this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
15 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59201 readers
2994 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
15
People are getting fed up with all the useless tech in their cars — For the first time in 28 years of JD Power’s car owner survey, there is a consecutive year-over-year decline in satisfaction, wit... (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

People are getting fed up with all the useless tech in their cars — For the first time in 28 years of JD Power’s car owner survey, there is a consecutive year-over-year decline in satisfaction, wit...::People are dissatisfied with the technology in their cars, according to a new survey from JD Power. They especially don’t like the native infotainment systems.

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fubo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some proposed design principles:

  1. It's a car.
  2. It's not a goddamn TV.
  3. It's not your goddamn ads platform or subscription service.
  4. It is, however, a piece of life-safety-critical equipment.
  5. Because it's a car, the driver wants to deal with car stuff like driving, navigating, fuel, roads, obstacles, and not killing people.
  6. They also want to make it passably comfortable by messing with the heat or AC, the fans, the windows, and the fucking moon roof.
  7. Messing with your phone while driving is Actually Illegal these days in civilized parts of the planet. This is for good reason: people get killed that way.
  8. If the car requires messing with your phone, or messing with something that is basically your phone, then you have failed.
  9. There should be a big knob with a fan icon on it. Turning this knob all the way to the left causes the fan to turn off all the way. Turning the knob all the way to the right causes the fan to turn on all the way.
  10. If I ever have to use a touchscreen to control the side mirrors, I will become an extremely unhappy ape.
[–] zxo@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would pay more to get a car with more buttons than you can comprehend and a small little infotainment system that allows you to play music than a super futuristic car with a iPad in the center and nothing else in the center console area.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

physical buttons for the important stuff; stuff like setting interior RBG lighting color and intensity? that can go on soft buttons.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If a feature can go on soft buttons, it can stay at the fucking factory.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

EQ for the sound system?

[–] otacon239@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I have been saying this for years. The last thing your car should do is take your eyes off the road. This is a 1-3 ton box of metal hurdling at 60+ miles down the highway next to a bunch of other metal boxes that can all kill each other.

And car manufacturers seem to be in love with the idea of you forgetting you’re even driving. Add on all the bs lane assisting, warning bells, alerts, automatic correction, and the driver is convinced that the car will protect them.

These are all systems built on software. Last time I checked, that shit has never been reliable. If the software fails, the manufacturer can just hide behind “They weren’t paying attention!”

Mfer, YOU TRAINED THEM TO IGNORE IT. I don’t know what I’m going to do when all the cars from before touchscreens and digital gauges are no longer running or affordable because I hate the idea of having to look at a screen to change volume or turn on the AC.

Modern cars can suck a fuck.

[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mfer, YOU TRAINED THEM TO IGNORE IT

Remember when a self-driving car killed someone walking their bike in Arizona, while the car's "handler" was watching a movie on their tablet?

Yeah, the employee should have been paying attention, but it's not realistic to expect someone to stay alert for an 8-hour shift where the task is as monotonous as watching a car drive itself. That's why commercial transport drivers have mandated breaks and why two pilots are in charge of an airplane at a time.

To be clear, I am in favour of self-driving cars and don't think they need to be perfect, just better than the average human, but the companies training them need to have standards that are both realistic and safe.

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but it’s not realistic to expect someone to stay alert for an 8-hour shift where the task is as monotonous as watching a car drive itself.

It wasn't an 8 hour shift and watching the car was the actual job, come on! The driver was the tester. They were testing a system which wasn't yet ready to go untested. The accident is entirely the fault of the driver in that case.

And it's not like their reflexes were slower because of boredom. No. They were not paying any attention at all. They were watching a video. That is gross negligence and not the fault of the car or of the manufacturer.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They were testing. While it almost certainly wasn't explicit, they were also testing the worst self-driving car operators. And human nature. Yes, it was their job and they should have been paying close attention every second. But if they were... Is it possible a worse (less-safe) self-driving car would have made it to market? I think fatalities from self-driving cars are going to happen regardless, whether during or after the testing process, and I also think that's horrible...

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But if they were… Is it possible a worse (less-safe) self-driving car would have made it to market?

The purpose of the testing was to make sure that good products made it to the market. Events like these which are human error have created bad press and have set the concept back by years. And these are not years of research, no. These are years in which the projects have been put on the back burner and we're getting small increments like lane assist which are bad (as in poor quality) most of the time and give users the false feeling that they have a self driving car.

I think fatalities from self-driving cars are going to happen regardless, whether during or after the testing process, and I also think that’s horrible…

I don't think that's the correct way to look at it. Accidents will happen. It is impossible to prevent all of them. But the total number of fatalities would go down dramatically if self driving cars would be more present on the roads and that is a huge win.

42,795 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in US alone in 2022. I think that even with the current technology, this number would still be reduced by half and that is a huge win.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The purpose of the testing was to make sure that good products made it to the market.

No, the purpose of testing is to make sure profitable products make it to market. Even the most good-intentioned company (do they exist?) has their priorities set by shareholders.

For example, airlines have a set price they will pay the families of people killed by them. Is it moral? Is it ethical? No. It is financial. What can they offer, without having to enact costly behavior and safety overhauls...

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What can they offer, without having to enact costly behavior and safety overhauls…

Flying is the safest, most regulated, way of travel. There are virtually no accidents because of these regulations. Why would there be a need for an overhaul?

[–] Beowulf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Same reason I'm still driving an older truck. While I've been wanting to upgrade to a new truck, I don't want to deal with the computer controlling every aspect of the vehicle (breaks, accelerator, lights, etc.) As it is now, if I want to turn my headlights on, a relay controls it. Same with the turn signal, radio, A/C, and the list goes on

[–] RFBurns@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...useless tech

Oh, it is "useful"; to the real 'owners' of "your" car...

[–] Skates@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yup. I'm in Automotive, I work for a company that makes software for basically any car brand you can think of. I just recently left an internally developed project that aimed to create a personal assistant in the car. It was terribly ran and will go nowhere, but other departments in other companies will probably have more success, especially since the rise of chatgpt.

To add to your point though - the main idea on how to sell this assistant to car makers was the features, but the driving force behind developing the project was customer data. Collect a huge amount of info from customers, info that is shared with the car brand, but also accessible to us. To give some credit, discussions were never about using it for evil purposes - imagine a secretary knowing their boss' schedule, our software would make suggestions like "you can't make your 1 PM luch appointment with the client, would you like to reschedule it" and "I see you're headed to Chicago and will arrive in 2 hours, should I make a reservation at that restaurant you like?" or some shit like that. But we all know that it's not the engineers who decide what the company does with the data once access to that data exists. And knowing where a user eats, having access to their calendar, having access to their phone... This shit can get out of hand so easily when a budget-oriented executive type decides it's time for this project to be even more profitable by selling the data to advertisers.

Last I heard before I left, the plan was to "get consent" to process this data through a disclaimer when booting the car's infotainment system, saying that attached devices share data with our servers etc. Read the manuals, ToS and pop-ups and don't connect your devices to systems that do this. You're already the client when buying a car worth thousands of dollars. Don't also be the product.

[–] LordShrek@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

such bullshit. how can engineers not let this happen?

[–] ninja@hoboninjachicken.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately I think engineers, as employees of a company, don't have a lot of power. You aren't typically the one making feature decisions. You can always try to talk product people out of bad ideas, but at some point if you refuse to do what you've been told to, you lose your job. Some engineers are in a financial position to take that high road, but a lot aren't. And then even if you do quit, there will always be someone else willing to do what you aren't.

I think as long as there is money in doing unethical (but legal) things, those things will continue to happen

[–] LordShrek@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so this is why i think that reasonable engineers (and most actual engineers are reasonable, hence being an "engineer") should get together and make good stuff. stuff that is not corrupted by perverse incentives. an engineer is capable of understanding the flaws of an economy and how that can be detrimental to the functionality of some tool or system.

[–] teuast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

unfortunately as long as they're still subject to the whims of global capitalism, they will never be free from perverse incentives

[–] rustyriffs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I guess I like the idea of having tech in my vehicle, but it doesn't work right. I've found so many flaws in the software that can't be remedied. It's not designed with user control/customization as the main priority. Furthermore, it's tied to main functionality of the vehicle which is restrictive in what it allows you to do upgrade wise.

As an audio enthusiast, it sucks that I can't upgrade my stereo/audio system.

What would be ideal in my world is open, user focused technology, upgradeable and repairable, and not this proprietary bullshit that we currently have. This is not intelligent design.

Also, while I'm thinking about it, it's bullshit that we are forced into these operating systems. Uconnect is garbage. Just give me stock android, with the ability to do what I want to with the hardware in the way that I see fit. The responsibility, freedom, and trust of the consumer has been predetermined. I don't like that.

[–] funchords@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

As an audio enthusiast, it sucks that I can’t upgrade my stereo/audio system.

Exactly! I can have the system I want but having it somehow means no heated seats in the winter.

[–] SGG@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm a techie at heart.

But the only thing my car needs to do is act as a Bluetooth speaker/mic for my phone, and have a wireless charging mount.

When I need to use the phone for GPS/etc it goes on the mount.

When I turn on my car it connects to my phone over Bluetooth and starts playing music. Even if it's in my pocket (shorter trips)

It works, it's fast, it's simple.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The irony is all these fancy head units wait until you pull out of the driveway and then throw up a big on screen warning about distracted driving. That you then have to take your eyes off the road to dismiss by pressing OK.

[–] weedazz@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just give me a screen for Android auto and that alone. Everything else should be knobs, especially climate controls

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Moving parts cost money and wear out.

And if there's one thing the auto manufacturers are good at, it's cutting costs.

[–] Iamdanno@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Touch screens break and wear too, and it's more expensive to replace a touch screen than an AC fan knob.

[–] PixTupy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Unless it happens during warranty, that costs money to the user not the manufacturer.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I have a 2009 Mazda 3 with Bluetooth connectivity and steering wheel button activated voice commands to make calls, configure the phone book and connections etc. This was the sweet spot for technology in cars in my opinion. Oh but the best part is all the dials and LCD clock are all in red light which is wonderful when driving at night.

Everything else I do via voice commands on my smartphone that's mounted on a phone mount on my dash. Like asking for GPS navigation, playing music, sending text messages.

Nowadays the car infotainment system is trying to reproduce what your smartphone already does with controls that are less intuitive.

Also, what's the deal with all the bright white and neon blue colors lighting up everything? Can I get a red filter for night driving maybe? Is that so hard to ask?

[–] Matthew@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

I have the 2018 Mazda 3, and Mazda is actually still one of the better companies when it comes to the infotainment stuff. No touch screen, and the controls are in the center console, where they're super easy to reach.

[–] gendulf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I have a 2016 Mazda 3, and agree. I don't want a BS touch screen. I want intuitive controls that work without me having to look at a screen. The knob control is amazing.