
Most drivers who own cars with built-in GPS systems use phones for directions - bmark757
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/10/autos/car-navigation-frustration/index.html?iid=SF_River
======
bvinc
I had an interesting experience recently that I think summarizes this whole
problem.

I was in another city and rented a car and it came with navigation. I knew I
could just use my phone, but I decided to use the navigation that the rental
car came with, just for fun.

1\. First, I knew the name of my hotel, but not the address. I tried to search
the business directory. I had to input the CITY AND STATE, which is painfully
slow on the pressure-based touch screen, but I did it and did a search. I
couldn't find it.

2\. So I took out my phone and found the address and went back to the
navigation in my car to type it in.

3\. I slowly input the city and state again before it lets me input an address
starting with the number.

4\. When it came time to pick the street name, it was ambiguous. There's one
street name that looks right. There's another with a W in front of it. There's
another highway number that could also be it. I pick one and I can tell it's
not in the right spot. Now I have to start all over.

5\. I start all over, input the city and state and address and I think I have
it right. I start to navigate.

6\. It can't find a GPS signal. Maybe it's the parking garage I'm in. Maybe it
just takes a while. I sit there. I'm about 10 minutes in and I still haven't
gotten any navigation instructions.

7\. I get nervous because I won't even know what direction to turn when I
leave the parking garage. I take out my phone and say "Ok google, navigate to
the blah blah Hotel". It says "Ok, sure" and my phone has no problems finding
GPS and I have navigation instructions pulled up in about 5 seconds.

~~~
dingaling
> and my phone has no problems finding GPS and I have navigation instructions
> pulled up in about 5 seconds.

That's because your phone isn't actually using GPS ( e.g. Navstar or Glonass )
at that point, it's using cell triangulation or wifi-based location.

For example the fastest possible first-fix with Navstar from a warm-start,
using cached prior-location and ephemerides, is 30 seconds[0]. From a cold (
position-unknown ) start, such as a car nav-system powered-down in a parking-
lot for an extended period, the first-fix will take longer than 12 minutes.
There is no technological way around that, it is an artifact of the system
architecture.

[0] and that's for a top-end receiver than can sync to four satellites
'simultaneously' using time-division.

~~~
panic
How often do cars change position while powered down? That is, why not always
(even on "cold start") use the last known position as a starting guess? How do
phones get GPS-quality location data even immediately after being rebooted?

~~~
dismantlethesun
Annectodatally, I remember that some years ago my phone used to take 5-10
minutes to find GPS whenever I asked for directions. Now adays, it's
instantaneous.

The software has improved dramatically, using some combination of previously
saved location, WIFI triangulation, and dead reconning to figure out a near
accurate location to within 50 feet so long as you're in a city.

Car navigation systems can do better. They're not even 'pure' GPS services,
they have access to mobile cell, they do online updates for maps, and their
accelerometers are far better than phones. The software though is simply worse
than what Google can provide.

------
bsder
How about: "Can't set new route while car is in motion?"

If you ever block me from doing something on a computer _that I know it can
do_ , I will hate you forever.

You know, I might have a _passenger_ who could work the nav system, but, oh,
no, the car is moving so you can't enter a new destination.

So many people disabled this "feature" on the Prius nav system that Toyota
_removed the ability to disable it_. I kid you not.

And then they wonder why everybody uses their phone.

~~~
pkaye
I think some states have laws that restrict navigation control access when car
is in motion.

~~~
danpat
Interestingly, according to this summary:

[http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/telematics/](http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/telematics/)

there are _exemptions_ of some kind for navigation systems in many places.

I've heard "it's not allowed by law" often, but I have yet to track down the
actual law. Hopefully automakers aren't doing this based on hearsay....

~~~
derekp7
no, they are doing it to prevent lawsuits. In fact, on Ford's Sync 3 system,
they have a huge disclaimer that pops up when you enable Android Auto or Apple
Carplay, saying that anything that comes up on the car's screen is controlled
by Android (or Apple) and therefore Ford is not liable -- go sue them instead.

------
Someone1234
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.

~~~
tdkl
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.

~~~
masklinn
> 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.

~~~
tdkl
> 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.

~~~
dexterdog
Looking at billboards

------
pwthornton
Smartphone maps are so superior because they are always up to date, can
provide real-time traffic data, can tell you to take an alternative route and
can provide other data about places to eat, etc.

While a lot of car GPSs have some of this, they are no where near what Google
Maps or Apple Maps (or a targeted app like Waze) has. I bought a new car last
year, and intentionally didn't get the GPS, even though my car has a 7-inch
touchscreen. I would never use those crappy maps when I have my phone with me.
If the car supported Carplay, I would 100% use maps through that.

This is why Carplay and Android Auto are the future. Their apps, APIs and data
are so superior to whatever car companies can come up with.

~~~
seanp2k2
Yeah, I'm not sure why car companies invested at all in attempting to build
their own mapping software. It's a hard thing to do well, and I had been using
GPS in the car since Windows 98 + Microsoft Streets + Garmin eMap + serial
adapter running NEMA days. PC or smartphone navigation software has always
been better than what is available in cars. Additionally, while the upgrade
cycle for phones is yearly for some people, the upgrade cycle for cars can be
10 years or more, and good luck ever getting a software upgrade after buying a
car.

Whatever car I buy next, I wouldn't buy without CarPlay. There are also
replacement stereos which support this (e.g. Pioneer appradio) but given how
most cars don't still use a 2 DIN slot for the radio and have much more
integrated systems (drive modes, HVAC controls, etc on the "radio"), it's not
even possible to upgrade many without losing significant factory
functionality.

My hope is that auto mfgs wise up and realize that they've been wasting
billions developing these in-house systems, and instead switch to just having
the car be a dumb monitor + speakers with a connection to your phone which
runs all of the non-critical systems.

~~~
hx87
I've always wondered why it took manufacturers so long to put in a 3.5mm jack
into head units--it would have saved us a lot of awful tape adapters in the
90s and CD changer emulators in the 2000s.

~~~
eric_h
Ha, and apple just removed the 3.5mm jack from their phones. Perhaps the
entire reason for it was to get CarPlay into more cars :P

~~~
Bud
No. It wasn't. And by the way, the iPhone 7 can still output to a 3.5mm aux
jack just fine, which you probably already knew, or should know.

~~~
stuffmatters
And then you can't charge it. Terrible trade-off.

~~~
josephg
I know its trendy right now to hate on the removal of the 35mm headphone jack
but this comment is simply false. You can charge it while using the headphone
jack - you just need a silly dongle or a dock to do it.

[http://www.belkin.com/au/p/P-F8J198/](http://www.belkin.com/au/p/P-F8J198/)

[http://www.apple.com/au/shop/product/MGRM2AM/A/iphone-
lightn...](http://www.apple.com/au/shop/product/MGRM2AM/A/iphone-lightning-
dock-white)

~~~
saiya-jin
which is less than any super cheap android/whatever can do. seriously, wrong
and arrogant move. if we users are stupid enough to vote with our money for
this, then of course it's all our fault collectively. i know i won't

------
jasode
Another reason not mentioned by the article is map _updates_. Lexus charges
$169+ to update the map data and requires a dealer appointment. A smartphone
with google/Apple maps is always more up-to-date.

If you're buying a new car today, the reason to get navigation is for the _LCD
screen_ and not for the GPS. The LCD is used to see the rear view camera image
for parking. Also, playing music shows the song titles.

~~~
macjohnmcc
We bought a Gamin GPS for my wife as she prefers it over using a phone for
navigation. It has lifetime map updates and costs less than the map update for
my car's built in navigation. It's also far superior in several ways including
knowing the speed limit on more roads, showing the name of the upcoming cross
streets and better multi-lane information. I personally tend to use Waze on my
phone but like the Garmin navigation experience more overall.

~~~
gmarx
Better multi lane information is great. I would also like better info on which
lane to be in for a turn taking account of the fact that soon after I need to
make another turn and don't want to have to cut across a lane to make it

~~~
ajmurmann
This can't be said often enough! Whenever I am driving somewhere new I
constantly have to look at the screen to see on the map what the turn after
the upcoming one is going to be so that I can chose the right lane. For that
very reason my wife and I still tend to have the passenger navigate which
comes down to supplementing the Waze directions which information about what
lane to likely chose depending on the turn after the next. To me this seems
like a obvious short coming and I am surprised it's not a feature one can
commonly expect.

------
dsfyu404ed
Semi unrelated question: Am I the only one who wished navigation apps allowed
more precise control of route complexity?

Just a slider that goes between "minimum number of turns" and "most efficient"
would be nice. Optimizing a route for complexity vs efficiency is a very
important consideration when planning a route. A way to do that in a
navigation app would be really nice. I appreciate the intention but taking
four extra turns and a one way street or two to save one minute when going
somewhere that's one turn off a main road is rarely a good idea. If I'm
driving rural state highways for three hours I'd much prefer to go 150mi on
two roads than go 120mi on ten roads.

~~~
closeparen
I want "I am unwilling to make u-turns." They are illegal by default in the
city of Chicago, but if you miss a turn, Google will try to get you to make a
dangerous and illegal u-turn. If you ignore that, it'll suggest you another
one further down the road. No thanks, I'm not turning around on Michigan Ave
at rush hour.

I've looked into this. Apparently you set turn restrictions per-intersection
in the maps data editor. No one has the patience to go check "u-turn not
permitted" on all the Chicago intersections that don't have it currently, so
we're stuck without major architectural changes from Google.

"Avoid u-turns" should be next to "avoid highways."

~~~
sn9
The fact that you can't default to skipping tollways is ridiculous.

I have to manually toggle that every freaking time in a city with tolled
roads. And you usually only end up saving a minute or two over free routes.

------
RankingMember
It never made sense to me why you'd want to have a built-in GPS these days
when modular devices are available that are A. generally better-designed and
B. replaceable. People buying used cars in the coming years will be stuck with
these big-screened dinosaurs in their dash that are essentially wasted space.

~~~
jbob2000
My car has voice-control, so I press a button on the steering wheel, speak my
destination, and I'm good to go. It works really well. I can't do this easily
on a smartphone while I'm driving.

The "big-screen dinosaur" is incredibly helpful for showing routes and
directions, much better than the dinky smartphone screen.

~~~
lallysingh
This depends on your car model. Many (like mine) have horrible voice control
systems.

~~~
6DM
I found that for my Ford Edge, I basically have to shout at it before it
understands me. My wife laughs at me every time.

~~~
gol706
I have the exact same car and problem. I think her laughing is making it even
harder for the voice recognition but it's hard to prove.

------
korethr
As a counterpoint to the comments here bringing up the point that the maps on
one's phone are always up to date, I'll bring up the point of offline access.

Yes, often the maps are bad, out of date, and require one to go the dealer and
pay money to get an update. However, once out of the city, and cellular data
ceases to be a thing, Google maps and similar applications built with an
assumption of an always-available Internet connection become kind of useless.
Yes, you can add maps for the areas you are planning to be to your offline
areas, but that requires planning ahead. And if you ended up somewhere you
didn't plan to be, well, good luck.

The UI for these in-car navigation systems is bad, but at least you have _a
map_, instead of a featureless void with a blue You Are Here in the middle.
Personally, I like a map book for such situations. Sure, it's ancient and
obsolete technology, is quickly out of date, but the UI is quick an easy to
learn, and it doesn't require power to use.

~~~
astrodust
I have a stupid question: Why is the user interface on a $30K car _so bad_
compared to a $99 smart phone you can buy at the drug store?

What is with the garbage they call software these days? The response time on
some of these in-dash systems can be measured in seconds.

~~~
sliken
The CPU, Display, etc of a car is designed extremely conservatively. Cars
lasting 20 years are not uncommon, vibration, temperature extremes, and direct
physical abuse (kids, fingers, ice cream, feet, fists, pounding, etc). Not to
mention being turned off for months. Car buyers are also pretty sensitive
about monthly costs (thus no data connection).

Your smartphone is designed to die around 2 years (expoxied battery), is
designed for something like 40F - 100F, and will survive a light rain if you
are lucky. All the while charging you $50 a month.

The 2 year phone replacement cycle used to be driven by innovation and large
performance/capability increases. Which have pretty much stopped. 2 year
contracts on sponsored phones used to drive them as well, mostly stopped. So
manufactures seem to have decided on making phones 0.6mm slimmer and expoxing
in the battery to drive the replacement cycle.

~~~
duaneb
You just made a great argument for investing MORE in GPS software in a car
than in the phone: get it right the first time so you aren't stuck with
useless software for two decades–that's a waste of everyone's time and money.

~~~
sliken
I'm all for awesome car nav in a car. Nice touch screen, fast updates, current
traffic, up to date maps, etc.

Unfortunately every car I've seen (including some rather expensive cars) look
like Maemo Mapper from my ancient (pre-android pre-iphone) Nokia 770 tablet.

However I'm weird, I have a note 4 with a replaceable battery, wireless
charging, 3GB ram, and a microSD slot. A phone that could easily last 5 years.
It's VERY hard to find similar on the market today.

~~~
duaneb
Unfortunatley cars need to get over NIH for software. I'll admit
CarPlay/android auto seems like the way forward.

------
jmcdiesel
Bad UI, quickly out-of-date data, required trip to dealer to update said data,
and lack of traffic awareness makes them just useless compared to something
like Waze.

~~~
Bartweiss
Last time I used a car GPS, it told me I was in for a 20 hour drive across the
northern midwest. Google Maps helpfully turned that into _4_ hours, by
recognizing the major highway missing from the car system. A highway, I should
add, at least ten years older than the car.

The struggle for Waze is keeping their traffic data up to the minute, the
struggle for cars is keeping their roadmaps on par with a decade-old atlas.

~~~
jmcdiesel
Waze continually gets me to work through back roads and side streets in 20
min, a trip that in traffic on the "normal" routes takes roughly an hour...
Maybe one day cars will have GPS on that level built in... but for now... nope

~~~
stillworks
If everybody has that kind of intelligent routing, then any advantage of that
kind of intelligent routing will stop being an advantage.

~~~
noir_lord
Not sure that would be true in all cases.

If you have a truly intelligent system it would spread the load across the
roads equal to what they can handle rather than the system now where everyone
seems to take the "main" road leading to congestion on that road and quiet
side streets.

Similar to Braess Paradox :-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27_paradox#Traffic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27_paradox#Traffic)

~~~
Symbiote
Do we want noisy side streets?

In some European countries, streets are configured to prevent through traffic.
That leaves them quiet for the enjoyment of residents.

~~~
hx87
Side streets need to support their fair share of traffic. Most cars these days
are very quiet, barring the occasional beater, utility truck, and ricer. That
being said, if they slow cars down Waze will direct less drivers to them.

~~~
Symbiote
Side streets need to support their fair share of children walking to school,
bicycles, conversations and not-polluted air.

Their fair share of traffic is very low, only traffic to or from a building on
the street.

~~~
jmcdiesel
Those side streets were funded with the same public money as the big ones...
and the idea that residents somehow have special rights to them is rather
wrong.

Property owners claiming rights to how public property near them is used is
rediculous

------
eric_the_read
My new Tacoma has a hybrid system called Scout GPS. The idea is that you run
the app on your phone, and it does all the heavy lifting WRT GPS, computing
routes, etc., and the dashboard display is basically a moderately dumb UI that
displays maps on the screen.

In theory, it's a best of both worlds situation; the UI doesn't really need to
change very often; what is most important is the maps/POI information, which
can be downloaded either in-app or via an update. Practically, the UI is
_just_ irritating enough that I end up using Google Maps anyway, and just
letting the voice directions get me where I'm going.

(edit: punctuation, because my inner copyeditor won't shut up)

~~~
kbenson
I've often wondered, while using the somewhat substandard media navigation of
my bluetooth enabled car stereo which has a touch screen, why there isn't some
standard for specifying a very simple, somewhat static visual interface for
bluetooth touchscreens (or screens with a set number of external buttons). A
very constrained HTML, perhaps, that apps could choose to supply to provide
better control through external interfaces.

For example, let Android or iOS supply an interface to view my contacts based
on the reported dimensions of the screen and capabilities. Let Pocket Casts
present a list of podcasts to choose from. Let Pandora show my thumbs up/down
stored for the song, and register my new preference. If I'm at my desk, and
I'm using one of these apps, there's no reason a simple app that provides the
same interface couldn't provide me info about the connected phone through
bluetooth, to let me know who is calling me, let me stream my podcasts through
my desktop speakers, etc.

Does this exist, and I just don't know about it (or it isn't implemented by
anyone)?

~~~
eric_the_read
I think that is more or less exactly the idea behind Android Auto and CarPlay
for iOS. The problem is that many manufacturers still don't support it, and
customer demand isn't high enough (yet) to force them to. I went ahead and
bought the Taco, even though it didn't have Android Auto, because it was
otherwise a good truck, and the bluetooth support was Good Enough™. Until
enough people don't behave like me, support is likely to lag.

~~~
kbenson
Thanks for the heads up. Interestingly, Android has the Desktop Head Unit for
displaying Android Auto stuff on the desktop, but it's presented as a
developer debugging tool. I'm not sure, but it looks like the actual car head
unit is supposed to be using android, which I _sort_ of understand from their
point of view of wanting a good implementation not left up to the car
manufacturers (and their history of poor software quality and updating), and
also to increase marketshare. I imagine CarPlay is similar.

That's a shame, because I think they missed out on a real opportunity to
attempt to define a standard that could have been useful for more than a
closed ecosystem, and more than just cars. I'm sure it would be less
featureful than what they came up with, but I think that would have been
justified with the expanded scope. Imagine, if you will, if your phone could
just as easily export controls to some virtual/augmented reality device you
are wearing, without having to run the Android Auto operating system on that
device. Such a shame.

------
woobar
After reading the article, I think the non-clickbait title should be "Most
drivers who own cars with built-in GPS systems _sometimes_ use phones for
directions".

I am pretty happy with my built-in system - it is fast, always on, integrates
well with the car, provides dual-screens (in dash and bigger console screen
output), free quarterly OTA map updates, uses Google for POI search, live
traffic. Most important I don't need to fish my phone out of pocket, mount it
somewhere and connect cable for longer trips.

Yet I am also sometimes (1%?) use phone for directions. Most of the time it is
when I need to lookup something nearby and I am not in the car.

------
gwbas1c
I got so frustrated with horrible GPS systems that I just bought a Sony car
stereo that has a phone holder on it:
[http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/05/25/sonys-xspn1bt-
double...](http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/05/25/sonys-xspn1bt-double-din-
smartphone-car-stereo-phone-mount-is-available-on-amazon-and-crutchfield-
for-250/)

~~~
agumonkey
That's a glimpse of the future. Most interfaces are useless nowadays.

------
asplake
I cited my experience with the new Rav4 satnav in a recent blog post [1] on
the difference between "requirements" and "needs". Tweeted it with "If you've
lost something in your modern Toyota, it's probably hiding behind a settings
menu". The current version isn't terrible; the version the car was delivered
to me truly was. Inexcusable. Although there are benefits to integration,
unless the delivery model changes to a more phone-like one I can't see myself
buying an built-in satnav again.

[1] [https://blog.agendashift.com/2016/10/06/better-user-
stories-...](https://blog.agendashift.com/2016/10/06/better-user-stories-
start-with-needs/)

------
gambiting
Because built-in GPS is _terrible_. I recently bought a 2016 Mercedes-AMG
vehicle that has sat nav as standard(on non-AMG models it's a $1000 (!!!!!!)
option). The satnav is made by Garmin, and it's just awful. Truly horrible in
terms of speed, usability, and it only gets updates once a year(you get a new
SD card when you go for the annual service).

In the meantime, my TomTom 5000 satnav is still unbeaten - free lifetime
upgrades, clear, fast interface, free and constant internet connection in
every country of the world, with accurate traffic and speed camera updates.
And it only cost me ~$250 new.

I just don't understand why anyone would get a built-in satnav over a
dedicated device.

~~~
navidev
Some notes from developer perspective:

\- The car model probably had the first iteration of Garmin satnav solution
for in-dash car infotainment systems. Garmin's architecture was basically
built for PNDs(dedicated device) based of their own internal custom OS. This
was quickly ported to support in dash infotainment market. I am sure
consequent releases got better in performance and usage.

\- Garmin solution is optimized to perform well based on available resources.
SD card read writes, low memory requirements, and other resource restrictions
are accountable for the slow performance as well.

I am not trying to defend but just want to share the challenges that Garmin
faced while they tried to gain market share. I am confident that their
solutions will get better with time and deliver better user experience and
innovation in the car.

\-- SW developer and long time user of Garmin

------
tracker1
Even though my car stereo has pandora on it.. I usually just use bluetooth
playback with pandora or skype from my phone as the google maps ux is _much_
better and the directions work while listening.

Honestly, the car ux for entertainment, etc in general feels like something
that should have been state of the art half a decade ago... it's too slow,
unresponsive and irritation imho, depite positive reviews.

For references it's the fullscreen uconnect interface on a 2016 dodge
challenger. Also, the fact that it's 3g instead of lte on the antenna makes
the mobile hotspot option worthless and not even a consideration.

~~~
tracker1
A bit late, but had meant spotify, not skype.. :-) I plan on letting XM lapse
at the end of the free term as I really don't use it, and the cost is more
than pandora and skype combined.

------
nojvek
Toyota gps is just garbage. Hangs all the time. I strongly believe car makers
just don't see software as a critical component. Exception is tesla.

~~~
RealityVoid
I build car dashboard software. You are right. The SW is shit. Exceptions,
from what i've head are Volvo and Daimler. Don't know the kind of resources
Tesla puts into their SW and am not sure if it's not just hype.

~~~
mikey_p
I'll second Volvo, we bought a used 2003 XC-90 several years ago and the Nav
in it was great. Even with the 10 year old discs it found 95% of what we
needed by name or waypoint and the interface was incredibly easy to navigate
while driving. I chalk that up to the fact that it's _not_ a touchscreen,
which means you can build muscle memory and menus were super predictably.

------
jrgoj
As much as the size, placement, and car integration of my vehicle's (2016
CX-5) dash GPS is ideal, the fact that it cannot display Waze renders it
mostly useless for my everyday commuting. Until I can do so via Carplay or
Android Auto, I'll be using gaudy cell phone mounts.

------
ingenium
The Audi navigation works well sometimes, and I really like the integration
into the car (using the most up to date maps, they give free map updates for 3
years).

However, the routes are not the most efficient, and although it supposedly
uses Sirius for traffic, the data isn't very accurate. Google Maps often gives
me a much more efficient route that can be twice as fast given current traffic
conditions, but is more "unusual".

Audi's GPS likes to stick to main roads that become heavily clogged. And even
though I have an update that came out within the last 2 months, it still
doesn't have a major construction project that has been completed for a year
added, and always tries to route you around it.

So basically I use Google Maps for navigation within the city or areas that
I'm familiar with, and Audi's navigation for long trips (ie inter city highway
trips) where the route will mostly be the same on both systems.

That being said, the GPS in my car ALWAYS gets an accurate lock right away. My
phone (Nexus 6P) has an awful GPS that doesn't work in hilly areas or around
tall buildings and constantly loses the signal. It barely works inside the
car, and even then the accuracy isn't great. Guess the all metal phone really
kills the GPS signal, since the Nexus 6 had an amazingly good GPS with high
accuracy in the same conditions.

------
Zelphyr
My wife just bought a brand new Toyota Highlander and I can confirm that the
nav system is terrible. I can only imagine how much that turd increased the
purchase price.

~~~
acl
I just got the new Highlander, and can only conclude the nav (and most of the
rest of the car UX) was designed by a committee of angry monkeys.

~~~
Someone1234
Which is really depressing. Toyota make fantastic vehicles but they're being
outclassed by others simply because their infotainment system feels like a
relic from the early 2000s.

They've also doubled down on their refusal to not include Carplay/Android
Auto. They're putting something called "SmartDeviceLink" which is yet another
MirrorLink 1.1 clone (which is itself a disaster), but this time controlled by
a different consortium of companies.

Although amusingly the other major auto maker putting SmartDeviceLink in their
vehicles, Fort, has already given up and put Carplay/Android Auto into their
latest Ford SYNC3 infotainment system software. Leaving Toyota the only major
company providing SmartDeviceLink.

I legitimately think Toyota will slump in sales when seemingly every other
major manufacturer has Carplay/Android Auto. All because Toyota is greedy and
wants to profit off of the infotainment unit rather than the vehicle itself.

~~~
mikestew
_They 've also doubled down on their refusal to not include Carplay/Android
Auto. They're putting something called "SmartDeviceLink" which is yet another
MirrorLink 1.1 clone_

I just do...not...get this. In what alternate reality do they live that would
cause them to think "this time will be different"? History has shown time and
again that your proprietary special snowflake platform is not going to cause
app writers to flock to you when there's something like CarPlay/Android Auto
available. I mean, MirrorLink was a pretty good idea, didn't have any real
competitors at the time, and it still sold like dog shit sandwiches. Save
everyone some time and money, suck it up, swallow your pride, and just put
CarPlay/Android Auto on there. Because as I've said elsewhere in this thread,
not only will I not buy your proprietary infotainment system, I won't even buy
your car.

Even I, a long-time geek who will endure a lot of pain to get something
working, cringes at the thought of the hoops I'd have to jump through to get
"SmartDeviceLink" to an even minimally useful state. My CarPlay head unit also
has MirrorLink, and while I was waiting for Pioneer to update the firmware to
include CarPlay, I thought I'd give MirrorLink a whirl. First, I apparently
needed to go get a special cable. Yeah, fuck that, you exceeded my tolerance
for friction in the first sentence of your user manual. CarPlay? Plugged my
iPhone in, waited to see what Apple's special version of frictional hell would
be and...it just worked. There's your competition, car makers, and if takes
more than just plugging my phone in I'm not buying it.

------
diegorbaquero
It simply makes no sense to use in-car GPS. Updates are free (some car markers
charge them) and fast for mobile apps. There's a little tradeoff (privacy)
though.

------
JoshGlazebrook
If Waze came to Car play and android auto I imagine a lot of people would use
it. The only navigation I currently use is Waze and I use it every single time
I'm driving, even if I do not need directions. The ETA, routing, and the
alerts are useful even if you know where you are going.

~~~
Someone1234
It is coming [0]. No word since May though. I imagine they're re-jiggling the
UI for Android Auto.

[0] [http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/05/18/waze-
come...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/05/18/waze-comes-
android-auto-one-many-new-features/84459926/)

------
grecy
Out of curiosity, are there any Tesla owners that can chime in about their
experience?

Do you use the in-built GPS, or just use your phone?

I would think if anyone has it right, it would be Tesla.

~~~
mikeash
I use the built-in GPS about 99% of the time. I keep a mount in the car just
in case I need to use my phone for navigation, but that _almost_ never
happens.

The built-in navigation isn't great. It lacks some pretty obvious options (it
doesn't offer multiple routes, and you can't give it intermediate waypoints)
and its routing is occasionally stupid. Although the big screen shows Google
Maps, the actual routing is done using an onboard database which is not as
good as Google is. But it's good enough that the convenience of just using the
big screen in the car outweighs the superior results I get from my phone.

It is getting better, which is one thing most cars can't say. We recently got
the ability to have it avoid toll roads, for example, and while that _really_
should have been there from the beginning, it's pretty cool that it can be
added after the fact.

Navigation is one of the top complaints from Tesla owners in my experience,
and I agree with a lot of those complaints, but it's not bad enough to have me
going for my phone except in rare cases.

~~~
rogerbinns
Out of curiosity, does the Tesla system pay any attention to the number of
people in the vehicle? For example in the sf bay area, there are some places
where going from one highway to another (eg 101 to 85) is a left exit for
carpools and right exit for solo occupant.

Most gps let you pick to include or exclude car pools, but it is such a pain
to change the setting that it is usually left on excluding car pools. But
Tesla could know exactly how many people are in the car, and do the right
thing automatically. It would also affect journey times since car pool lanes
are often quicker.

~~~
mikeash
Interesting question. No such option is exposed, and I don't think it's doing
anything clever with seat occupancy sensors. I'm not sure how aware it is of
HOV restrictions in the first place. I _think_ that for routes which are only
restricted at certain times of day, it will freely use them, and for routes
which are always HOV it will never use them.

There are also some HOT lanes around here (where you can either drive for free
with 3+ people, or pay a toll with less) and it never routes me onto those,
even though it happily routes me onto other toll roads. Not sure what's up
with that.

------
drivingmenuts
I'd be perfectly happy if my car just had a dock for my iPhone, with an amp
for the speakers. I use my phone for anything music, gps or phone-related
while driving.

The only time I don't use it is when I can't get the friggin' bluetooth to
connect right away.

~~~
denzil_correa
You might want to check out Apple CarPlay

[http://www.apple.com/ios/carplay/](http://www.apple.com/ios/carplay/)

------
jameskilton
Volkswagen wants to charge me ~$250 for an update to my in-car GPS. Yeah, no.
My phone's GPS is free (effectively) and constantly up-to-date.

~~~
swiley
OSM is free too, it's strange that they don't just let you upload maps
yourself.

------
nomailing
Why not buy one of the cheap aftermarket Chinese Android head units? When I
was looking to buy a car I specifically looked for double DIN compatibility so
that I can later easily install my own head unit. I would not want to support
a car manufacturer who is abandoning the DIN standard for aftermarket head
units. I want this central piece in the car to be upgradable. A car without
double DIN is like a computer case without any slot to put an HDD.

There are very nice units with native Android experience. They usually have
either a 7" or 10" screen. There are also some discussions of the various
chinese units on xda forums in case someone is here interested...

~~~
Itsdijital
Don't waste your money on a cheap Chinese unit. It's hard enough to justify
buying the name brand units that cost way more and run worse than a $50
Walmart phone.

The aftermarket head unit market has been in shambles for a few years now.
Demand has dropped dramatically and units have stagnanted for years, in some
ways even moving backwards.

I would love to see DINs make a comeback in cars, hopefully it would breath
some fresh life into the HU market.

------
salmonlogs
Reading the comments I appear to be the exception. I lease a 2015 BMW 4-series
which I added "Professional Media" to and the nav works really well. I've
driven plenty of other cars where the nav is useless, but not all are bad.

Reasons to use it over my phone:

* 11" screen shows me a high quality map overlayed with current traffic, with 1/3 split for lane guidance when needed

* Directions also shown directly on the dash - no need to look far away

* Spoken instructions dim the music volume

* Pretty accurate traffic information with automatic OTA updates

Downsides:

* Voice control is shitty; saying "set destination to leamington spa" will change to a random radio frequency

* Slightly awkward to send routes from PC to car, has to be via Remote Control App

~~~
Someone1234
You aren't really the exception, instead you're just fortunate enough to have
one of the few in-dash navigation systems which isn't absolutely terrible.

Most of the features you've named are exactly what Android Auto/Carplay
provide, but without limiting you to just a single maps/navigation vendor.

You're likely leasing that vehicle for 1-3 years. Do you think that if you
purchased that 4-series that the navigation would still be updated and solid
by the end of its 9-15 year vehicle lifespan? I certainly don't. But I do an
apps platform like carplay/android auto will continue to provide quality apps
for at least that long.

~~~
salmonlogs
I totally get your point, and agree.

CarPlay/Android Auto certainly improve quality on average for most cars, but
I'm not convinced they will solve the problem of outdated technology.

I previous had a Mercedes with "Apple Certified Connectivity" which was great,
until they switched to lightning cables and the connectivity broke.

Whilst I'm sure CarPlay/Android Auto will last longer, I don't believe there
won't be any breaking changes in future that will break compatibility. Given
that we replace phones a lot faster than cars I can see a future where there
are cars which only support CarPlay version X, and the standard is now version
Y.

At that point you then end up with no navigation or media, because you aren't
going to use an older phone just to have it work with your older car.

------
sashk
When I bought my latest car, navigation package included few safety features I
wanted to get, so I had to get them to get somewhat safer car. My car --
Mazda, comes with free 3 years of map updates. I am yet to update it, because
I'm lazy. It also comes with optional paid for traffic service. Why do I need
to waste my money on that, when I can get free (I know, I know) Waze, Apple
Maps or Google maps which will get me where I need to get avoiding traffic.
Despite driving 2016 model year vehicle, I GPS/entertainment center feels like
from 2010 or so. So yes, I use my phone for navigations most of the time.

------
derekp7
That was my biggest problem when I recently bought a car -- almost all of the
ones with the options I wanted (out of dealer stock) also included the $800
manufacturer's GPS. Which is something completely useless to me since I could
get by perfectly fine with Android Auto. So I ended up paying for a feature
that I would not only not use, but was such inferior quality (it can't locate
either my home address, or work address -- for home, it routes me to a house
several miles away, and for work it sends me to the movie theater 3 blocks
east).

------
celticninja
My maps app on my phone gets much more frequent updates than the maps fucntion
in my car. Saying that I do use my in car nav system, I just rely on
googlemaps for traffic data and redirections,

------
hueving
People prefer better user experience over worse user experience. More news at
10.

Seriously, I am blown away that car manufacturers manage to pitch navigation
systems as a value add to the car. "Would you like to spend an additional
$1500 for a system with a UI workflow developed as the first GPS satellites
were being launched? For an additional $50/mo you can even keep the
information up to date so it doesn't suggest you drive across the hoover dam."

------
tibbon
Why is Tesla one of the few car manufacturers who actually pushes real updates
to their car's dashboard system (and for free, others charge absurd fees if
they do give minor updates).

I hope that by 2020 it is the expectation that your car will continue to
update and improve its interface over the years you own it.

I say this because people point to smartphones as always being more updated-
and there's no reason for this.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
It would piss off the dealers. They live on the service costs.

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/524791/why-your-car-
wont-...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/524791/why-your-car-wont-get-
remote-software-updates-anytime-soon/)

------
j45
The quality of phone based GPS directions has improved drastically in the last
3 years. I had a cutting edge GPS about 5 years ago in my car that did better
than my phone. Now there's no comparison and I wished one could simply mirror
their iphone/android display into the car's touchscreen without the pageantry
of needing an Android Auto/iPhone.

------
antisthenes
Built-in car systems are usually at least 5 years behind the current tech,
whether it was CD players, a USB port or whatever GPS system they started
putting in.

As an example - I have a car with a USB port, but the music player interface
is so atrocious and is missing key features that it's actually worse than my
Sansa Clip from 2008. The car is a 2012 model.

------
bleair
It's really simple - how hard is the UX of my phone vs. the car's system. I've
_never_ seen a builtin car version have a UX that wasn't ridiculously complex
and frustrating to use.

There are two concrete, real examples, of a routing UX that anyone can just
try out - just grab an android phone or an iphone and directly copy the
experience. Just sit down and try the most basic goal of using a nav system -
enter and address and start and do it on your car system and on either phone.

Oh, wait, differing goals. I, as a user, want a usable system. The maker of
these awful nav systems have an entirely different goal. They are trying to
sell an "option" upgrade to car makers who then include it in "option
packages" with the car... usability is way way down the list after
bells/whistles/marketing/subscription sales

------
viggity
I've always hated built in GPS for two reasons. First and most important - the
damn maps are always viewed from directly above the car so the map is 2D and
North is always at the top. There is a lot of effin' mental work to try and
figure out which damn way your car is pointing and whether you need to turn
left or turn right because you may be driving "down" the map and shit is
reversed. On my phone or on my garmin I get a perspective view of my car and
it's position on the earth. There is no confusion about which way I actually
need to turn.

Secondly, the vast majority of built in GPS is on a console a good 6 to 12
inches below the windshield. Meaning I have to remove my eyes far off the road
in order to look at everything. My garmin mounts to my windshield or dash. It
is a quick glance and then eyes back at the road.

~~~
4ad
Funny. My main complaint is the opposite. The phone is using a confusing 3D
interface instead of the simple 2D interface that I want. And because software
is just great and doesn't have any bugs, it sometime won't even remember to
always use the 2D projection that I requested.

------
SteveNuts
I have to update my car GPS using an SD card. It's just too inconvenient when
I can just use my phone

~~~
maccard
I had to buy a CD for my parent's car for £170 to update their in car
navigation.

------
Cybernetic
Native GPS systems are painfully slow, in my experience. I have a Subaru
Impreza 2014. Its GPS usually tracks a full block behind we're I'm at. If I'm
not paying attention and make a turn based on the voice-guidance alone, it's
often a wrong turn. Re-routing takes a long time as well; too long to be
useful. Additionally, I have to pay for annual map updates if I want them. To
someone's point earlier, all interaction with the map is disabled while the
car is in motion. It would be nice if it were unlocked so a passenger could
use it.

So I use Google Maps on my phone. It's significantly faster, shows more meta-
data relative to my route, e.g., delays and alternate route suggestions, and
if it has to re-route it's usually immediate.

------
nashashmi
I have looked at the comments here and everyone is talking about the
superiority of their phones and how carplay and Android auto are so much
better.

And this leads me to having a Steve Jobs moment: I wish the car dash computers
would work as simply as smart watches where they are just dumb remote controls
for phones.

I don't have Android auto or carplay. But I have used moto360. And I find that
is all I really ever need when driving. The voice recognition is awesome. The
interface is simple. And like all simple things it leads the mind to wish for
more.

It seems like the car manufacturers tried to swallow too much at once and
sucked at all of it.

------
toyg
Builtin GPS was pretty much the only requirement I had for the last few cars I
got (both VW) and tbh I'm not that disappointed. The only thing _really_
lacking is decent search, once you have an address to input it's mostly ok,
but it's true that the temptation to just say "fuck it, I've found it on Maps,
let's just use this" is there. If there was an easy way to copy or "stream"
the address to the car via bluetooth, I think most people would use it.

It looks like the field is in flux anyway, VW keeps dramatically changing the
UI in every new car.

------
SpikeDad
I don't. My 2013 Prius has an excellent GPS and I'm not too concerned that the
maps are a bit out of date. I still get accurate traffic data from XM.

There are advantages to the built-in navigation - it works when there's no GPS
signal due to inertial navigation (compass and tire rotation). Mine has a
head-up display so I can see navigation cues without taking my eyes off the
road. The voice synth is much better than Apple Maps or Google Maps.

I've only had to pull out my phone a couple of times in 3 years.

------
sliken
Seems like the best advantage of in car navigation is the GPS. Seems like many
car GPS are rock solid, lock quickly, and can handle short outages because
they know the speed and compass direction.

Maybe car windows are tinted more often now? I often get a marginal signal in
my car, seems worse than in my house.

Anyone had luck with a magnetic attached bluetooth GPS they can put on their
car roof or similar to improve a smartphone's GPS signal inside a car?

------
leppr
The tragedy of proprietary technology. There is a need for competition so
sure, saying _" let's integrate Google Maps into everything"_ might not be a
win for us in the long term, but we don't need a hundred different navigation
systems. Just integrate one of the top players in the field and be done with
it. Better yet, open the damn design to allow modification by customers
(/local garages).

------
vermontdevil
Have you seen the UI on some of these built-ins? Awful.

------
chrismbarr
I remember seeing my dad drive his brand new BMW 5 series with a beautiful
widescreen display in the dash. The screen has a little shelf under it, so it
was the perfect place to set his iPhone with the directions he actually wanted
to follow. The built in GPS essentially provided the same directions, but the
UX of the phone apps and the audible directions are just so much better.

------
zeveb
My issue isn't so much the pain of entry — although it is a pain — as the fact
that Google Maps provides better directions, taking into account current
traffic conditions, than my car's system.

OTOH, my car's system knows about highway amenities like food & gas, and has a
neat feature where it displays a preview of what certain turns look like.

I would _love_ to integrate them somehow.

~~~
lagadu
Discrete GPS units do all that. I use a tomtom go6100 for all my navigation
needs, it's unmatched at its job.

------
kovrik
I can't use my car's GPS because the car is from Japan and it has Japanese
language only and only maps of Japan. And you can't just download map of any
other country, and you can't even change the language.

So, yes, I'd better use my phone's GPS: maps are always up-to-date, I can
choose between Google Maps and Apple Maps (or any other), can select any
language.

------
nmstoker
This is a little like a more extreme version of the smart TV situation: for
the most part there are rarely prizes for coming second, so many people ignore
the built in stuff. For many it would be better if they came without GPS and
used the money for other things, but it seems many are unaware of this too!

------
raitom
I have a 2015 Mustang with GPS, no carplay, and I always use Google Map on my
iPhone (and everyone in san diego assume that i'm a tourist because of that
haha).

Same for my friends with their cars, I never saw them using their built-in
gps.

I already used carplay in another car, but apple plan on it is not as good as
google map.

------
lanius
Haven't tried built-in GPS, but I prefer using my phone over my standalone GPS
because it's much faster. My standalone unit takes forever to boot up, has
too-long delays when navigating between screens, and overall is just
frustratingly sluggish when trying to use.

------
macjohnmcc
My car's map was so out of date when I bought it it instantly became useless
to me. My wife sitting in the passenger seat cannot select destinations while
we are driving so it is far easier to just use a phone with the added benefits
of up-to-date maps and traffic.

------
CalChris
CarWings on the Nissan Leaf is unusable. Its only advantage is that the map is
built in and so doesn't rely on downloading.

You can preload Google Maps onto the iPhone for say Point Reyes. You won't be
able to find a route but GPS location and the map should be good enough.

------
mayneack
As far as I can tell the only upsides to car navigation (embedded or a
standalone TomTom or something) is independence from live data link and
battery constraints. Unless I'm going somewhere without a data connection, I
think the phone is strictly better.

------
conductr
You can't buy car features a la carte like the "build your car" tool on every
auto maker's site suggest you can. You're forced to buy the "tech package"
which includes the GPS because you want something as simple as bluetooth

~~~
hx87
If the base car has 3.5mm input jack, getting bluetooth is pretty trivial.

------
gbuk2013
I am one of these drivers - my car has navigation (didn't get a choice since I
bought it secondhand) but I use Waze.

That said, having it has saved me on several occasions when my phone ran out
of power and when there was no signal and I missed a turn.

------
bparsons
Nothing is really close to the functionality of Waze or Google maps. All the
purpose built devices run an inferior product with a sloppy interface. Users
are going to use the superior product in their pocket.

------
kubuqi
I would rather have a nice phone holder built in car, than a builtin
navigation. It is so obviously you can't compete with the likes of Google &
Apple in terms of UI.

------
anindha
Why not just have a nice phone holder built into cars rather than these
systems. It would integrate with the speaker/mic in the car and charge my
phone.

~~~
lagadu
And what interface would it have? Apple 30-pin? Lightning? Micro-usb? usb-c?
Does it have room for 3.5 to 6 inch phones?

Integration with speaker/mic is already done via bluetooth but charging is
still a problem.

------
agjacobson
The navigation system on my 2013 Acura is unusable. My iPhone sits on the seat
and does the job.

The navigation system on 2016 Volvos is usable.

------
agumonkey
Taxi in-car GPS was faulty so often the dude resorted to smartphone fallback.
When Google Maps owns you, you have a problem.

------
azernik
I've seen many new Israeli cars shipping with a nav system that is just a
stripped-down Android system running Waze.

------
n-gauge
Can confirm. If the iu / method of entering a postcode wasn't so faffy for the
in car satnav, it would serfice.

------
ryanlm
Problem with the bait and switch car GPS's is they actually charge you for
updates. This should be against the law.

------
dmritard96
i really just want a chromecast equivalent for my car. phones get updated
every couple years but cars last much longer. it simply doesn't make sense to
put too much smarts in the car itself but i do see the value in a well placed
screen and integration with the cars audio system.

------
owenwil
The only time I use these built-in ones is when I'm renting a car and stuck on
roaming data :)

------
andreasv1634
it depends on the car i guess. BMW's is pretty good.

------
javolmut
iPad Pro

------
honkhonkpants
Really the thing you want here is for your smartphone to have access to the
car's GPS receiver, which is huge and sensitive and can use all the power it
wants. The phone can just treat it as a peripheral.

