When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Last I checked the "os" of the BMW idrive system is the basically the same as their corporate cousin the RR, however the RR has a different skin. If those buyers arent lighting up the forums I doubt mass market luxury could care less. This same experiment happened with Maserati with U Connect, Buttons system screens were out of a Grand Cherokee and the forums lit up, but then they dealt with it.
I think like it or not, mfgs are going the way of android, multiple device mfgs with the same base OS, topped off with their own skin to run on top (ie. Touchwiz or Nova etc) with an addition of Car Play and Android Auto inside their own corporate group.
I dont think these systems are must have, and a future where someone stops purchasing a vehicle over this is certainly not close, heck Lexus outsells everybody in the RX and ES category and yet the standard infotainment is based on a potato...(Flame suit on). Forums threads on infotainment useability have yet to harm sales.
It may come as a surprise to know that the first production car with a full version of CarPlay was the Ferrari FF!
Maybe some are still a little high-centered on one alternative being "better" than the other, which perhaps misses the point. No one is arguing that CP/AA replace or should replace a quality factory UI/infotainment system. The point is to be able to easily extend whatever functionality your car delivers from the factory. You don't lose anything your car offers as standard if you also have access to CP/AA as you don't have to use it if you don't want to. Let's stick with the Waze example. I happen to agree with Bippu that Waze looks awful, but that's actually proving the point - if Google were to bite the bullet and were to upgrade the look and feel, it would take no more than an app update on your phone for you to get that updated interface. Similarly, as and when new features are added to the product, you get those too. You also get access to an app ecosystem where companies like Spotify, Amazon and others have or will release CP/AA integrations for their products/services. The compare and contrast is obvious - in most cases, the software version your car came with is the one you live with unless you can get your dealer to upgrade it to fix something else.
Last I checked the "os" of the BMW idrive system is the basically the same as their corporate cousin the RR, however the RR has a different skin. If those buyers arent lighting up the forums I doubt mass market luxury could care less. This same experiment happened with Maserati with U Connect, Buttons system screens were out of a Grand Cherokee and the forums lit up, but then they dealt with it.
I think like it or not, mfgs are going the way of android, multiple device mfgs with the same base OS, topped off with their own skin to run on top (ie. Touchwiz or Nova etc) with an addition of Car Play and Android Auto inside their own corporate group.
I dont think these systems are must have, and a future where someone stops purchasing a vehicle over this is certainly not close, heck Lexus outsells everybody in the RX and ES category and yet the standard infotainment is based on a potato...(Flame suit on). Forums threads on infotainment useability have yet to harm sales.
I don't think people complain much about the BMW to RR example because in their heads - BMW is still a legit high-end brand. Either that - or people in that price range just don't know.
I don't think people complain about the Maserati system because no one knows it comes from a Grand Cherokee. Hell - some people don't that the turn signal and wiper stocks on the Maserati are from a Dodge Dart.
The situation, I was talking about, was referring to if everything went Android or iOS. Android and iOS, both have a unique look about it. If all companies use it, it'll stick out like a sore thumb that your OS on your Ferrari is similar to a Honda Civic. As of right now - a lot of brands cross use their OS because its not noticeable.
You nailed it at the end though. I definitely agree, we are not a point in car shopping, where the average consumer cares too much about the infotainment system.
Originally Posted by swajames
It may come as a surprise to know that the first production car with a full version of CarPlay was the Ferrari FF!
Maybe some are still a little high-centered on one alternative being "better" than the other, which perhaps misses the point. No one is arguing that CP/AA replace or should replace a quality factory UI/infotainment system. The point is to be able to easily extend whatever functionality your car delivers from the factory. You don't lose anything your car offers as standard if you also have access to CP/AA as you don't have to use it if you don't want to. Let's stick with the Waze example. I happen to agree with Bippu that Waze looks awful, but that's actually proving the point - if Google were to bite the bullet and were to upgrade the look and feel, it would take no more than an app update on your phone for you to get that updated interface. Similarly, as and when new features are added to the product, you get those too. You also get access to an app ecosystem where companies like Spotify, Amazon and others have or will release CP/AA integrations for their products/services. The compare and contrast is obvious - in most cases, the software version your car came with is the one you live with unless you can get your dealer to upgrade it to fix something else.
Actually - Steve - in the post above argued that CP/AA will replace all infotainment systems. That's how this friendly debate sorta started.
True - apps from 3rd party companies update often and they can roll out updates faster and it'll reflect that onto the mirroring app. I think our obsession with having the latest tech is the issue.
I want to point out a glaring point that no one seems to talk about - that is we can't compare the advance of car infotainment system to that the iPhone/Galaxy/iPad and etc... Because I feel like the general public is. Why do I say this? Because our smartphones, tablets, computers, and etc... get faster every year and gets a new OS every year. Hell - you buy the new iPhone XR Max - your phone is outdated in less than a year when the new iPhone XR Max 2x Power Boost or whatever they want to call it comes out.
While car infotainment system only gets updated once every car life cycle. And rarely it'll get updated during a refresh cycle. We are looking at an update every 4-8 years. We can't compare something that updates once every year to something updates once every 4-8 years. The only way for car infotainment system to keep up with tech is if car companies update them every year, which they won't.
IE: The new Lexus ES infotainment system. It looks nice now. It looks modern. Watch - by 2021 - people will be on the forums complaining about how outdated the screen is because everyone will be comparing it to the 2021 tech.
If we chase tech and if we actively want cars to have the latest tech, people will be buying new cars every 1-2 years.
To follow up on this - another main reason why I think there won't be a full integration of Android and iOS as a car's infotainment system is that the car companies are giving up their tech sector to the tech companies. If they do this, tech companies can update car technology and features every year. This will lead many car owners to for-go buying the next generation of cars because their tech can get updated through over the air. This can probably hurt sales in the long run.
There may well come a point where it does actually make sense to shift the current thinking around expectations of in-car systems, particularly those that deprecate.
I had a 2005 LS430 at one point and while that car was phenomenal from a mechanical perspective, the UX/UI was an issue. The infotainment/navigation were slow and generally outdated. Nothing wrong mechanically, it had the measure of many much newer cars, but it impacted the owership experience. I also had a BMW around that time with Gen 1 iDrive, which was ahead of its time in many ways but launched from the factory with underpowered hardware driving what felt like software where each module had been developed in isolation by a team that hadn't talked to any other on the project.
The continued advance in CPU/GPU power in modern phones is little short of astonishing and it advances year on year. At some point, and that point may even be now, it may make sense for a manufacturer to develop and offer the option of its own CP/AA app ecosystem to deliver a quickly upgradable but manufacturer developed UX/UI leveraging the computing power in the phone. Mercedes/BMW can keep their proprietary look and feel but offload the heavy lifting to the CPU/GPU in the phone. The display in the car becomes just that, you could still interact with the offload infotainment just as you would the standard onboard system.
Alternatively, manufacturers could consider offering the paid/subscription option of making the CPU/GPU/RAM in their vehicles modular so that users could upgrade them from time to time. That would help prevent user frustration growing over time and have parallel benefits in customer satisfaction but also maintaining vehicle value which may enable/incentivize owners to trade in for a newer car. Owners could keep the standard system if they prefer, but those willing to pay could benefit from non-stagnating in-car tech. Could be a win/win.
Alternatively, manufacturers could consider offering the paid/subscription option of making the CPU/GPU/RAM in their vehicles modular so that users could upgrade them from time to time. That would help prevent user frustration growing over time and have parallel benefits in customer satisfaction but also maintaining vehicle value which may enable/incentivize owners to trade in for a newer car. Owners could keep the standard system if they prefer, but those willing to pay could benefit from non-stagnating in-car tech. Could be a win/win.
I believe that is where the automakers are headed.
Automotive infotainment systems are at a point where home computers were 1 or 2 decades ago, when most homes did not have broadband internet access. At that time, in order to update the operating systems or any programs that ran on the home PCs, we would have to go out, search for and purchase new versions on floppy or compact disks. I still have a number of old CDs from that time.
Now that most of us have access to broadband internet (either wired or wireless), we regularly update our OS and programs over the internet. Eventually, as 4G (and 5G in a few years) wireless internet access in cars becomes widespread, we will see more and more automakers offering over-the-air updates of software.
In my point of view, what won't happen is, car companies giving up their infotainment system to purely iOS or Android or mirroring services.
I think what might happen is car companies will each create their own systems (so they can still profit from this market). After that case, and once cars get more connected, they can start a sub-based feature where people can update their car's infotainment system OS over the air. This is what I think might happen in the future because its the only way car companies keep control of their infotainment and tech sector while at the same time offering something that doesn't force people to do anything.
Originally Posted by Sulu
Now that most of us have access to broadband internet (either wired or wireless), we regularly update our OS and programs over the internet. Eventually, as 4G (and 5G in a few years) wireless internet access in cars becomes widespread, we will see more and more automakers offering over-the-air updates of software.
In my point of view, what won't happen is, car companies giving up their infotainment system to purely iOS or Android or mirroring services.
I think what might happen is car companies will each create their own systems (so they can still profit from this market). After that case, and once cars get more connected, they can start a sub-based feature where people can update their car's infotainment system OS over the air. This is what I think might happen in the future because its the only way car companies keep control of their infotainment and tech sector while at the same time offering something that doesn't force people to do anything.
I believe I made a post very similar to this recently in a different thread. There's a minimum level of functionality the car itself should be capable of. Device connectivity, climate control, trip information, and security features specific to the car are all things that the phone doesn't necessarily have the ability to do, at least not now. It would be a huge study in interoperability, but I do think that phone-operated infotainment and even interfacing with proprietary car settings could be doable in the future.
But if Tesla is any indication - with its big screens and tons of built-in features, even Easter eggs - we are far away from such a change.
I believe I made a post very similar to this recently in a different thread. There's a minimum level of functionality the car itself should be capable of. Device connectivity, climate control, trip information, and security features specific to the car are all things that the phone doesn't necessarily have the ability to do, at least not now. It would be a huge study in interoperability, but I do think that phone-operated infotainment and even interfacing with proprietary car settings could be doable in the future.
But if Tesla is any indication - with its big screens and tons of built-in features, even Easter eggs - we are far away from such a change.
I do think phone-operated infotainment systems are possible too but I don't think car companies/industry will allow the tech companies to take full control of it. There is too much money involved.
There was this article that talks about Nissan planning to adopt Android as their OS but in the same article MB and BMW are refusing to adopt anything and double downing on their own systems. BMW even moved Apple Car Play to an annual subscription service only. At the luxury market, there is a demand for a good infotainment system, a beautiful looking one, and it has to be unique to the company. This is how you sell something that is luxurious. MB and BMW sees a lot of money in this area. I can't imagine a world where all car infotainment system is all the same but just a re-skin of each other's OS. That would be horrific and make luxury company infotainment systems similar to that of a KIA or Chevy.
As I said earlier - referring to car companies starting a subscription based service to update their own systems is the only way where both consumers and business can profit.
True, RRs users arent really driving. However that same system is in the Mini lineup as well. I dont know if this is the current case with Idrive (7.0), but the previous systems were QNX with a personalized UI, and Vehicle interface. Again generalizing here, but the "Core OS" of most infotainments systems are very similar, some distro of vehicle specific Linux (I dont mean Ubuntu that you can download off the web), heavily modified to suit the vehicles features.
During the rollout of the Maserati refreshs and Ghibli product launch it was bad, and conquest owners who also owned an FCA product wondered why Maserati when dumpster diving with certain switchgear and of more on topic the Uconnect system. However, cheap lease deals, the pur of the engine, and well an infotainment that works regardless of the low end FCA product it came from more then made up for it. Function over form.
The feature suite that Carplay and Android Auto bring are run over the top, as an application to interface with the phone, and I assume a basic hardware level that both Android and Apple require of mfgs (ie dont stick a pentium 3 to run Carplay); More so its a tested and more importantly familiar interface for new users, ie they arent trying to train an old dog how to perform cardio-surgery which some interfaces can make end users feel.
Now if automfgs lined up some great UIs and some great basic infotainment that would be great, Carplay and android auto would never have caught on but we have auto makers trying "natural touch" or "movement" based infotainment user (Ie Lexus, Acura even the next gen RDX).
In regards to phone based system....no way. Wireless tech is fincky, and heat buildup on a small device is terrible on the battery. I would literally need to keep my phone on the Qi pad all day, which heats up phones, and rest on the reliability of making sure the system stays connected at all times with enough cooling and charge.....recipe for....
In regards to hardware that would be upgrade ready due to modular design....look at the leader in in car tech...tesla. Their modular builds are not the dream, where older Teslas never get certain features but they are the limit and pioneer on what modularity could be in reality. I dont think the status quo of mfgs like Toyota and Lexus would suddenly decide to flip the table and go with complete modular infotainment. OTA updates is as far as i see them going.
To backtrack to a recent discussion on this page regarding the 360 degree camera system, I don't understand why would it ever be a point of contention. Some people just find the most absurd things to nitpick about
It is indeed useful and I cannot support why anyone would denounce it. To some degree, I consider low-speed parking to be even different from moderate-high speed driving. Being challenged at parking, doesn't always make for a bad driver overall. You'd be surprised how some professional racers operate their daily drivers, not to mention choice in those very daily drivers. I wouldn't put it past many of them be driving the polar opposite of what they race. Not everyone is a Ken Block or Lewis Hamilton.
That aside, complaining about inventions like these is one reason why many innovations have been withheld from the marketplace at times. In terms of poor reception by the customer base, somehow equaling potential losses. Instead Nissan took a risk 13 years ago and in many cases it paid off, when the market adopted 360 cameras en masse. I've explained below in great detail, how these even came to be from simple sensors to mirror cameras.
I have worked for Jaguar Land Rover and in our history, we were almost first to market in the luxury segment with what is called today ultrasonic parking assist in the 1980s (known as Intuitive Parking Assist at Lexus). A feature that didn't really become commonplace until the last decade, only first seeing N. Amer mass market use by Ford in the late 1990s on the Lincoln LS, Explorer, Windstar, Expedition, and Excursion.
Between senior management and Sir William Lyons, they rejected such a system by a British inventor in 1983 for the incoming XJ40 flagship (released in late 1986 and 1987 stateside as '88 model), on the basis "our customers would see it as an insult to their driving abilities that they needed aids for parking". Bear in mind the car had already been designed as of 1980-81, so it was just engineering that design and packing in new features until completion of engineering in 1985-86. Not until Ford ownership, did we even manage to offer such a system, which was in 1999 on the retro S-Type and flagship MY2000 XJ8 Daimler Supercharged V8 EU versions and for global export versions as standard equipment on the MY 2001 XJ and XK refreshes.
Jaguar XJ40 XJ-Series
Jaguar X308 XJ-Series Saloon with RPC sensors
Yet, quietly BMW and Toyota had prepared their own systems in the 1980s. Toyota essentially started it all in 1982 with "Back Sonar", the first of its kind launched on select JDM models in December 1982. For mysterious reasons, the LS 400 and JDM Celsior didn't offer such a system, as it was discontinued in 1988.
Go to 0:30 seconds for 1982 demonstration of "Back Sonar"
Just over 3 years later, BMW introduced Valeo-developed Park Distance Control at the 1991 IAA/Frankfurt Motor Show (plus new Xenon lights invention) on a 750iL V12 prototype. A copy of Toyota's 1982 invention and launched it on the LCI facelift of the E32 750i/L V12 in March 1992 (MY 1993 in US), then later on the E31 8-Series, redesigned E38 7-Series and refreshed E34 5-Series in May and June 1994 respectively.
Toyota did not offer this feature they invented again, until Intuitive Park Assist debuted on the 2001 LS 430 in October 2000 and yet marketed it so pathetically, many clueless observers accused Lexus of copying Mercedes-Benz "Parktronic" (introduced April 1995 on W140 S-Class) and BMW's Park Distance Control (1992).
(2000) LS 430 Intuitive Parking Assist System
(April 1995) W140 Mercedes-Benz S-Class "Parktronic" System
(1995) W210 E-Class "Parktronic" in action (Go to 11:15)
How wrong they were, when Toyota invented this system 20 years earlier in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Their own complacency and hesitance allowed European competitors to be given credit for the fruits of their firm.
Toyota also even pioneered the "back up" camera in 1987 for production passenger automobiles, but it wasn't really notably used until May 1991 in the JDM version of the Lexus SC luxury coupe. For mysterious reasons unknown, this feature was withheld from the U.S. market version and by 1997, withdrawn from the Soarer model range (IDK for other JDM cars). Returning to the Crown S160 range in 1999.
Cleverly in April of 2000, Infiniti introduced the Rear View Monitor system on the MY 2002 Q45 (Gen III), later released in March 2001 (refer to 2001 RearView Monitor commercial). Toyota failed to take advantage of their own creation once again and allowed Nissan to use it for marketing purposes in the early 2000s on both Nissan (ROW) and Infiniti brand vehicles.
It wasn't until April 2003, that the redesigned 2004 RX 330/300 offered this with all Navigation-equipped models (following 2004 Sienna in Feb '03) and then extended it to the updated 2004 LS 430 facelift in September 2003, plus added and made standard on the 2004 LX 470 and optional on 2004 GX 470 in October 2003 (availabile in JDM since November 2002 on Land Cruiser Prado). In fact, the first automobile to be equipped worldwide with a standard backup camera was the 2004 LS 430 (excl NA and Brazil) and '04 LX 470 stateside. By the end of 2010, all Lexus models offered back-up cameras as standard or optional. I mention this, as it was a Toyota innovation. For some reason it wasn't until late 2005 that a non-Japanese OEM finally even offered a factory-installed backup camera, with the W221 MB S-Class. GM was the first American OEM in 2006, on 2007 models of the GMT900. Today, the reversing camera has been required as standard in the United States the past 4 months!
By the early 2000s, Toyota had also managed to invent the front-facing camera, utilizing a camera mounted on the grille of select JDM models for either splitview or regular front-facing. The redesigned 2008 LX 570 later debuted this feature globally in January 2008, plus a right-side mirror mounted side-camera system as Wide View & Side View camera system. This covered about 210-225 degrees of the vehicle. Toyota and Nissan inspired BMW's Side-View Camera, offered on the F01 7-Series in November 2008. Silly Fifth Gear thought otherwise.
(2001) Nissan Front-Facing Camera System of JDM version of Infiniti Q45
2003 Toyota Harrier (aka Lexus 2RX) Multi-Camera System
Almost parallel to that, earlier on Nissan in cooperation with Sony pioneered the Around View Monitor 360 camera system (between 2005-2007), which debuted in December 2007 on the Infiniti EX 35 CUV and in October 2007 on the Japanese market Elgrand minivan. Toyota introduced their own full 360 system in 2013-14, notably on the 2015 NX outside North America called Panoramic View System.
In 2003, Toyota introduced IPA (Intelligent Parking Assist) on the 2nd generation Prius in Japan. It wasn't until September and October 2006, that the system (APGS) made its way to the 2007 LS 460 globally.
For mysterious reasons, it was withdrawn from the 2013 MY LS facelift in September 2012 and is nowhere to be seen on the 5th generation model nor any other Lexus models, yet still offered on select Toyota brand cars. The 2019 UX allegedly has re-introduced a self-parking system outside the US, but that needs further verification. They have abandoned technology they've invented for their luxury brand and then let the competition get credit for it.
Plus, you can see there is a pattern in regard to country of origin for each invention. Nearly all of these camera-based parking aids originated in Japan, developed because of the very narrow streets and tight parking in that nation, only somehow making it to North America and other regions, due to North American branch executives lobbying for their inclusion on U.S. bound products as a marketable feature. Toyota just introduced a mirrorless camera system on the ES in Japan and also some others have an LCD central rearview mirror that changes between camera view and traditional rearview mirror (Nissan/Infiniti in 2014).
Of all the forums to have this argument, ironically Toyota is obviously responsible for many of these gimmicky, yet trend-setting systems being in the marketplace today, such as 360 camera systems. Often in the past, German OEMs would try to serve Japanese export market needs with as much tech as possible on BMW and MB models before North America, plus take advantage of research on JDM and study certain tech innovations unique to Japan, then implement them later on domestic DE-spec or EU-spec versions, then tout being "first".
Ditto for ABS with the W116 S-Class in 1978, despite US OEMs in Ford and Chrysler having done so in the early 1970s. The navigation system was pioneered by both Honda and Toyota in 1981 for the Accord and Celica/Supra/Soarer in JDM and GPS versions introduced in 1990 and 1991. Yet BMW took credit in 1994 for the "invention" via their GPS system on the 1995 7-Series (E38) and stateside in 1996 for the MY 1997 5-Series (E39). The latter E39 example in the US and Canada during 1996, was because Acura had a ****ty navigation system on the '96 3.5 RL only for LA County and Lexus did not offer one until October 1997 on the '98 GS and 1998 LS 400.
In my opinion, there is no point in complaining about innovation so often, as one can imagine how the world felt when keys started being used to start vehicles instead of crank starters. When the first torque converter automatic transmission was introduced post-war by Buick/GM in 1947, I can just imagine the complaints that "If you can't shift, then why are driving?". And I'm a manual diehard, owning manuals vs autos 5-to-1 by ratio. Let alone the introduction of the rear view mirror itself, in the early 1900s. "Why can't you turn your damn neck and look behind you in your Daimler Phoenix?"
As an engineer, I can admit that some of these are unnecessary gimmicks, but many "gimmicks" can and do give way to advancement. In fact, calling a feature a "gimmick" is subjective and not truly objective, if the setup has an intended purpose and proves to be effective and efficient. Xenon, LED, and Laser lighting wouldn't exist today, if such an approach was taken by all OEMs and product planners felt halogens did the job entirely.
In the luxury business, there is always a need for greater convenience, exclusivity, or pleasure over mass market volume products. In much of the United States with its wide streets and highways, this stuff isn't as needed as much as in parts of metropolitan Africa, Oceania, Europe, and Asia.
In fact, technology innovation is something Toyota actually even fails to even get right, when you have certain features debuting in a entry-level to mid-range ES instead of the flagship LS,LC or LQ. Top-down approach is the key to success in luxury brands, in regards to halo and flagship models.
The 2019 Avalon "flagship's" interior for instance, was based on this 010B Camry programme interior design proposal from 2013-14 for the MY 2018 XV70. That alternative interior was withheld from the Camry 010B and saved for the 370B Avalon programme, later being signed off internally in early 2016 (judging certain stages of dev). It wasn't too surprising to me, as the Avalon is seen by Toyoda as a more upmarket XL Camry in different skin. He would call it a Camry too if he had the choice, as it is a regional afterthought to him. Why do you think he presented the 2018 Camry instead of the 2018 LS at '17 NAIAS? BTW on a side note, take a look-see at some other 010B Camry proposals as well.
The 010B 2018 Camry budget was massive, after tucking away money on 2.5 moderately changed generations of Camry over 16 years. They wanted world class excellence.
Now, back to Lexus. There have been many times they've looked into reaching higher, as seen with the LFA. A 12-cylinder engine for Lexus was studied at least 2-3 times, as the 12-cylinder GZ Century engine was once planned to be released in 2001/early 2002 for MY 2002 in the LS and in 2SC, during 1996-97 product planning. By the end of LS 430 development in early 2000, that idea had been canned for some 18 or so months, plus discarded for the SC programme (concluded in 2000), instead for future consideration. That V12 idea was brought up again in late 2001 as XF40 (4LS) planning began. However by 2003 as the final body design was being set, it was discarded for the V8 Hybrid 2UR-FSE instead. The poor US sales of the LS 600hL after 2009, had who knows what effect on morale of pushing another V12 competitor, hence LS 500h.
Between the upcoming F models, production LF-1 in 25 months, LC cabriolet (look out for prototype spy shots), redesigned IS, AWD ES, 2020 GX and RX, next LX and NX, and many more, I believe there is still a lot to look forward to. Hopefully with all these incoming updates and new models or model additions, they are able to continue innovating and not falling behind their competition in some aspects. So in conclusion, this thread had reasons to be created, but I don't entirely agree with the ones provided.
Thanks Jill, much appreciated. I have simply been fascinated by what Toyota and Lexus have brought to the industry over the ages, which for some reason always gets overshadowed.
09-19-18, 09:09 PM
