
Car Navigation Systems Plot a Course Forward Against Phone Apps - uptown
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/business/car-navigation-systems-apps.html
======
braythwayt
Almost nothing these companies are bragging they will do in the future is
stuff that phone apps cannot or will not replicate.

For example, they think that they can scrape data about traffic from thousands
or millions of connected cars. Yay! But Apple and Google can scrape location
data from millions of devices, and you don't have to own a car to give them
useful data, they can scrape traffic flow from people riding on buses or in
other people's cars.

Obviously, there are privacy and permissions issues, but on the whole I would
say that the only thing propping up companies developing in-car navigation is
that they help car companies make money. There is close to zero actual
customer benefit. And that sounds an awful lot to me like exactly the kind of
market that technology has been successfully disrupting for decades: Old-line
businesses built on business models that are customer-hostile, but survived
because there was no effective way to compete in a closed industry.

~~~
ProblemFactory
> For example, they think that they can scrape data about traffic from
> thousands or millions of connected cars.

It's not something Google/Waze _could_ also do, it's what they already have
been doing for years.

Google Maps has great traffic speed and accidents layer for all large cities
in the world. And already uses it for routing, time estimates, and even
calendar alerts like "leave early because of high traffic".

------
lsiunsuex
I use both on a weekly basis.

The wife's 2016 Acura RDX (was mine) has the navigation / technology package.
It's 2 screens (no idea why) where 1 controls the radio, phone, settings and
the other is full time dedicated to navigation. It's often gotten confused
where we actually live (there is another street with the same name a few towns
over), it's slow; it often wants to take us on a less then ideal route and who
knows the last time it was updated - probably never because I'm not paying the
$400 / year for the service.

VS on my 2016 Mustang which Ford was kind enough to send out an update for
Sync 3 + an $80 USB module upgrade to allow the car to have Carplay. I get in
the car, plug my iPhone in, turn on the car, the center console immediately
flips to Carplay, begins to play whatever music I left off on and Apple Maps
is 1 touch away. I can tell Siri to route to where I need to go or look it up
quickly. The map is always up to date; shows traffic and is quick to the
touch.

I'll take Carplay over anything on the market right now. BMW charging monthly
/ yearly for it is bull __ __but if I had one, I 'd probably pay. I like it
that much.

Naively, this is the 2nd Acura we've had back to back without Carplay and now
that I use it daily on the Mustang, there will not be a third. The next car
has it, or we don't purchase / lease it.

~~~
raisedbyninjas
If my backup camera could route its video onto my phone, I'd never have a
reason to look at or listen to the infotainment system. A camera, an OBDII
dongle to see when you're in reverse and some software to manage it and stream
it over WIFI would solve this.

~~~
braythwayt
This existed, although I believe they shut down after a year or so:

[https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/27/pearls-rearvision-is-a-
bac...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/27/pearls-rearvision-is-a-backup-
camera-for-those-who-want-the-best-rear-view/)

------
cptskippy
> Buyers of Alfa Romeo’s base Giulia model who want Sirius XM satellite radio
> must take the navigation system, too — at a cost of $1,900.

I wanted Bluetooth A2DP so I had to buy the navigation system and Sirus XM
radio package, neither of which are features I want in my car. In fact I would
probably pay money to have them removed.

> Even with their limitations, in-dash systems have some advantages. They’re
> convenient and uncluttered. There’s no need to find a way to suspend a
> smartphone and its dangling charge cable in the middle of the instrument
> panel. They use a vehicle’s built-in controls, and there’s no danger of
> running out of power.

I wouldn't say my car's layout is convenient at all. If anything it's poorly
thought out and requires me to take my eyes off the road to use. Instead of
dials that are easy to grope for volume and fan speed, I have 4 identical
buttons with no tactile distinguishing characteristics. The 10 buttons around
the navigation screen are identical and of the 10, I will only ever use 3 of
them.

I would actually pay extra for a car that omitted the nav/stereo system
bullshit in favor of a bluetooth endpoint that could pair with more than 3
devices and a place to plug my phone in to charge.

~~~
linuxps2
Also, the move in in-car systems has been to essentially mirror the phone
whether through CarPlay or Android Auto. I don't see how legacy navigation
systems can even come close to competing in this space

------
mikevp
Without lifetime (and I _do_ mean _lifetime_ ) map updates, a built-in
navigation system is a complete non-starter for me.

I bought my current car with a navigation system in 2008. It's _massively_
annoying to me that Toyota charges more for a single map update than Garmin
and Tom-Tom do for a brand new GPS unit with lifetime map updates included.

Not to mention I've already got a far superior navigation system on my phone.

I keep cars for a long time. I drove my previous car for 22 years.

~~~
CamperBob2
Toyota probably signed unfavorable deals with their OEM that require them to
pay hefty royalties on every map update. The terms may have seemed reasonable
at the time, and now they're stuck with them. It may not be entirely their
fault.

~~~
milkytron
Do you have any evidence of this, or this happening to other car
manufacturers?

~~~
CamperBob2
No, just experience in other industries.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses for Toyota. I get the same BS from
my own car's manufacturer. Their map updates are more like $300, and even the
dealer thinks it's a galactic ripoff.

------
jbob2000
Car Navigation Systems Arrogantly Charge Forward Against Products That Are A
Decade Ahead of Them.

You know what's great about have maps on my phone? I can get out of my car and
walk and still have my route mapped in. Don't even get me started about the
amount of features in Google Maps vs. in-car nav.

That being said; When I'm in the car driving, using the navigation package is
much more seamless than doing it on the phone. My Mercedes is all voice
controlled and works very well. Press button on steering wheel -> say "Enter
destination" -> say "123 main st city ville" -> Route mapped. There's a few
more steps to do this on mobile, so I prefer to use the car's navigation
system.

A proper solution would be let me route voice control to my phone somehow;
turn the car interface into a peripheral for my phone.

~~~
r00fus
Agreed. Nav systems usually don't do address lookup right, can't "take me to
the nearest in n' out" and generally are years behind GMaps/AMaps UX.

They also don't know (unless they slurp) my contacts addresses - and I'm not
going to willing give up that info.

Give me Android Auto/CarPlay and call it a day. I'm happy I can pull a lever
on my steering wheel and let my phone guide me through the head-end display -
esp. if I want to pull up directions _not using car speaker_ and instead
through my BT earbuds (think: night driving - kids asleep but I want step-by-
step directions).

~~~
sli
My mom's BMW had the most bizarre method. You'd have to search through a
database of every city in the country (without narrowing it down by state
first), then input only the first letter of the street, then scroll through
the list to find the street you need. Simply typing the street name in full
was not an option, you were allowed only one character(or maybe three, it's
been a while). This was all done entirely with knobs and buttons, no
touchscreen. Easily the most clunky nav system I've ever used.

It was also wildly out of date.

Needless to say, everyone who drove it used their phone, because Google Maps
was already more advanced and easier to use before that car was even built.

~~~
r00fus
Holy smokes - that's the same as the cheapo aftermarket GPS system my in-laws
in France owned (that we borrowed while going between family houses).

Acceptable for the 800km cross-country trip but not so hot for the quick 20km
outing to a new resto.

Given the drive included portions where our Free-data TMO plan didn't cover,
we had to rely on that nav system for the long trips.

------
cgy1
To update the navigational system of the car I bought 2 years ago (a 2015
model) requires me going to the dealer and spending hundreds of dollars, which
is a complete ripoff compared with using Google Maps or Apple Maps on my
phone.

~~~
cortesoft
Yeah, it pisses me off to no end when I was getting letters saying 'Act now to
get a discounted price for your latest map updates! Only $99 if you order
before March!'

What? I need to pay every year to have map updates, when there are so many
other services that give you instant updates for free, and include way more
services than you have?

Not to mention that the time estimates are horrible, the traffic routing
usually makes my trip worse, and the interface is clunky.

------
niftich
This is a fight between smartphone-default map apps (Google Maps, Apple Maps),
and other map networks that come integrated in a different product, like a car
or a standalone GPS unit. The article chooses HERE to represent the latter,
whose lineage includes NAVTEQ and Nokia Maps, and was bought by the German
automakers in 2015 -- but NAVTEQ has been providing map data to GPS maker
Garmin for a long time.

Everyone's vying for mindshare and marketshare, and machinating in ways to
gain independence from companies who could become competitors. HERE doesn't
have the power of being platform-default on smartphones, but does offer
smartphone apps as well. Presumably, these could integrate with the fixed
units to allow for seamless transfer of state. Meanwhile, Google and Apple are
lobbying other automakers to defer their in-car infotainment systems to their
integration instead.

In my mind, Google and Apple would appear to have the upper hand, being able
to make the case that they represent a user's discretionary choice, instead of
a captive platform that ships with a car. But on the other hand, as those
companies have shown, the power of defaults is strong, and if HERE delivers a
good experience inside cars, some people will begin using HERE on their phones
as well, weakening Google and Apple's grip on the market.

The question of ongoing revenue streams adds an additional complication. If
carmakers begin requiring additional, recurring fees to make use of this
service, that could blow back on HERE's platform as well, because no one likes
to be nickel-and-dimed where comparable alternatives exist. And in situations
where carmakers charge extra for Google and/or Apple integration, their heavy-
handed approach to steer people towards their own platform will evoke
additional consumer ire.

------
olivermarks
I want full control of my data and information about my movements. I'm not
interested in buying an expensive vehicle and then having to also pay to
upgrade devices which are monetizing my data for the manufacturer.

------
valuearb
I want to buy my wife a new car, but when I priced it out I found out it cost
$3,000 for CarPlay ($1,500 for their standard navigation system, plus another
$1,500 for the Car Play compatible components).

It helped me realize we don't need a new car.

~~~
lotsofpulp
I installed CarPlay in my car for $400 plus 2 hours of my time. It was a Sony
unit, should come up first thing in searches.

~~~
poloniculmov
That's if you have a standard radio. I have a Ford Focus and to replace the
radio with a 2DIN unit, i need to buy a new frame and a bunch of adapters.

------
ocdtrekkie
I'd far rather my car be useful without my phone. I've switched phone
platforms back and forth a number of times, and my car works as it's supposed
to. The technology in phones is cheap, and it's trivial to integrate it into
cars, there's no reason to go looking to Apple or Google here.

Car companies _do_ need to get with the times on software updates being free.
If they don't want to spring for embedded 4G, it's likely using your phone as
a hotspot or even connecting to your home wireless when you're nearby to get
updates is pretty reasonable.

------
linsomniac
In my Tesla, I usually forget I can ask it to navigate somewhere for me, and
instead ask my phone. Part of this is even in the Tesla, Android still does a
better job. Part of this is the Tesla is just harder to make do the job.

Unless I'm going long distance and need to route through superchargers, or
know what my charge will be at the destination. Then the integration with the
car is critical.

------
jdlyga
They're just thinking about this now? I switched to using my phone with Waze
full time over a standalone GPS 5 years ago.

------
nfRfqX5n
BMW latest iDrive does it quite well. Paired with the Heads-up Display and you
can see directions on the windshield glass without having to take your
attention off the road. I always use my car's nav over phone nav.

