Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is why Carplay/Android Auto are so key. They're safer than using your actual phone, they offer legitimate maps apps (Google Maps/Bing Maps/Apple Maps/etc), and are somewhat future proof.

Too bad the MirrorLink consortium dropped the ball so epically. MirrorLink arguably does the same thing as Carplay/Android Auto and has been deployed to millions of vehicles, but nobody uses MirrorLink 1.1, why? Because to get your app certified takes tens of thousands of dollars, months, and tons of paperwork.

Carplay/Android Auto literally exist because the MirrorLink group created so many rules, regulations, and nonsense in the name of safety that MirrorLink 1.1 has like twenty apps total after two years(!). So if your vehicle has MirrorLink on the feature list, just laugh and forget it exists, you won't be using it.

PS - MirrorLink 1.0 allowed two way screen sharing, which was legitimately useful. MirrorLink 1.1 is a very different beast, most newer cars and phones only have MirrorLink 1.1 (no 1.0 at all). 1.1 defines things like how big buttons have to be, what kind of animations can play, how many button presses to reach each task, etc. Then everything has to be certified by an independent auditor.

PPS - Most depressing part is: MirrorLink could certify Carplay/Android Auto themselves, and instantly add both to millions of existing vehicles on the road. But they're never going to simply because they're effectively in competition with both.




Why would I pay hundreds of $currency for a new head unit or thousands for a new car, if I'm already walking around with a device capable doing all that? Android Auto/Car play should just run as a dedicated mode on the phone.


Yep. A better approach these days would be to have the car dash component simply be a display/remote control surface for the phone rather than have all the software in the car.

I appreciate that approach has certain disadvantages for device and car makers, but really, the only additional value they could add from my perspective is a more convenient display location and larger, car-centric controls. The apps, the configs, accounts, audio, etc. I only ever use my phone anymore anyway.

And, yes, I have built in nav and never use it in favor of the phone. I also have a Bluetooth-to-FM relay device for the audio.


That's exactly what Android Auto is (can't speak for Carplay) --- it's a dumb terminal which is controlled by your phone. All the real software runs there.

I believe all the car provides is a screen, some speakers, a microphone and (possibly) a touch surface.


It's not a dumb terminal, it's a fully fledged car nav system from the car manufacturer, which also (secondary function) serves as an external screen for Android Auto/CarPlay. A dumb terminal would be dead until you connected the phone to it (and also cheaper).


The 2016 VW Sportwagen I does have a touch screen console either with or without Nav. The SE model and below does not have Nav and SEL does. I got the SE because it was the nicest model without Nav.

Built in Nav in cars is so shitty that I would personally pay extra to not have it.


Point taken for being a nav or not, but those touchscreens are still functional as in being a car stereo, contact manager (for BT calling), handling settings for the car computer etc.

But to answer my question why there's no standalone mode for Android Auto/Car Play - probably because they struck a deal with car vendors to sell more extras with the cars or newer cars.

So if you drive something older - fuck you and consume.


This feels familiar - I have a 2014 Volkswagen with touchscreen, bluetooth audio, calling, contact management, MirrorLink, etc. - about 1 out of 10 times upon starting the car the iPhone won't be able to connect to the car. It will only work again if I stop the car for a few minutes and start it again. Of course there are no VW software updates to be found and I'm not interested in bringing my car in to be serviced for this. All I want is Apple to be the software vendor of my car. However using CarPlay of course requires me to buy a new car. There's no upgrade path which is very, very disappointing.


I've seen that Pioneer, Alpine and the usual after market head unit vendors have options with car play. So you might not be entirely out of luck.


That's not a realistic option - most cars use their head units to control everything, from audio to car and safety settings. Those are essential features you'd be missing.


I've had this problem a long time ago (10 years) with my Honda and was able to pull out the control module out of the dash and just leave it in the space behind the new dash. But that's a case by case solution.

Honestly, the blame lies with the carmakers. They made these terrible digital dashboards in many cases with no after market upgrade paths. Obviously their incentive is sell/lease you a new car every few years... so why would they make it easy to upgrade. No incentive

Biggest reason I ended up getting the 2016 model vs 2015 (which had a much bigger discount) because of Carplay/Android auto. I won't be a frustrated by the digital NAV that never is upgraded.

I'm hoping the Carplay/Android auto compatibility is there for at least 6+ years of new phone models. But honestly I don't know how much I trust the above mentioned phone vendors.


I actually looked for a double-din touch screen with a HDMI input and audio out... and nothing else (couldn't find it).

Anything I connect to that system would be categorically better than any OEM car interface.


Agreed. I got the cheaper model of my car when I custom ordered it to not have the NAV addon because I knew I'd use my phone and didn't want to pay $2500 USD extra for my car.


My car needed the nav feature in order to get the backup camera, which is essential in cars with a poor rear view.


Even with good rear view, I find the backup camera super useful. In fact on my car I wish there was a way to have it running no matter the shifter position; I have a Ford Escape and the car must be going in reverse for the camera to activate. The most useful feature are the guide lines overlaid on the video that bend according to steering wheel position, and crosshairs that let me position my hitch to within half an inch of a trailer coupling.

Luckily the NHTSA is requiring backup cameras on 100% new cars by mid-2018.


What is it about American cars[1] and tiny rear view windows? I once got a Ford Fusion rental in the US; I was surprised how little I could see of what was behind me.

I have never had the same issue with European/Japanese vehicles.

1. My sample size is small, I could have been unlucky. Anti-glare coating on rear view mirrors on American cars makess night-time driving awesome though, I wish the European/Japanese vehicles would copy that


> Anti-glare coating on rear view mirrors on American cars makess night-time driving awesome though, I wish the European/Japanese vehicles would copy that

In Europe and Japan (and most of the rest of the world), automotive headlamps conform to the relevant ECE standard which allows for less glare compared to the US standard (defined in FMVSS 108). So, at least in those markets, the anti-glare coating isn't as necessary.


> So, at least in those markets, the anti-glare coating isn't as necessary.

Unfortunately, there are inconsiderate idiots engaging high-beams everywhere in the world.


> Anti-glare coating on rear view mirrors

The technical term is an 'electrochromatic auto-dimming rear-view mirror'. It's been an option on higher end cars/trims for the last ~5 years, even in Europe. On eBay there are DIY kits too.


Not high-end at all, my Fiesta has it as standard.

It's a fantastic feature, it just annoys me that the sensor gets hit by the car ceiling lights when they're on, so if the light is on you get a completely dark mirror. I call it a quirk because it sounds better than "terrible design".


My 2003 Mini Cooper (not very high end!) has this, as does my 2015 Subaru - it makes it incredibly hard to drive any other car that doesn't.


Anecdotally, having recently driven a rental Mercedes C200, rear visibility was abysmal there too. Luckily it had a camera. I guess it's less a European/American thing but rather depends on the car (type).


My Toyota Camry had the same limitation but I later found even the lower end models have a video in jack on the display module to connect a third party camera. Got one installed for $150 including labor.


As someone who had a 2012 Challenger, and recently went to a 2016 Challenger, have to agree... the backup camera, and moreso the blind spot indicators have been great improvements.


I have a 2016 VW Sportswagen that I use with my iPhone all the time. Everything just works and in 10 the Maps app in Carplay has gotten better.

About a month ago I was driving with a friend of mine in the passenger seat. Driving 45 minutes to some trails upstate. I asked him to put his Maps on (Android) so I don't need to get my phone out of my bad and fuck around with it while driving. He's got Galaxy 6 edge+ so I figured it just work... Boy was I wrong.

When he plugged it in nothing happened except autoplaying some music. Since I'm driving how no idea how to make it work. Turns out you need to download an App from the app store to make it work... but Android gives you no notification about it.

Then there's a whole on-boarding process you got to click through. Then you need to agree to let the Android connect to the Car all in all about 5 different agree prompts. Took about 30 minutes to get this going.

After all that the car would lose Android Auto connection with the phone every few minutes. Apparently it's a know issue with that model of Android and VW.

What a terrible experience. For a while I was thinking of getting an Android phone next time I need a new phone (break, slow/sluggish). Not going to happen now.


How horrible, you had to install a single app and click "Next" a few times!

The connectivity issues with VWs are a valid complaint, but not pushing bloat on everyones devices really isnt.


> How horrible, you had to install a single app and click "Next" a few times!

If you include the "guide" that you have the scroll through and then the 5 "Accept" popups for allowing the car to connect to the phone it's like about 9 clicks. Pretty crappy UX.

But really it's the whole process of getting setup. The Android phone didn't put up a prompt when plugged in to tell you you needed to download the Android Auto app. My friend had to Google how to make this thing work.

Compare that to the CarPlay experience. Connect, click accept once in car UI and accept in iPhone to allow the car to access it. From plugin to navigating on the dash about 30 seconds.


> If you include the "guide" that you have the scroll through and then the 5 "Accept" popups for allowing the car to connect to the phone it's like about 9 clicks. Pretty crappy UX.

Isn't that just the standard Android permission prompts?


For use-case I'm talking about he would just:

- set the destination in Android Auto friendly UI,

- clip his phone in the car holder.

Done with no extra fuckery as you described.


Because for the most part in the US its actually illegal to use that capable device while you're driving your car.


That's a regulation issue. Is it illegal to handle radio, car head units (Android Auto/Car Play being of those) and GPS devices ?

Common sense would also advise to enter the destination, set music etc. before starting to drive.


Not if you're using an interface such as Siri, I believe.


Siri's okay - Google Maps Voice is Okay but honestly whenever I have to enter an address in Google Maps I'm still plugging it in by hand.


I wonder if phone VR adapters could be useful for driving. With a wider angle camera, and maybe some AR niceties like sticking trip info below the windshield or overlay the nav directions on top of the roadway I could totally get into it. And I would kill for something that solves the solar glare issue.


> Why would I pay hundreds of $currency for a new head unit or thousands for a new car

Larger display and physical buttons are really quite a good idea when you're driving 2 tons of steel at 60mph.


> Larger display and physical buttons

GPS units like Garmin use touchscreen instead of physical buttons and are safe, road legal. Tesla ships cars with a huge touchscreen console - safe and road legal. That's a pretty weak excuse.

We could also debate that things that hinder concentration while handling "2 tones of steel" are :

- listening to the radio,

- talking to the passenger(s),

- singing.


Looking at billboards


I think display placement is much more important than size. Using a phone for nav that's sitting in your cupholder is terribly dangerous, but using one clipped to your dash inside your field of view seems okay.


The problem with Android Auto, at least by the test I saw done by c't magazine is that it doesn't always work. It's a M android device to N cars relationship, creating a lot of combinations that need to be tested. At least in the test I saw if it worked depended on the phone. Pretty much the same problem miracast has and why google probably developed the chromecast.

I guess MirrorLink is trying to solve that problem by more thorough testing.


> It's a M android device to N cars relationship, creating a lot of combinations that need to be tested

I'm certain that Android Auto compatibility is part of the Android Compatibility Test Suite that all OHA OEMs have to run for phones in order to get Google apps. The tests probably are not perfect


The average age of cars on the road in the US is something like 11 years [0]

Even if CarPlay/Android Auto last more than five years, I expect new versions will come out which render old vehicles incompatible.

[0] http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ihs-average-c...


Why would new versions cause incompatibility?

Carplay/Android Auto are just, at their core, dumb protocols for transmitting screen information and receiving back touch inputs. If you go disassemble Mirrorlink 1.1 apps they use the VNC protocol behind the scenes, the protocol isn't complex (the certification nonsense is all artificially added).

The reason for the fragmentation and pain in this particular space (infotainment units) is a combination of: raw greed, vehicle makers trying in vein to retain control, not-invented-here syndrome, and "safety."

The only issue I see with Carplay/Android Auto is that Apple & Google should have worked together to create a single protocol, which would have made implementation easier and likely resulted in a faster rollout. They both benefit by having the infotainment unit hand off to their respective smartphone OS.


> Why would new versions cause incompatibility?

Because CarPlay in 2016 doesn't support the new hotness of 2018, because we are an industry of attention-deficit twentysomethings.

Granted, were I forced to choose between attention-deficit twentysomethings and bureaucratic, glacial fiftysomethings … well honestly, I don't know which I'd choose.


I believe you're describing the choice between Tesla and Mercedes...


If you're describing mercedes as the glacial50somethings, you're not aware that more often than not Mercedes are the first to market with a huge amount of every feature imaginable in the history of automaking. Want to see what features regular cars will have in 10 years? Go check out an S class today.

Things like onboard navigation, voice controls, parking sensors? All 90s technology on the S class. Autopilot came before the Tesla's, radars, adaptive suspension, etc are all things from several years ago in the S class land.

They just use that line to showcase all the cool things that a car can do.


Believe it or not, Android Auto and Carplay are a single standard underneath. They both use the same core technologies (very similar to Miracast) to do what they do.


Apple takes backwards-compatibility very seriously for MFi protocols, because they know that the "accessories" are cars that people keep for a long time. I used to work at a company making iPod car kits--we took an interface from 2006 (with a hard-wired 30-pin connector), hooked it through a FireWire->USB charging adapter, a 30-pin->Lightning adapter, and it worked fine with an iPhone 6.


I distinctly remember iPhones complaining about "obsolete device" when plugging them into a few years old Audi and VW cars around iPhone 4 era. That was then followed up with connectivity and charging issues.

So what was the deal with that?


I have an old car and it definitely doesn't work with anything newer than a 2G iPhone. No errors indicated, just can't hack it. It does work with a usb stick full of mp3s, though.


Could be FireWire charging--the original iPhone and earlier iPods could charge off 12V (FireWire), whereas the 3G and up only took 5V (USB). Adapters were available (although Apple didn't make them themselves)

Also with the early iPhones, if accessories were just "Made for iPod" certified but not "Made for iPhone" (which usually required TDMA emissions testing and iPhone testing) a message would pop up.


Standards can last a fairly long time. DVI and 802.11b are both over 16 years old and backwards compatibility is still common.

Even if they just default to a remote desktop with touch screen interface, that's still fine for most in car applications.


>They're safer than using your actual phone

Not sure about that. In many cars you have to take your eyes pretty far down from the road to look at the radio. Touchscreens honestly don't belong down there, I'd much rather have physical controls I can operate by feel.

Phones can be mounted in the visual scan across the windshield (close and small enough to not occlude anything).


Yup, bought a new Accord specifically for CarPlay/Android Auto support over all the competitors models.

CarPlay works well enough though no Google Maps, having issues with Android Auto mostly due to issues on my phone side :(


Similar here. Bought Civic '16 specifically b/c it comes w/ Android Auto + Carplay! Has been working pretty smoothly with my Nexus 5X.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: