[samsumon]

Why do companies insist on having atrocious navigation systems?
Why can't they just have Google Maps, arguably the best software for maps.

Do they NOT use their own software prior to the product coming out. They have to know how shitty it has to be.

Same with the touchscreen. How on earth are we still living with lagging screens when an iPhone, can produce near instant reaction.

[LbulletM]

With Android and Apple connect options, we should be able to use whatever we want. Will be interesting to see changes in built in navigation as a result as more companies hop on board.

I have a Kenwood in my current car that allows me to mirror my Android, so I can use Google Maps through that. (Well, did let me until I upgraded to a Galaxy S6 and the radio doesn't seem to support it )

[Sledgehammer70]

Built in Waze! Make it happen!!!

[Curr]

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer70

Built in Waze! Make it happen!!!

No kidding, we're gonna really need it soon

[LbulletM]

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer70

Built in Waze! Make it happen!!!

[samsumon]

But the question still is, WHY and WHO approves these systems to go out? It's 2015. There is ZERO reasoning for laggy screens.. And the GPS, does nobody sit there and say, "yea it sucks..".. I want to personally email the engineers and get an answer from them. I should have to use my cellphone for navigation.

[SuperSound]

Think some of the real problem is not embracing the idea of frequently updating the software. That is the real problem after all, not the hardware. The OEMs simply cannot test these things enough in closed environments to find all the issues. Software in cars needs to be flexible and upgradable on the fly so that once your users report issues you can address quickly. It seems some maybe ready to embrace the idea of OTA updates. Currently they have been using the old "car service" model which has you bring in the car to the dealer which just doesn't work for this kind of technology.

I do think that CarPlay and Android Auto are the best way to offload these issues. They just need to expand what it can do to more of the OEM features.

[Sledgehammer70]

With the larger push to tech and cars getting smarter, we're already seeing car companies grasping a cell phone mentality. Car development cycles are long in the tooth and take a while to design, develop and bring to market. But with consumers wanting to be upgraded into new tech now and the fast pace of development, car manufacturers are starting to see their cars as a live service.

It isn't just about getting the car out the door and into the consumers hands anymore. It's about taking care of that consumer through maintenance and providing upgrades via aftermarket parts and even software updates to keep up with cell tech and software etc.

The inclusion of Apple Pay and Androids variant have been hard to see the rollout. Car companies have been slow to support, and they are seeing people leave their cars to get ones with better tech, etc. Overall companies like Tesla are using Nvidia Tegra X, and Qualcomm silicon is powering the tech of our cars. This stuff is breaking new ground in how tech is used in cars in multiple ways.

It's just a matter of time.

[Jeffro19]

It will be nice to use your own apps like google maps to be integrated with CarPlay. This will make it much easier. Would we really need NAV if we could use our phones with the map apps?

[DGthe3]

Multiple reasons.

First, the hardware is usually 2 or 3 years old by the time a new car hits the street. For a smartphone, the design time is around 6 months. Even the most top of the line components from just a couple years ago can still feel old & outdated today.

Second, the hardware needs to operate in a wider range of environments than typical consumer electronics. That ruggedness/hardening makes it all the more expensive to get a fast/responsive system. To cite an old example, remember when you still listened to CD's? And how if you turn it up loud enough, your home stereo would cause itself to skip? But in the car it almost never happened -even with all the bumps & such in the road. And its not just vibrations, it also needs to work well (if not perfectly) at 40 below & well over 100 degrees.

Third, the software coding requirements in automotive are much more stringent than in typical consumer devices. Its one thing push a patch or do a hot-fix on the day something goes live for a phone or a web service, then keep tweaking it for weeks or months after launch. But in the car world, buying a brand new car & having glitches & bugs in the software is simply unacceptable. A partial consequence of this required reliability is that the code itself might not be as quick or efficient as what could otherwise be possible.


Put it all together & its actually kindof impressive that the systems are as capable as they are

[Bad@ssCamaro]

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer70

Built in Waze! Make it happen!!!

Originally Posted by Curr

No kidding, we're gonna really need it soon

Originally Posted by LbulletM

Holy crap, this app could really take off if they made a stand alone product that would mount near the driver and be easily accessible without taking our eyes off the road (for too long)

[samsumon]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Multiple reasons.

First, the hardware is usually 2 or 3 years old by the time a new car hits the street. For a smartphone, the design time is around 6 months. Even the most top of the line components from just a couple years ago can still feel old & outdated today.

Second, the hardware needs to operate in a wider range of environments than typical consumer electronics. That ruggedness/hardening makes it all the more expensive to get a fast/responsive system. To cite an old example, remember when you still listened to CD's? And how if you turn it up loud enough, your home stereo would cause itself to skip? But in the car it almost never happened -even with all the bumps & such in the road. And its not just vibrations, it also needs to work well (if not perfectly) at 40 below & well over 100 degrees.

Third, the software coding requirements in automotive are much more stringent than in typical consumer devices. Its one thing push a patch or do a hot-fix on the day something goes live for a phone or a web service, then keep tweaking it for weeks or months after launch. But in the car world, buying a brand new car & having glitches & bugs in the software is simply unacceptable. A partial consequence of this required reliability is that the code itself might not be as quick or efficient as what could otherwise be possible.


Put it all together & its actually kindof impressive that the systems are as capable as they are

Audi uses Google for their mapping... I get your points.. But a manufacturer is currently implementing an incredible, proven system in their cars.. The NAV systems DONT work in these cars. they get you lost. That is not acceptable in 2015. I get that the tech in cars is always outdated. But I still think this is something that should not be that hard. Especially considering ALL the stuff the cars come with. NAV should be a no brainer.

[joemosfet]

So a quick word about Android Auto (I'm not sure if Apple Car Play is identical, but fellow developers say it's essentially the same).

Apps that utilize Android Auto don't get full control over the screen in your car. Apps on your phone can choose to utilize an interface provided by Android Auto - this interface is a template that very tightly limits the way an app can present information - such as button placement, number of buttons, an area where static images can be displayed. (this ensures a common look-and-feel among all apps that utilize Android Auto, so drivers aren't distracted by trying to find a button that isn't in the 'normal' spot, or buried in a sea of 20 other buttons)

However, Google apps for Android Auto, such as the Maps app, get more control over what can be displayed on the car's screen - such as maps, the placement and number of buttons. But this special control is reserved, immediately, for Google apps.

If you really liked Bob's Map App and wanted to use it instead, you wouldn't be able to, on your car's dash. At least until Bob gets blessing from Google and probably the auto manufacturers. Same thing goes for any app that wouldn't fit in the Android Auto app paradigm - no using a media app to watch movies from your phone on your dash, for instance.

So don't think of Android Auto as seeing being able to see your phone screen on your car, and being able to do everything you can do on your phone from your dash - this is certainly not the case.

Instead, think of Android Auto as an app that runs in your car that apps can utilize, if they've been programmed to do so.

Don't get me wrong, Google Maps even in it's Android Auto form is way better than anything that OEMs have released, and I did not get nav on my order because even if Android Auto won't be available on the 2016 models, I would still use my phone.

On a side note, I think Dodge did it right by working with Garmin to use their software on their in-dash systems, but even Garmin - who are experts at GPS devices and interfaces - pales in comparison to what Google has done with Maps.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by joemosfet

So a quick word about Android Auto (I'm not sure if Apple Car Play is identical, but fellow developers say it's essentially the same).

Apps that utilize Android Auto don't get full control over the screen in your car. Apps on your phone can choose to utilize an interface provided by Android Auto - this interface is a template that very tightly limits the way an app can present information - such as button placement, number of buttons, an area where static images can be displayed.

That being said, Google Apps for Android Auto, such as the Maps app, get more control over what can be displayed on the car's screen - such as maps, the placement and number of buttons. But this special control is reserved, immediately, for Google apps.

If you really liked Bob's Map App and wanted to use it instead, you wouldn't be able to, on your car's dash. At least until Bob gets blessing from Google and probably the auto manufacturers.

So don't think of Android Auto as seeing being able to see your phone screen on your car, and being able to do everything you can do on your phone from your dash - this is certainly not the case.

Instead, think of Android Auto as an app that runs in your car that apps can utilize, if they've been programmed to do so.

Don't get me wrong, Google Maps even in it's Android Auto form is way better than anything that OEMs have released, and I did not get nav on my order because even if Android Auto won't be available on the 2016 models, I would still use my phone.

On a side note, I think Dodge did it right by working with Garmin to use their software on their in-dash systems, but even Garmin - who are experts at GPS devices and interfaces - pales in comparison to what Google has done with Maps.

CarPlay is exactly the same from my understanding, and apps have to be approved by Apple for use. With Apple's already restrictive approval process for apps in iStore, I imagine it will be difficult to say the least to get them approved....at least compared to Android Auto.