7 ms·

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?
    - gambiting 6y ago
      Well, one of the(but definitely not the main) reasons why I replaced my perfectly functional 2016 Mercedes Benz was that my model missed the ability to have Android Auto/CarPlay by literally 2 weeks of production. It was impossible to add later without an extremely expensive head unit replacement.
      - pandaman 6y ago
        Replacing the head unit was more expensive than the money you lost on trading-in/selling the car?
        gambiting 6y ago
        Absolutely. Any money put into modifications like these is essentially lost, you won't get even a fraction of it back when it comes to time to sell the car. The modified head unit plus labour to fit it was worth about 9 months of payments on that car, so doing it would have been nuts.
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.

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?
  - gambiting 6y ago
    Well, one of the(but definitely not the main) reasons why I replaced my perfectly functional 2016 Mercedes Benz was that my model missed the ability to have Android Auto/CarPlay by literally 2 weeks of production. It was impossible to add later without an extremely expensive head unit replacement.
    - pandaman 6y ago
      Replacing the head unit was more expensive than the money you lost on trading-in/selling the car?
      - gambiting 6y ago
        Absolutely. Any money put into modifications like these is essentially lost, you won't get even a fraction of it back when it comes to time to sell the car. The modified head unit plus labour to fit it was worth about 9 months of payments on that car, so doing it would have been nuts.

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.