5 ms·
this same sentiment could have been applied to cell phones 20 years ago, right? “Why does my _phone_ need a screen? all it needs are 12 keys, a speaker, and a m
by brandonkirc 5y ago
this same sentiment could have been applied to cell phones 20 years ago, right? “Why does my _phone_ need a screen? all it needs are 12 keys, a speaker, and a microphone. if i wanted to listen to music, id use my CD player. If I needed directions, id use my map.”
- Gigachad 5y agoThe difference is you replace your phone every few years so it doesn't matter if parts become obsolete. A car has to work for at least a decade so any tech in it will become problematic later in its life.
- halpert 5y agoNo, it wouldn't have applied because computers (and eventually cell phones) did those things better. For instance, using Map Quest was way more convenient than using a map. Using iTunes was way more convenient than a CD. If someone asked me, "Do you want iTunes on your phone?" The answer would have been yes. What does a car do better?
- soperj 5y agoItunes was a bloated pig then (still is). Winamp on my phone, yes.
- acdha 5y agoI would tend to favor an approach based on support commitment and distance from the core functionality. Cars are really two products, a pretty mature transportation system and (these days) a low-end entertainment/map system which a cheap Android vendor would be ashamed to ship. They’re used to supporting the mechanical side for ages but software support is much rockier. If the vendors had to support full functionality on those appliance-like systems at no cost for the 10-20 year service life of the vehicle, it’d just be CarPlay/Android Auto because they know that’s not their strength. “Smart” refrigerators would similarly not be common if they couldn’t orphan it after a year or two.