The "Connected" Car Is Probably A Lot More Important Than You Think

"David Ruddock" (rdr0b11)
04/05/2015 at 12:03 • Filed to: None

While it is a terribly un-Jalop sort of topic, there's little denying that automakers are more and more pushing "smart" features as major selling points for their vehicles, especially mass-market cars meant for the average Joe.

The notion of a "smarter" vehicle is not a new thing, of course - going back to keyless entry in the 1980s, there's been a clear history of cars trying to make their existence in our everyday lives more convenient and less reliant upon the know-how and, frankly, mental or physical input from the driver. Outside of the enthusiast community, this does seem to have proven a popular choice.

But what is new are vehicles which seek to connect with the technology you already own and carry around all day. Namely, a smartphone.

Almost any respectable vehicle sold today has the option, for example, to stream music from your phone via Bluetooth. While not universal (finding a Mini Cooper in the US with this option, for example, is near impossible), it borders on ubiquity at least as an optional upgrade in nearly every vehicle, with many OEMs having chosen to make it standard equipment on all but their basest of base models.

The reasoning is simple: the CD is dead, and now so is the iPod. With Bluetooth streaming quality generally quite excellent on modern phones, consumers simply aren't going to hear any noticeable loss in audio quality on new cars (older cars with older BT implementations may be the exception here). It also still sounds many orders of magnitude better than even HD radio, so the choice for most consumers is easy. For your Fords and Nissans, this is also an extremely easy choice to make for your cars: everybody wants it, and if they don't get it from you, they'll go where it can be had cheaper or as part of a better overall vehicle package. I can all but guarantee within 5 years that it will be impossible to find an economy car in America without Bluetooth audio streaming - it will simply be included even at the cheapest trim level.

It's already changing the behaviors of carmakers, too - Hyundai has explicitly stated that it plans to phase out CD decks on its entry-level vehicles within the next few years, because most customers simply don't use them (I have to imagine it will stay on as a dealer-installed glovebox option or something, though).

This also brings things like Google's Android Auto and Apple's CarPlay into the fold, products that are technically trivial for automakers to implement and that will immediately resonate with consumers for one, simple reason: every single in-car infotainment system in existence provides a categorically worse experience (and by no small margin) than interacting with your smartphone. Your smartphone has vastly superior voice recognition capabilities, much better navigation with real-time map data updates and traffic information, access to infinitely more music services, and it offers you choice: don't want to use Pandora? Fine, use Spotify. Or Google Play Music. Or iTunes. Don't like Google Maps? There's Waze, or HERE.

This is mildly terrifying to car companies, because it sort of derails all the plans they had a few years ago to monetize connected car technology with proprietary tools and services and in-car LTE and various subscriptions which would bleed your wallet dry over a steady period of years instead of the moment you walked off the lot. Most have not hesitated to get in on the CarPlay/Auto action, though, because they recognize the utility of these products and know that it's simply going to be like every other popular technology option on cars all over again: they can get on board now and make the sales (and do so by lumping it in with a $1500-3000+ "tech" package), or they can hold out, lose customers, and push an in-house solution with the hope that this whole thing's just a fad.

In all likelihood, though, it is not a fad: increasingly, the smartphones in our pockets are years ahead of even our laptops (let alone our cars) in terms of connectivity and capability, providing us access to services and features that just five short years ago seemed like a pipe dream. Cars? Even if automakers do their damndest to keep up, the lengthy product pipelines in the auto industry will never be able to keep pace with the world of smartphones. Google and Apple have realized this, and are capitalizing with respectable rapidity on this state of affairs, in the process disconnecting the car from the "connected car" equation.

Both CarPlay and Android Auto have a simple, skeletal existence on the actual vehicles they support - there is little more than a tiny framework package on the car, and eventually, even that will be able to be updated remotely, likely via a connected smartphone. At that point, the company making the car doesn't really matter, and Apple and Google will have a strong foothold in the industry without having put a single wafer of silicon in your vehicle. That, in itself, is sort of amazing.

Apple and Google also have no reason to "play nice" with any proprietary vehicle applications anymore, apart from simply letting them exist and use existing technologies on their respective platforms. Instead, they'll build out their own tools and encourage carmakers to bundle their smart vehicle technologies into Apple or Google-developed APIs that kill the branded experience and app-centric mentality that luxury carmakers like BMW and Mercedes have attempted to construct.

Oh, Mercedes wants its mBrace app to connect to iTunes Radio and queue up a playlist when you do a remote start? That's nice, but the only way to do that is via the Apple CarPlay Remote API, which is only available to CarPlay partners running CarPlay framework 2.0.5 or above. It is not difficult to see how quickly the OEMs will become beholden to these systems, because they really can only expand in their influence from here.

Eventually, it is quite likely we will see these "projected" experiences evolve into areas like vehicle function controls and data gathering, because the only way Google or Apple can concretely secure themselves in this industry is to make their systems indispensable to what the average consumer does in the vehicle. Why care that Chevrolet computes your average gas mileage when Google can use that data to show you where on a map you use the most gas, at what times of day, how best to maximize your dollar by choosing a cheap gas station near where you typically are when you're on "E," and then overlay all this onto a really pretty graph you can look at on your smartphone, tablet, or laptop simply by opening an app or going to a website?

Hell, can you imagine a "speeding ticket risk" analysis using Waze's known radar hotspots along with your average speeds near those hotspots? You could cut the chance of getting a ticket dramatically with what is, frankly, a trivial amount of information to obtain and analyze.

This is why the connected car is important: our vehicles are already collecting so much data and information, but they rarely spit it out in a way that's all that useful to us outside of a given moment. Companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft can use that information in meaningful ways, and you can bet damn sure that CarPlay and Android Auto are precursors to much grander embedded partnership ambitions. I'm excited to see what comes of it all.

DISCUSSION (73)

wunderwagen wants a longer roof > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 12:16

Really enjoyable article, definitely FP worthy. Good job!

Groagun > wunderwagen wants a longer roof
04/05/2015 at 13:04

I assumed that right off the bat you were going to talk about autonomous driving but this was a pleasant and insightful surprise. Well written and informative: your future projections are based firmly in more than plausible and concrete observations and current trending activities.

The only thing missing is a discussion revolving around the liability and legality that companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft and others will face in the future. If an OEM leaves the 'dash' open for whomever to install or utilize their smart phone and or application, are they, the OEM, still responsible for it's operations or liabilities there and after?

We built this car but leave it up too Appl, Goog or MS to supply you info and data you want and need. Interesting to see how that question is tackled.

wunderwagen wants a longer roof > Groagun
04/05/2015 at 13:13

Not sure if David will see this. You may try posting this as a reply directly to the article. You bring up great points about the legalities and such, I'd be interested to know myself.

David Ruddock > Groagun
04/05/2015 at 13:39

I don't think there's much of a liability issue as the systems currently work - they're all compliant with the NHTSA / DOT rules for how in-car interfaces should function, too, and applications that are approved for use on them must meet those guidelines as well. Additionally, these systems are not really "installed" in anything but a strictly technical sense - the amount of software on the car is truly tiny, and the car still retains all of the manufacturer's own infotainment software.

In the future, as the embedded portion grows (assuming it does), I am assuming OEMs will take on more liability. The issue of who's to blame will likely be "everybody." If there's a bug Google introduces in Auto that causes Fords to not output audio or display incorrect GPS location, that's probably going to go to Ford on the consumer side - how could consumers even complain to Google? The channels just aren't there. On the back-end, I'm guessing service and support agreements are going to shape up.

Given that it's just an infotainment system, though, and not critical to any vehicle functions, the number of situations in which a real legal liability issue with worthwhile monetary damage would arise seems very small (especially with the OEM's own infotainment system there as a backup), though I am sure it would be possible to do some thought experiments in which that is not the case.

derekson > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 15:55

they can get on board now and make the sales (and do so by lumping it in with a $1500-3000+ "tech" package), or they can hold out, lose customers, and push an in-house solution with the hope that this whole thing's just a fad.

The bolded is apparently Toyota's strategy as the sole carmaker to not be on board with AA, CP, or both. Instead they're sticking to their proprietary EnTune junk.

I know Toyota customers typically don't care about anything except Toyota's reputation for reliability, but I'd think that in some segments not having AA/CP is going to cost them a lot of sales when all of the competitors have it. This would seem to be an especially big issues among customers in their 20s and early 30s, which are always hot targets for auto manufacturers since so many of them are first time new car buyers who then might stick with a brand for life (or at least 1-2 repeat purchases).

PeteRR > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 16:14

Listen, I committed to the CD in 1983, so fuck that being obsolete shit.

jztemple > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 16:15

A good article, thanks for posting it. I am wondering how many folks really do agree with this:

The reasoning is simple: the CD is dead, and now so is the iPod.

I realize my wife and I are rather old fogies when it comes to car audio tech. My twelve year old car has a cassette player which I use with a cassette adapter to plug in my iTouch. My wife's newer 2013 Dodge Caravan has a CD player with a 3.5mm mini-stereo port so I can plug in my iTouch there; she still plays CDs. Neither of us have smart phones.

Are we pretty much the only folks reading this column who don't use Bluetooth or over-the-air streaming? I'm just wondering this in the same vein as when I see articles posted that identify printed books as dead since everyone uses a Kindle or other e-reader. Probably needless to say, my wife and I both enjoy printed books.

There's a certain irony in all these advanced tech tools coming to cars. We picked up that Caravan at a pretty reasonably low price because it came without a nav system or any fancy tech beyond electric windows and power doors. The dealer was having trouble finding someone who wanted such a plain jane model. We don't mind!

Old-Busted-Hotness > jztemple
04/05/2015 at 16:40

I'm with ya. I'm quite happy to NOT be connected behind the wheel. Nor do I feel the need to carry the internet in my pocket.

Lack of "new tech" was a real motivator when I bought the Challenger last year. All the 2015s come with a touch screen, and that's just something I won't have.

NeonBlaqk > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 16:57

It's a very interesting subject, particularly as a GIS nerd. However, I would never want any sort of glowy center console iPad type thing in any of my cars for a very simple reason. It's too bright. If you wear glasses, you'll feel me on this, the glare sucks. When I drive at night, I want minimal distraction in the form of glowing interior bits. I love the display in my Abarth because it's a nicely dim orange akin to old school video games at night. Minimal glare and distraction. My lil' old corvette is even better, you get the choice of dim yellowish green to almost completely dark. Turn down the brightness on a modern infotainment system all you want and unless it's damn near off, it will still be too bright.

OneMoreTimeAgainandAgain > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 17:00

Something has to be done, or it will kill a segment of the used car market in ten years.

Example: My folks bought a Subaru wagon, with the nav package. After using it for a week (they live in the sticks and never need it except when they travel, and they have no experience with a nav system other than a GPS on a phone) they realized that they hate it. Mpas are outdated, interface sucks, touchscreen is old tech and doesn't work well... So, my dad called Crutchfield to buy an aftermarket stereo, and a smartphone mount.

The guy at Crutchfield told him that removing the stock unit was a really bad idea. There are things like the alarm controls that are only accessible from the shitty interface. So, in 10 years when the stereo bites the dust, but the car only has 75,000 miles on it, what do you do? Will Subaru make replacement units for the next 50 years? Will there be an aftermarket option that controls the shit that shouldn't be controlled by the stereo?

In any case, don't buy a Subaru with a nav system if you plan to keep the car forever.

Manuél Ferrari > NeonBlaqk
04/05/2015 at 17:02

OMG yes. I wear glasses and agree 100%

The only system I've used that has a lot of features and doesn't get in the way of driving is iDrive in my 2011 M3. While the screen is pretty big and mounted high it uses black as the background color and the text and images are not too bright or thick.

E39Geek > jztemple
04/05/2015 at 17:07

Not quite the old fogy here but I don't use Bluetooth streaming because in general the sound quality just sucks. I rent a *lot* of cars and maybe my experience is decidedly low-end so this may change as you go upscale (my local BMW dealer wants me to find out!). But in the rental cars that do have BT audio the music sounds like it's filtered through an old gym sock. My hearing is bad (misspent youth) but not that bad that I don't care.

I don't stream just because my tastes in music are too weird. Everything from 12th century church choral music to the late, great Frank Zappa ( Jazz from Hell ) and the odd country tune (Dale Watson's Live from London is a must-have!).

And when I'm in my own car, which doesn't have anything more modern than FM, I just like to crank down the windows and listen to the engine.

jztemple > PeteRR
04/05/2015 at 17:25

I committed to the CD in 1983

That reminded me of something. Back in the early eighties, my NASA counterpart (I worked on the Space Shuttle program) came to work one day and handed out these flat plastic cases with silvery disks inside and explained that they were called Compact Discs and were going to be the newest way to listen to music. It was a nice gesture but we couldn't play the music because we hadn't a CD player among us.

This guy was pretty smart, as he also was the first one to have a home video game system (an Odyssey if I remember correctly). And he was very excited about a new investment opportunity in buying up rights for cellular access. Wish we had listened to him more, or maybe had the money to invest!

PeteRR > jztemple
04/05/2015 at 17:30

I was lucky that I worked in a catalog store and bought a refurbished Sony player. New they were around $400 that year. I paid $150.

I was just starting to buy LPs then and when CDs came out, I sold my turntable and the 50 or so albums I had. I still have my first CD, Led Zeppelin IV, and it plays perfectly.

Broken-goat > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 17:33

Cars are no longer cars....they're now appliances like your home computer. Its quite depressing for me...

I really wish there was a factory delete everything option. I just want a car...

NeonBlaqk > Manuél Ferrari
04/05/2015 at 17:39

Now, if only they could figure out how to make iDrive not turn me into a stabby rage monster. I was in a BMW with that a month back and it was the least intuitive bit of kit I've ever wanted to light on fire.

Manuél Ferrari > NeonBlaqk
04/05/2015 at 17:43

LOL

It is a PITA to learn

But I swear once you have it for a while it all clicks and makes sense

Now that I'm used to it I feel that it's much safer to use than the touch screen in my 997

The Porsche's interface is a lot more intuitive. But you can't really use it without staring at it. You can use iDrive with just brief glances at it so you can keep your eyes on the road.

jpnasto12 > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 17:54

Great article. Most of us want a decent size screen for a back up camera and to mimic the screens on our iPhones or Androids. CDs are going the way of the dinosaur. AM/FM radio stations are disappearing and are being replace by Pod casts, XM radio, and Pandora and the 10 gigs of shared data on you family cell plan. Why pay for any automobile proprietary service when you have the internet at your finger tips.

NeonBlaqk > Manuél Ferrari
04/05/2015 at 18:45

I just can't think of a reason why I would want an infotainment system, intuitive or not. Both my cars have Sirius, of which I listen to four stations, and one has Bluetooth which is handy for answering the phone. I don't want to watch TV even when I'm a passenger, I hate backup cams, and I rarely need sat nav because I have the navigational instincts of a homing pigeon. I don't even have the shift indicator turned on in my Abarth because it's just one more flashing light. I do worry that I will end up frozen in automotive time to a certain extent, but then I also have a nice record collection and am partial to my Duran Duran and David Bowie t-shirts, I may be hopelessly stuck in time anyway.

m > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 20:19

great read!

TimF101 > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 20:25

I feel increasingly that I will never give up my manual '08 Fit sport. It gets efficiency the old fashioned way, by having a hamster wheel under the hood. It has a modest number of moving parts, no networked systems to update, crash or hack (without access under the hood). It is well-engineered, handles well, lasts forever and the relentless internet of things can fucking blow me.

Chaparral2F > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 20:41

Once upon a time, cars, performance at least, had a speedometer and tachometer and maybe a couple of gauges for oil pressure and battery voltage. That was all the "smart" features we needed. Today, life while supposedly simpler, seems more complex. I think the best smart feature today for enthusiasts is the SRT Performance Pages. Still, the future is information connectivity and seems to be what customers are demanding.

Edz > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 21:06

Call me old fashioned, old school, but on my daily drive to and from work, I'm always on my local PBS radio station. Rarely do i switch to my in-car music (hdd, iPod, usb flash drive). :p

Manuél Ferrari > NeonBlaqk
04/05/2015 at 21:20

The only reason I like iDrive over an older style radio is because I occaionally use the nav and I use the Sirius interface a lot. I switch between news, sports talk radio, music and comedy a lot.

I use the radio to keep myself from driving too fast when it's not safe to do so. If I'm entertained it's easier to follow the speed limits.

lattimeratthetable > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 21:27

This should have happened YEARS ago. Aside from that, the NHTSA and the gov't need to make sure that you aren't locked into one system by each manufacturer creating an effective monopoly. But then again, out gov't does shit about the tech monopolies that exist (lookin at you Apple, Google, Microsoft, et al.)

AssFault > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 21:31

2014 CTS-V can't yet stream Bluetooth music.

Absolution > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 21:55

The thing I wonder about most is if certain brands will do certain OS's. For instance Ford doing Android while GM does Apple, or if you will have the option to choose. Kind of like the windows OS does now for internet browsers.

NeonBlaqk > Manuél Ferrari
04/05/2015 at 22:01

I have a seriously entertaining and playful daily and live in an 80mph state, it's impossible not to hoon pretty much constantly no matter what is on the radio.

FullSpectrumPotato > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 22:06

Base models with Bluetooth but no cruise control is the greatest crime of the current car generation.

nezuko > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 22:16

Carmakers are defending their in-car turf with swords. Apple and google are attacking them with guns. Guns with bees in them and when they shoot the guns it shoots bees at them.

isocuda > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 22:17

Good read, was thinking of collecting some of the newer aftermarket head units designed for android, etc. I don't think we're there just yet with so little options.....soon...

Manuél Ferrari > NeonBlaqk
04/05/2015 at 22:23

So jelly! I live in a 65 MPH county and no twisty roads in my commute

Thunder > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 22:47

Awesome article. The Waze analysis of risk would be a killer app, IMHO.

But phase out CDs? Say it ain't so.

In my car, the CD is where all my daughter's songs reside. Mine are on a chip; a second chip has audiobooks. Bluetooth audio is for podcasts.

That way, each source is dedicated, and the car's memory of where I left off is retained.

VegasGuy55 > David Ruddock
04/05/2015 at 23:39

Google and Apple will rule the auto infotainment space? Other than the fact that both of the products (CarPlay and Android Auto) suck, I think you might be right. I've used both, and watched professional demos of both, and they only work 75-80% of the time. Particularly the the bucket of snake oil that is the current state of voice recognition. In a perfectly quiet studio, with no ambient noise, I watch both systems struggle to understand a simple route command. 3, 4 even 5 repeats couldn't get the job done. I'm not saying anyone else has anything better, but neither of those products represent the undisputed future of the connected car. And because they suffer from many of the same problems that everyone else suffers from, the auto makers will continue to build their own for some time to come.

glemon > NeonBlaqk
04/06/2015 at 00:09

I have to agree, I don't need or want a touch screen in my car. But I was shopping for a car recently, and looking at new, late model and older (I bought older BTW, see first sentence) I realized that cars have really gone through a revolution in the last ten years.

Driving my 1999 Maxima, or even my 2002 IS300 is really pretty similar to driving my first modern car, an 85 RX-7, or even the car I did much of my early driving on, my mom's 74 Valiant (made by Plymouth for you younger folks, oh wait now I have to explain Plymouth...). Although performance and handling are worlds better in the IS than the Plymouth, I still put the key in the ignition to start it, and have manual controls, switches, buttons and rotating dials to control the, radio, ventilation, and various accessories. Fast forward to 2015 model, even low end cars had proximity keys, touch screens, and instrument display instead of guages and links to the smart phone and such, huge revolutionary change in the driving experience. And one that didn't really hit me until I started shopping for new cars and driving in a couple of friend's newer vehicles, including a 2015 Focus the other day, just blew my mind how much everything had changed.

none8239487234 > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 00:56

Good article and certainly a different point of view.

Here's another thing to think about. The focus on the "connected car" is costing us in other areas. In the 90's we saw technologies that could save lives and make cars safer. Technology such as Antilock brakes, Traction control and Airbags made cars safer and better to drive. Are we loosing out on the next generations of systems that can save lives just so we don't have to shuffle through our CD collection?

Traction control is just starting to hit the motorcycle world. These systems are much more advanced than the car systems giving the rider the ability to adjust the intervention of the systems to their preferences and riding style without loosing speed. My BMW S1000RR has the ability to do this and with a laptop and some software I can adjust the bike to maintain safe traction yet give me a bit of slip. Very few cars offer any adjust ability and most of them just have an on off switch. Imagine a car that you could fine tune the traction control or ABS on for track use. Imagine being able to have the protection of ABS and TC and still have a vehicle able to "move around a bit" with the computer there to get involved when things get out of control.

I don't find the "connected car" to be useful. I would rather auto makers make cars that are better at being cars. Smartphones often make the features that automakers introduce obsolete in just a few months. It's cheaper to buy a new phone than a new car.

monkeyracing > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 01:21

The thing about all this I find striking is how little of it is actually related to the task of driving. It's really super that you have access to tons of music, social media and the like, but what does that have to do with driving? It's just extra stuff. Music is great to have when you're driving. I embrace that. But, some of the other stuff? Why? Do we really need social media updates all the time? Can't that wait?

The other item I find to be very silly (Forgive the wording. I'm tired.) is the idea that the interface of a touchscreen device is superior to tactile controls in a moving car. Are you nuts? How is taking your eyes off the road superior to reaching out blindly to find a familiar control, without looking away from the task at hand? One might argue that voice control can handle tasks for us, but if voice recognition was that good, we'd all have better rested thumbs after a day of communicating with out friends.

For me and I assume the majority of people, driving day to day does not require a navigation system or access to all the world's media. We know where we're going when we leave for work. We generally know where the traffic jams are going to be at a given time. If you run into an unexpected one, that's life. Wherever you're going, you're probably not a world changer or critical to the continued existence of our species. Calm down, relax and think of driving as a time to disconnect just a little.

Isaac Alonzo > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 02:04

In depth analysis, a lot of great concepts well explained here! Nice one mate.

reiska > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 03:46

All I would say is that the Automotive industry is cautious and has a longer outlook compared to the Tech industry. Yes there is a broad and bright future in terms of in terms of interaction, my friend works for the company that developed the dash on the new Audi TT. But the reality is that an Automotive company is going to be thinking of what are the implications are 10 or 20 years and possibly longer for this technology. Also what happens to that information on your car when you sell it as it will be sold many times, how hackable it is and what happens to the information on the car. I have my old ipod sitting in the drawer as it has a faulty earphone jack and my Nissan Silva had a Mini disc player back in the 90's.

Kinja'd!!!

OdinThe1337 > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 08:03

I am not excited, I am horrified.
There are so many issues with this, but I will only mention two:

Privacy and Security
What privacy? Exactly! Cars are already collecting a massive amount of data. Phones are tracked 24/7, contain a massive amount of private data and laws to prevent burner phones / anonymity are coming or already in place.

Security is a big issue but most people seem to have an Aussie "no worries mate" mentality. People are careless when it comes to their phone. Installing any kind of app because free. That it might upload your contact data, emails, GPS location and pictures to a remote server because malware seems not interesting enough. It it possible to connect to and take over most any smartphone remotely if you have a certain skill set, infected apps make this a lot easier.

Car connectivity in not the pinnacle of secured systems. There have been quite a few stories published about the nasty things you can do to a car once you have access to OBDII and the CAN interface. Most of the car's systems are interconnected and once you are in, it is not just lights, the horn and the locks. It is possible to mess with steering, throttle, brakes and vital systems that keep you on the road and not go BOOM!

Current systems are vulnerable and they offer relatively limited remote connectivity options. Things that come to mind are ConnectedDrive from BMW and similar systems. But hacks have been performed via the in-car entertainment system. Physical access was required in most cases, but Bluetooth OBDII dongles and homemade connectivity boards plugged in to the car's communication system allow bad things to happen from a distance.

Now combine the two, the security hazard you occasionally use to actually call someone and the poorly secured systems that control your car. Now that is an accident waiting to happen. Big brother scenario is that a government will skip traffic camera's and just automatically send you a speeding ticket every time you exceed the speed limit as they monitor all your vehicle data real-time.
Bad people with tech skill scenario is that they will use the access they have to your smartphone to breach the systems that control your car and disable all kinds of vital systems once you hit 88MPH. That will not send you back to the future but you will meet your maker if you believe there is one other than your parents.

So I can't say I am very excited about the developments in this area. There are large investments to bring new features to the market just to be first. As many have experienced, in-car entertainment and connectivity often do not work as expected and are not the most user-friendly systems. With that budget they cannot get the intended features to work as they should. Security is not a top priority at the moment, to put it politely. So I am honestly scared about the incidents that will happen. If it is contained to incidents we will be lucky.

MrBlah > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 08:17

my bmw has exactly 2 options, park distance and comfort access. Both are broken, I have new modules ready to go in but I'm in no rush I do not miss either. My next car will have even less options if possible, alfa please hurry up with some 4C SE's. I DO NOT WANT a "connected" car for at least 10 years as the crappy infotainment systems are so bad still.

MrMcQueen21v2 > NeonBlaqk
04/06/2015 at 08:21

Agreed! I bought a Double Din system for my Mustang with one of the big screens, best thing about it, is that the good folks at Pioneer decided to put a button right there, easy to access, that turns off the screen, so you can concentrate while driving. I love that feature and wish cars had something similar!

MrMcQueen21v2 > none8239487234
04/06/2015 at 08:26

I don't think we are. While in car tech has increased, remember the safety features that have also come out. Heads up displays, night vision cameras, steering wheel controls (so no distractions), radar guided cruise control, auto-braking systems, etc.

Jerk Dently > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 08:36

I'd be happy with a screen I could cast my phone to for a larger display when using Google Maps. I don't need much more.

pip bip - choose Corrour > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 09:28

bollocks.

i didn't ask for any of that , and don't want it.

my car has no bluetooth.

no mp3 input

no Usb input.

even has manual windows (2003/4 Mitsubishi Lancer) , and i wish car makers would abort filing cars with un-neccessary crap!

Abe Froman > Groagun
04/06/2015 at 09:46

Slightly different topic, but relevant. I'm curious where insurance monitoring fits in with the advent of "smart"cars. Progressive's "Snapshot" is a way that insurers can keep tabs on your driving habits. Hopefully, the greater population agrees that this feels rather Big Brother-ish but is there a possibility a standard software like this could be included in future autos?

Abe Froman > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 09:46

Groagun > Abe Froman
04/06/2015 at 10:01

Sadly the car's black box already records all of the car's specific and critical data. For the past decade police departments and the courts have 'taken' that data and used it against people in court. The question as to who owns that data and who has the right to consume and use it was before the courts and I think is still winding it's way through the legal system.

Could that data be recorded by your smart phone? I can't see why not but today I think you may need a connection to hardware still installed in the car itself. Tomorrow, probably not with GPS, gyroscope and whatever type of 'scope' improvements.

NeonBlaqk > glemon
04/06/2015 at 11:00

That's one of the reasons I love having two cars 30 years apart. On most days I'm buzzing around in the modern world with my Bluetooth and stereo controls on the back of the steering wheel, etc. Then I jump into my older car and it's just that much more visceral. I can't answer the phone with the tap of my thumb, usually I can't even hear the phone in the first place. Reaching for steering wheel buttons results in tapping metal and feeling like an idiot. There's even two keys as was once normal, just jagged bits of metal topped with plastic, no buttons or fobs. It's really nice actually.

Kris > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 11:07

Considering that most in-car entertainment systems, including voice recognition have been garbage for a decade, these new systems are a breathe of fresh air. Leave the interface, app, and hardware to the pros of Silicon Valley, not the auto manufacturers.

Strangely enough, that preview of CarPlay in Need For Speed was an awesome use-case as far as making that technology feel like a main stay in today's world. For a lot of people, their phone is an extension of themselves, no different than their car. Why not take both of those tools and combine them to create a seamlessly integrated environment?

Garland - Last Top Comment on Splinter > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 11:10

The future depresses me. I don't want or need any of this shit. I hate feature bloat and I cringe every time I hear "now with more standard features."

Garland - Last Top Comment on Splinter > jztemple
04/06/2015 at 11:15

I only listen to FM radio or CDs. My iPod is hooked up in the glovebox but I never use it anymore. It's easier to just switch CDs then to go through the extra steps of ripping it onto the computer and transferring to the iPod.

Garland - Last Top Comment on Splinter > pip bip - choose Corrour
04/06/2015 at 11:18

Same here. Though my aftermarket head unit does have an iPod connector that I no longer use.

Vince P. > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 11:38

This is what happens when you have a bunch of rich "out of touch" old guys at the helm of a billion dollar company. Happens everywhere where leadership is left to an over-paid douche at the top who's single vision for the company would have been great if we were in 1963.

all they care about is the bottom line, fuck the customer experience. They should sell pure android or apple play head units and let the industry leaders in mapping/audio/etc. do what they do. Does Ford or GM seriously think they can build a head unit that remotely compares to a modern day phone? Why is it a double din "shitty UI" factory head unit, has less power/functionality/reliability than a similarly priced phone? Can you even buy a $2000 smart phone!??!?! Are you telling my physical buttons cost $1400? Pay for map updates?!? Go Fuck yourself!

Why the hell are the automakers still paying BOSCH/DELPHI to make these shitty head units? these are the same idiots that can't get all the pixels in a basic one color lcd screen to stay on for more than a few years! Clearly these guys are out of touch. Go to Samsung or HTC. Get them to build you something. They could build you something MAGICAL for $500, you could sell it to me as a $1000 option (you make 100% margin) and we BOTH would be happy!

I hope to god Spotify and Waze and all the other "APP" guys get together and build car that puts these morons who run the auto makers out of business. Teach em a lesson about being greedy.

jks > jztemple
04/06/2015 at 12:13

Raises hand. Still smartphoneless after all these years. In my perfect world, automakers would not add any info-tainment stuff, with the 1000% price markeup, and just give that money back to me.

gdawg1 > OneMoreTimeAgainandAgain
04/06/2015 at 13:10

My 2014 sonic is the same. I bought the base LS, 5 speed, crank windows, etc. A "basic" car for commuting that still has 10 airbags & great crash test ratings, that i'm averaging about 36mpg in. So far so good.

However, the base has Bluetooth. And I'm thinking, whoa, bluetooth! except, it's only for phone calls. No A2DP profile.

No big issue, I'll replace the head unit. It's a double din. Easy right? Except the stock head unit which consists of basically fm/am radio & an aux in hole, ALSO controls about 30 functions of the car including alarm system, interior lighting, etc. Talked to crutchfield & they suggested some units, but said I'd lose all the car configuring functionality my current head unit has. My only hope is to buy a head unit that is a replacement for an upmarket trim. Instead I pretty much just leave the radio/off.

Shortly after this, my brother goes searching for a used car & settles on a 2011 CTS with Luxury package. Bluetooth as well. AGAIN NO A2DP profile in a car that probably retailed in the 60k'ish range, made in 2011. I haven't checked if the head unit can be replaced, but I'm guessing since it's also a GM vehicle, he'll run into the same problems as me.

gdawg1 > FullSpectrumPotato
04/06/2015 at 13:15

My 2014 Sonic is guilty of this.

But lets take a step back —

Base models with NO POWER WINDOWS OR MIRRORS but bluetooth audio are a bigger crime!

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 13:15

Awesome post, finally someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Great analysis, I pretty much agree 100%. The future will be very interesting for cars and connected tech.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > NeonBlaqk
04/06/2015 at 13:15

Almost every car with a display since the beginning of time has had an option to vary the brightness levels. Even your gauges almost certainly have this option.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > pip bip - choose Corrour
04/06/2015 at 13:17

Then buy a car without it. Or buy a used car. You are a minority that isn't even a rounding error in the customer base. Why does it matter? How does it affect you? Why are you so upset about something you don't even use?

Ham-Ster > Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment
04/06/2015 at 13:34

Just playing Devil's advocate here (because I do sort of agree with you) but a possible objection would be increasing the cost of vehicles by adding features neither asked for or desired.

I know you can always go with a used car, but if what you really want is a new car you will soon be out of choices.

I would definitely support auto makers leaving this sort of thing as an option and not a mandatory feature. But, then you bring into question about how much you can really save with economies of scale and all that noise so it may not be worth it to the manufacturer to offer 2-4 different setups.

NeonBlaqk > Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment
04/06/2015 at 14:29

They do. I have them turned down in my modern car and they're acceptably dim after 33 years in my play car. However, between the location and the quality of the screen on infotainment systems, there really isn't a "dim enough but not off" setting for my taste. It reflects in my glasses and provides too much light in general.

E39FTW > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 14:36

Loved the article. I have been following the development of both the Google platform as well as the Apple platform for some time now and I am looking forward to trying them both out. Since none of my cars are newer than 10 years old I am always excited to rent/try out new interfaces, as such, I was excited to drive my parents new 2014 Buick Lacrosse. Surely, I thought, on a vehicle that costs as much as this Buick cost and has all the bells and whistles that this Buick contained (lane departure, back-up camera...) the smartphone integration must be top-notch.

Nope.

Buick knows and understands their customers. This car had Bluetooth, but only for phone calls. it was not possible to stream Bluetooth audio from my iPhone to the car. Surely, that was an oversight. Then, I watched as my mom plugged her phone in to play music. Instead of using the USB port in the center console she used the 3.5mm audio cable (it was at this point that I had to teach her how to turn up the volume on the phone itself so it could be heard over the car stereo). It was at that point that I got it. I understood why there was no Bluetooth streaming. Most Buick owners can't even figure out how the USB port works, much less Bluetooth

none8239487234 > MrMcQueen21v2
04/06/2015 at 15:45

Those are all certainly interesting features for sure. For me at least they don't really have the impact that the systems in the 1990's did. As well they are highly fragmented and marketed as convenience items more than fundamental design improvements. ABS, TC and Airbags were all universal and eventually adopted by all the manufacturers. You can't even buy a car without ABS and TC these days unless you go out of your way to find a car without those features.

Auto braking certainly is a step in the right direction. Vehicles that were able to correct basic driver error would be something great as well. Instead of your car under steering off the road because of driver panic the system could assist the driver in emergency situations. Lane assist with the ability to actually do something about the problem.

Active Suspension is another area that could be really improved and explored by the general automotive manufacturers. BMW both on the car side and on the bike side have a lot of active suspension technology. On the bikes it's pretty amazing. The system on BMW's bikes is DDC short for Dynamic Dampening Control. 100X a second it adjusts the suspension to keep it set perfectly. It give you way more traction and saves a TON of tire wear.

Personally I would rather a more advanced active suspension on a car than a shiny flat panel in the dash that's going to go obsolete in 6 months when Apple releases their new iphone that does more.

KidBobot > David Ruddock
04/06/2015 at 20:41

Great write up; really enjoyable read!

Btw... Re: your comment - "While it is a terribly un-Jalop sort of topic,..." I'd argue that this 100% Jalop-worthy... Definitely. I'll tell you what is un-Jalop... That recent post ranking the coffee passed out to press during press day at the NYAS. I can't believe anyone actually spent time writing about that versus everything that could be covered at the show, let alone actually having it published!

FullSpectrumPotato > gdawg1
04/06/2015 at 21:21

Cruise controls are extremely easy to implement on most cars, are cheap, and don't really weigh anything. Installing an aftermarket one is kind of a pain for a car model that only has it "disabled" but the wiring is still present - a.k.a. a rip-off trim option. I'm talking about you, Subaru. I can see people not caring about hand-cranks though. You don't need a hand-crank to tolerate a 500 mile drive and I never have to move my mirrors once they're set properly.

pip bip - choose Corrour > Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment
04/07/2015 at 04:17

i would buy a car without it , but Dacia cars aren't sold here in Australia.

bluetooth/mp3/usb just isn't neccessary.

pip bip - choose Corrour > Garland - Last Top Comment on Splinter
04/07/2015 at 04:18

it's just so frustrating.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > pip bip - choose Corrour
04/08/2015 at 18:38

*for you...however for most of us, we want it. I listen to music quite a bit, and I also enjoy being able to talk on the phone without the distraction of using the phone physically.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > NeonBlaqk
04/08/2015 at 18:41

Interesting. I've generally found that most go pretty dark, however I know most cars now also tend to auto-dim when it gets dark outside. To each their own, I've never had a problem but maybe my eyes aren't super sensitive to it.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > Ham-Ster
04/08/2015 at 18:43

Maybe, but the added cost is in the tens of dollars, barely. If you're spending at least 12-13k on a new car, I doubt you'll notice the extra $25 they tack onto the MSRP because they made it standard.

In the future, it will probably almost literally cost more not to have it, and it will be analogous to wanting your car without a clock or without movable windows.

NeonBlaqk > Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment
04/08/2015 at 19:10

I'm blind to start and have to wear fairly thick glasses which means reflection and glare is an issue. If you wear contacts or have good vision it's probably much less of an issue, but I need all the vision and focus I can muster while night driving which means eliminating glowing screens.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > NeonBlaqk
04/10/2015 at 22:41

Makes sense, I can imagine with such thick lenses it can create a problem.

Funny, I was thinking of our conversation here last night, as I drove past a guy in a Model S, and I could see the large central screen inside. The brightness didn't seem too bad, although it's hard to tell entirely from the outside. Looks like it has a pretty aggressive brightness control.