will be so I don't know if "Automotive" makes this simpler with those phones.  But, I'm pretty sure it would do it through Google's cloud services with all privacy concerns and connection issues that implies as you must be logging into Google all the time to us any of there services in the car.