5 ms·

"One thing made by us will be able to control one thing made by us, so you should buy everything from us." No. Put a general web browser in the car, make the

"One thing made by us will be able to control one thing made by us, so you should buy everything from us." No. Put a general web browser in the car, make the devices controllable over the web by any general web browser, and you've got something much more useful.

Closi 6y ago
Letting people use a web browser while driving is pretty much a recipe for disaster.
ajsnigrutin 6y ago
Just make it open. Homeassistant is opensource, controlls a bunch of different gadgets/smartdevices/switches/..., gets data from a bunch of different gadgets/sensors/smart devices, and has a bunch of apps using it's API. Honestly, I only buy stuff, if I can integrate it into homeassistant (without using the devices cloud services)... sometimes that means soldering + flashing tasmota, but in the end, I get it to work.
dehrmann 6y ago
Not even that. The phone is the center of our lives, so it really only needs to be on our phones (if people even care about IoT--this is an open question). This is Mercedes Benz taking its internal worldview that the car is the center of our lives, making product decisions based on that, and trying to get people to buy into that worldview.
- csunbird 6y ago
  A simple carplay supported touchscreen is all we need in the cars
  - nabilhat 6y ago
    Ideally, one that isn't irreversably entangled in the CAN bus! So it can easily be upgraded to something that isn't as awful as nearly all auto mfg infotainment attempts, or isn't obsolete when the mfg doesn't bother with software updates to maintain compatibility with carplay updates, or high quality audio for audiophiles, or aftermarket infotainment with tactile knobs and buttons for us old farts who like to keep our eyes on the road while we're driving.
    - neuralRiot 6y ago
      And letting customers buy lower-tier packages and install upgrades themselves? Or avoiding your car looking old after 3 years? Why? That’s the inly purpose. The only “innovation point” left for auto makers is features so they scramble year after year to show the latest trick sacrificing quality to balance the costs.
      - FDSGSG 6y ago
        >The only “innovation point” left for auto makers is features so they scramble year after year to show the latest trick sacrificing quality to balance the costs. Of course the latest gimmicks are a big part of why you'd buy a S-class, but it's not like the basics like seats and suspension haven't seen significant improvements generation after generation. A great example would be the rear wheel steering they just introduced, not at all a gimmick.
      - pandaman 6y ago
        I don't think sane people are shopping for a new car every 3 years because their "infotainment" looks old. Such features IMHO are for the comparison shoppers who will compare competing cars side by side and can be pushed either way by tiniest gimmicks.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        There’s a valuable segment of car buyers who do change cars every 2, 3, or 4 years to always have the newest features. They often lease and are influenced in their overall decisions by the fact that cars do change. “I can’t have the old-looking tail lights and grill!” Manufacturers almost surely tailor some of their product plans with this in mind.
        pandaman 6y ago
        Sure, people who lease will get a new car every time the lease term is up, but I am skeptical they do it for the new gadgets. It looks like that not having to care about maintenance and wear&tear as well as financial incentives are the major reasons to lease. Besides, the cars being leased are mostly expensive ones, with OTA software updates, why manufacturers would do that if their plan was to make you buy a new car for the new features?
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    'Need' is not the right word, since cars without any of this nonsense work just fine. You could perhaps argue the car itself is a luxury that isn't needed, but smartphone integration certainly isn't needed in any sense.
amelius 6y ago
Yeah, but the free market can never find that optimum by itself.

Closi 6y ago

Letting people use a web browser while driving is pretty much a recipe for disaster.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago

Just make it open. Homeassistant is opensource, controlls a bunch of different gadgets/smartdevices/switches/..., gets data from a bunch of different gadgets/sensors/smart devices, and has a bunch of apps using it's API. Honestly, I only buy stuff, if I can integrate it into homeassistant (without using the devices cloud services)... sometimes that means soldering + flashing tasmota, but in the end, I get it to work.

dehrmann 6y ago

Not even that. The phone is the center of our lives, so it really only needs to be on our phones (if people even care about IoT--this is an open question). This is Mercedes Benz taking its internal worldview that the car is the center of our lives, making product decisions based on that, and trying to get people to buy into that worldview.

csunbird 6y ago
A simple carplay supported touchscreen is all we need in the cars
- nabilhat 6y ago
  Ideally, one that isn't irreversably entangled in the CAN bus! So it can easily be upgraded to something that isn't as awful as nearly all auto mfg infotainment attempts, or isn't obsolete when the mfg doesn't bother with software updates to maintain compatibility with carplay updates, or high quality audio for audiophiles, or aftermarket infotainment with tactile knobs and buttons for us old farts who like to keep our eyes on the road while we're driving.
  - neuralRiot 6y ago
    And letting customers buy lower-tier packages and install upgrades themselves? Or avoiding your car looking old after 3 years? Why? That’s the inly purpose. The only “innovation point” left for auto makers is features so they scramble year after year to show the latest trick sacrificing quality to balance the costs.
    - FDSGSG 6y ago
      >The only “innovation point” left for auto makers is features so they scramble year after year to show the latest trick sacrificing quality to balance the costs. Of course the latest gimmicks are a big part of why you'd buy a S-class, but it's not like the basics like seats and suspension haven't seen significant improvements generation after generation. A great example would be the rear wheel steering they just introduced, not at all a gimmick.
    - pandaman 6y ago
      I don't think sane people are shopping for a new car every 3 years because their "infotainment" looks old. Such features IMHO are for the comparison shoppers who will compare competing cars side by side and can be pushed either way by tiniest gimmicks.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        There’s a valuable segment of car buyers who do change cars every 2, 3, or 4 years to always have the newest features. They often lease and are influenced in their overall decisions by the fact that cars do change. “I can’t have the old-looking tail lights and grill!” Manufacturers almost surely tailor some of their product plans with this in mind.
        pandaman 6y ago
        Sure, people who lease will get a new car every time the lease term is up, but I am skeptical they do it for the new gadgets. It looks like that not having to care about maintenance and wear&tear as well as financial incentives are the major reasons to lease. Besides, the cars being leased are mostly expensive ones, with OTA software updates, why manufacturers would do that if their plan was to make you buy a new car for the new features?
- bigbubba 6y ago
  'Need' is not the right word, since cars without any of this nonsense work just fine. You could perhaps argue the car itself is a luxury that isn't needed, but smartphone integration certainly isn't needed in any sense.

amelius 6y ago

Yeah, but the free market can never find that optimum by itself.