J.D. Power Bases Dependability Study On Bluetooth & Voice Commands

"Steven Lang" (StevenLang)
03/18/2015 at 08:45 • Filed to: None

"Now in its 26th year, J.D. Power's latest Vehicle Dependability Study found that the top two problems reported by consumers in the study were the lack of Bluetooth connectivity and the misinterpretation of commands by the car's voice recognition system." —- Business Insider

WTF?

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Can anyone in God's green Earth tell me what these two issues have to do with vehicle dependability?

What's next? J.D. Power picks the most reliable car colors?

Or maybe... the car world really is doomed to an ever faster whirlwind of survey driven idiocy.

"In other news, FIAT finished dead last in J.D. Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. This was primarily due to their customers mistaking the industry's last cigarette lighter as a finger warmer."

"In other news, sales of the Toyota Camry declined by 87% in Florida during February due to their discontinuing of the colors Hospital Blue and Champagne Gold. These colors were struck off the Camry's palette after J.D. Power found that owners of these car colors were the most likely to die. "

"Mark Fields, CEO of Ford, was overheard mumbling the words, "Those f——ers" upon the release of J.D. Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. This was followed by uncontrollable laughter upon seeing the sales results of the vehicles that made the list."

"As a response to the poor showing of Mercedes-Benz, returning CEO and lifelong playboy Juergen Schrempp has pledged to offer their upcoming voice command system in Welsh, Gaelic, Bostonian, Morse Code, and Semaphore."

And finally,

"In other news, J.D. Power has decided to survey themselves in regards to surveys. The findings? The last J.D. Power survey with any relevance was the Initial Quality Study back in 1988 which focused on quality standards during the first ninety days of ownership. This study was only relevant because Sterling, Peugeot, Yugo, and Mitsubishi were still shucking around new cars with electrical systems made out of Twizzlers."

It's obvious I'm all surveyed out. But how about you? Is there a survey that you think we're going to see in the near future? Perhaps a J.D. Power survey that ranks cars based on the size of their tailpipes? It's all apparently possible in this brave new world of modern day surveys. So feel free to share.

DISCUSSION (23)

JimJamJollop > Steven Lang
03/17/2015 at 23:04

I'd be interested to see what, if any, correlation there is between JD Power's initial quality studies, AKA how long will the honeymoon period with my new car last, and statistics on long term quality.

You might be in a position to help determine the relative value of a vehicle's JD Power's result!

spanfucker retire bitch > Steven Lang
03/18/2015 at 08:53

Just because it doesn't have to do with the mechanical dependability, doesn't mean it doesn't have to do with the overall dependability of your vehicle. As a whole.

I'd be pretty pissed off if the bluetooth in my car decided not to work randomly every day. I don't even need a radio in my car at this point, it's been completely subsumed by streaming my phone. So yeah, I'd be pretty pissed at the lack of dependability at being able to listen to music in my car.

Two Drink Minimum > Steven Lang
03/18/2015 at 09:20

Here here! Vehicle dependability should be all about things that impact driving experience and viability. So electronic seat motors that tend to burn out? Legit dependability issue, since a stuck seat is a huge problem if it ain't stuck in your setting. Likewise, a heating or AC system that fails deserves calling out, since it can make a car nigh unto undriveable in the dead of winter.

But a glitchy Bluetooth or voice recognition system? Come on. They have value, sure, but neither of those things even work well with my desktop computer, much less in a car cabin. And neither, frankly, impacts the driving viability of the car one whit. JD Power has lots its freaking mind slaving its dependability rankings to this stuff.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > spanfucker retire bitch
03/18/2015 at 09:21

Yeah but were the problems an inability to connect, or just clunky controls?

spanfucker retire bitch > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again.
03/18/2015 at 09:24

Those sound like two different issues. One is an ergonomic HID issue, the other being POS software and/or hardware.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > spanfucker retire bitch
03/18/2015 at 09:25

The only trouble is, there's no backstop on what actually causes the issue, and rather than Bluetooth just not working, they're also grading on mis-heard voice commands. You're dealing with two elements there in each case - for one, the phones most typically used (and how) vs. the receiver, and for the other, the voice commands used/typical voice qualities/clearness of voice/savvy vs. voice recognition algorithm and mic position/quality. Just small variations in the customer side of the equation could make for massive variation in the system - variation that would be intrinsically hard to plan for and recognize resulting problems from. There's a difference between "microphone is too near the sunroof to avoid noise" problems and "older customer base with funny accents" problems, and between "bluetooth antenna is a little shit" problems and "customer really likes Droid phones and there's a bug in the new release".

If those kinds of things for which the customer may be at fault are weighed against meaningful issues about whether the car breaks down or the interior falls apart, it poisons the rating.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > spanfucker retire bitch
03/18/2015 at 09:30

By clunky controls I meant that the Bluetooth is difficult to use, but works as intended. I know consumer reports uses that result as "unreliable"

spanfucker retire bitch > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again.
03/18/2015 at 09:33

Well like I said, those are two different issues, but if CR or JD report it as being the same thing, that would incorrect. It's a HID issue if it's difficult to use. Ergonomics need to be improved. If it doesn't work at all or as intended, that's a reliability issue.

spanfucker retire bitch > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
03/18/2015 at 09:40

While most of you say is correct, the issue with Bluetooth acting up is that there's no reasons to do so in this day and age. Just like USB, just like the Aux connector - these are universal standards, maintained by standards bodies, so that doesn't matter who is the hardware manufacturer - if you build to the standard, it works.

The tech and computer industry has had decades to work around these issues of non-standard implementations, proprietary ports, lack of cross-compatability, etc. It took them a while, but there's a level of compatability and standardization now that makes electronics more interoperable then ever before. Because they follow the SOP of implementing and working to the standards.

Car companies have also gotten better at that. But it only seems to be with specific automobile technologies. When it comes to the infotainment system, they're still a cluster fuck when it comes to interoperability. There's should be no reasons why my contacts from my Windows Phone won't sync, but the iPhone will. If they built to the bluetooth standard, my phone supports the same stack as the iPhone for syncing contacts and numbers. But the car companies built their stack to work better - if not explicitly - with the iPhone. Instead of building to the universal standard.

With Apple Car Play, and Android Auto starting to take over, hopefully that problem finally finds a solution.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > spanfucker retire bitch
03/18/2015 at 09:48

I guess the thing that rankles me is that the contingent most likely to buy based on a J. D. Power ranking are probably among the less likely to use high tech in general, but at the same time, if they do, they're possibly more likely to be the customers who run into at least partially PEBKAC non-intuitive issues. It's a quandary. Do you want people making their decisions on what by all rights could be considered misleading information on the off-chance it's accurate? I don't know.
Then again, I've known J.D. Power was bordering on farce for a long time.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Steven Lang
03/18/2015 at 09:50

They should have 2 reliability ratings. One where they do what they do now and rate everything in the vehicle. And a second "How likely is this car going to leave me stranded in the middle of no where at 3am with no cell service?" rating, where they only evaluate critical mechanical components.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > spanfucker retire bitch
03/18/2015 at 09:52

Exactly, that's why current surveys need to add more qualifiers for electronics, as there are different levels of not working well.

Destructive Tester > Steven Lang
03/18/2015 at 10:10

I was starting on a long-winded comment on the danger of co-mingling data in quality reports, but then I RTFA and realized it was more a matter of lazy reporting from Business Insider (go figure). As with most things, the usefulness of the report is entirely in the hands of the person using it. For instance lets compare the 2009 Pontiac Torrent with the 2006 Land Rover Range Rover (hi Doug!) http://autos.jdpower.com/research/Ponti… ; http://autos.jdpower.com/research/Land+…

Considering that they are both older vehicles, I'd be more concerned with the mechanical reliability ratings which are (surprisingly) fairly good for the Pontiac, with the exception of interior fit and finish but it is a Pontiac . If I were in the market for inexpensive, reliable transportation; I'd consider a good condition, reasonably priced example from most any source.* This is in spite of the middling "Overall Quality" rating because of the overall high marks for Mechanical Reliablility.

Now for the Range Rover, about that... I wouldn't even think about one that didn't come from CarMax with a warranty (thank Doug DeMuro for the "extensive research" ). In this instance the low "Overall Quality" rating is a direct result of mechanical issues and not niggling electrical issues.

*This is based only on this report and used for the sake of argument from the viewpoint of someone who would actually make a car buying choice based entirely on J.D. Power ratings...

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again.
03/18/2015 at 10:15

That's a little like saying an 80's Ferrari isn't dependable because of its manual transmission, which its owner has no idea how to use. It's not the car's fault the owner can't drive a stick, let alone a finicky one.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > AMGtech - now with more recalls!
03/18/2015 at 10:18

Yeah that's my point.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > spanfucker retire bitch
03/18/2015 at 10:22

Most of the time these problems aren't even the car's fault. I would guess that over 75% of the Bluetooth complaints I get are caused by incompatible or glitchy phone software. IPhone6 in a '13MY? Probably not going to work so well. Actually, iPhones in general don't play well with factory systems, especially if the phone is even justa few months newer than the car. Car makers can't plan for that. Most car makers publish a list of approved phones for their systems that work very well and rarely have issues. But when people upgrade their phones to the newest model every week that list becomes outdated in a hurry.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Steven Lang
03/18/2015 at 10:22

All of the stars. You win the internet for today.

Steven Lang > AMGtech - now with more recalls!
03/18/2015 at 10:35

Thanks! I truly win if I get to see it on the FP. All the best!

spanfucker retire bitch > AMGtech - now with more recalls!
03/18/2015 at 10:39

That's specifically because car companies don't build to standards. Modern radios support every version of bluetooth imaginable. You don't need to code to specific OS versions or phone models. If you do, you're doing it wrong.

It's as bad as web developers that code to user agents instead of supporting standards.

WiscoProud > Steven Lang
03/18/2015 at 12:30

I saw one study that docked the land rovers because some switches weren't in the place drivers were used to. That is ridiculous. If the switch broke, fine. But just because it took a minute to learn the controls of your new vehicle, its being docked?

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again.
03/18/2015 at 15:19

Crap, I replied to wrong person.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > spanfucker retire bitch
03/18/2015 at 15:38

I see your point, but how do you know it isn't the phone programmers who are doing it wrong? It's typically Apple that has issues, and it's not ever phone or software iteration.

spanfucker retire bitch > AMGtech - now with more recalls!
03/18/2015 at 16:45

Because as I already explained, the tech sector went through that teething issue over decades and decades of standards development before finally getting "into the swing of things" and actually making cross compatible products that build to the standards.

The auto industry has had neither that time or experience to follow the same pattern. They're doing the same thing the tech sector hardware companies did back in the 80's and 90's.