gatorguy

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.

migselv said:

mike1 said:

flagel 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?

Branded audio is nowhere near as involved or complicated as a complete handover of the car's entire user interface. Of course, the car companies use subcontractors for many subsystems, but they still retain control over the way they operate, look and feel in their own vehicles. For example, Harman (parent company of Harman Kardon audio) provides the basic electronics infrastructure for many car brands, but the car companies control the integration and UI aspects. 

First off Harman Kardon's parent company is Samsung and the audio systems are highly integrated in the cars infotainment systems and is often designed to look like a part of the overall "experience"

The article states: Car manufacturers Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Volvo, Polestar, and Renault told the Financial Times that they have no interest to include CarPlay Ultra support in their vehicles. The list includes manufacturers that Apple previously indicated were going to use the software. 

Funnily enough those are all Google worshipers in the sense that the all have based their systems om Android Automotive, one could easily suspect that there is a clause in the contract with Goole that states that CarPlay Ultra is not allowed (or they have made it very difficult to implement)

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.

sunman42 said:

22july2013 said:

If everyone who writes a comment on this page will send a fee to Dr Seuss for learning from his books to read and speak, then I will pay attention to their views if they oppose AI learning from published sources. But if you aren't willing to pay everyone that you learn from, for every word that comes out of your mouth, then I don't see why AI should have to pay either. Next, are we going to charge aliens for learning English by reading the radio waves that are being sent into deep space?

That’s the point, though: libraries, schools, or whatever grownup bought that book that helped you learn to read paid Dr. Seuss’s publisher, who paid him and his agent. And school teachers, under the fair use clause, could make copies of excerpts of those books to help in reading lessons. Where does any AI outfit other than Apple pay for anything the engines are scraping?

But you’re on the right track on one thing: we should definitely start beaming Dr. Seuss books to the stars.