I can't speak for who you're asking but personally, there's an important nuance here:
I want (some) infotainment features. I do NOT want them baked into the car. Some of my main reasons:
1. Honestly, the reasons are long (I'm a gearhead, I know cars better than I know code, and I've been coding for 20 years), and largely centers around the idea that in my opinion, EVERY single modern automotive manufacture is terrible at UX in their infotainment. Tesla's UI (not UX) is okay. It doesn't deserve the praise it gets imo but at least it's usable, but that's a pretty low bar imo, but the fact that Tesla wants the touchscreen to be the primary interface ruins anything they have going for it.
2. Additionally, one of the beautiful things about Android Auto/Apply CarPlay is that you bring your accounts and media with you in your pocket. When your car is a separate device as opposed to something you just stream to like with Carplay/Auto, that's another thing to trying to sync accounts/creds and manage data, and I refer you to my above complaint on why I have an issue with that. I mean, it could literally INSTANTLY sync the things that I want flawlessly, and that still doesn't actually add any value to me. It at best reaches parity with the phone that's already in my pocket with android auto, and that's assuming the entire rest of the infotainment functions well.
3. I quite simply don't trust ANY automotive manufacturer to do competent user facing software, and I can't think of a single automotive manufacturer I would trust personal data/credentials to (yes I'm already aware they do that to extent, it's why I'm against it, they already suck at it, last thing I want to do is hand over more data into yet another walled garden).
4. Walled garden's suck, and as this is a value add service with no announcements yet (that I'm aware of) of any other manufacturer working with GM's initiative to establish/adhere to standards/specs or facilitate any sort of portability or openness or flexibility. If it's not a walled garden, great, but I'm assuming it will be, and I don't want it.
It's not something I would ever use, so I don't want to have to pay for it. Its presence also implies that there are other things present that I actively object to, such as a touch screen interface and internet connectivity.
Where do you draw the line? I don't know anyone that wants to go back to paper maps for navigation. And backup cameras are unambiguously good for everyone.
Going back to paper maps isn't the alternative. I already have a device with me that can do all of the navigation, etc., that I'd need. None of that needs to be built into the car. Backup cameras are fine.
The only fancy thing I would like to have in my car is the ability to connect the sound system in it to my phone or computer via bluetooth as if it were headphones -- but I can add that easily as an aftermarket thing with the bonus of having actual knobs on it.
I really only have two reasonably hard lines. I don't want my car to be able to talk with any external servers (it's a car, not a smartphone on wheels), and I don't want a touch screen interface instead of physical knobs and buttons.
The presence of infotainment systems is a pretty solid indication that the car won't satisfy either of those things.
> a cleaner UI and larger screen to show you the contents of that device?
I haven't seen an in-car system that provides a better UI. Regardless, that's not actually important because I'm not interacting with the device or screen while I'm driving anyway.
A larger screen doesn't seem like a big deal. I'm not spending much time looking at the screen anyway.
> why do you care if your car has a computer on it or not?
I don't. I care about the connectivity, not the presence of a computer. It's all but certain that connection will be used to funnel data back to the manufacturer or someone.
> Seems overly paranoid, bordering on luddite…
No need to start with the personal insults here. I'm expressing my own desires, I'm not saying I want to deprive others of theirs. That I don't want things that you do doesn't diminish or harm you in any way.
Computers are built these days mainly to talk to other computers, due to the considerable value gained by offloading computational effort to a central location. Not wanting a computer to talk to other computers is like not wanting your oven to heat food except by friction.
And "overly paranoid, bordering on luddite" is no insult, it's a description that your comments fit. If these words are insulting, stop fitting so well to them!
I think you're dismissing what I'm saying because you don't have a good reason to disagree with it, but you find it important to ape the "pro privacy" line, as that's what you see others do online.
You haven't really said anything for me to dismiss. It looks to me that the only assertion of fact that you've made is "Computers are built these days mainly to talk to other computers", which I didn't comment on at all. I will here, though -- that assertion is untrue by being overly broad. Many are built with that in mind, but many are not.
Everything else you've said is asking me for details about my opinion and stating that you disagree with my opinions. Which is totally fair, but I'm not sure what response you expect from me about that aside from "I disagree".
> you find it important to ape the "pro privacy" line, as that's what you see others do online.
This is your ~60th comment on HN today. Maybe take a break, go outside, touch some grass. Not one thing you wrote here is reflective of the conversation you and I were having.
I agree with him about the car talking to an external server. That is a disgusting grab by car manufacturers.
For me, I don't care about my car having a computer, but I don't want it to talk to services without my permission and building their own thing shows a disregard for that desire. I love CarPlay/android and not offering those two most popular options doubles down on that disregard for customer interests.
But the default of "privacy good at all cost" seems like massive overkill IMO.
If there's specific evidence that a car is doing something that will specifically cause you harm in some way via data sharing, that's one thing. If it's a vague, general distrust, that falls into the "luddite paranoia" category.
There's nothing vague or general about it. We have years of examples of how such data gets used. You may be fine with that, and that's OK. I don't understand why you get so upset that others aren't fine with it, though. Why is this so emotional for you?
Nothing emotional in what I write, just pointing out that you have precisely zero examples of how shared data from your car has been used to harm you specifically.
It's not about what I'm fine with or not, it's about what you're posting on HN in advocacy of. You claim "years of examples" but you have literally nothing specific, because nothing specific to you exists.
You fear new technology because it is unfamiliar to you, and that is the very definition of luddite.
> precisely zero examples of how shared data from your car has been used to harm you specifically.
That might be because I never made such an assertion.
> You claim "years of examples" but you have literally nothing specific
I'm specifically referring to years of data collection by companies without consent. Typically for marketing or other monetization purposes.
> You fear new technology because it is unfamiliar to you, and that is the very definition of luddite.
Another personal attack. You don't know me. Everyone who does would be laughing at how ridiculous this assertion is. I very strongly embrace new technology (and the tech we're talking about here isn't actually all that new) and I'm very familiar with it. I even develop some of it. My house, my car, and even what I carry with me is riddled with high tech stuff. I am the opposite of a luddite.
You're making a whole lot of incorrect assumptions about me here. And it's odd that you do, because it would be so easy to talk to me about what I'm actually saying rather than building a straw man representing me in your mind so you can attack it.
Once I see someone plucking individual phrases out of context and replying only to them, I tend to get pretty skeptical of their intent. When I see words like "straw man" and "personal attack", it validates that skepticism, doubly so when those concepts are poorly applied.
Your mental health will improve once you log off of this site for the day. I highly recommend it.
No it's not that. It's that I believe they will be profit seeking with that data unless forced to be otherwise.
The last decade has worn out my optimism and tolerance about privacy concerns. If a company wants my trust, they have to proactively earn it by excessive transparency, at least GDPR level, on their part.
If they can do that, I’ll consider it; otherwise, no thank you.
Why is profiting from data collection considered de jure bad? Why does collecting data cost your trust, and why does not collecting data earn your trust?
I’m guessing it's the -tainmnet aspect of it. If we're purely weather, traffic, maps it'd be fine but the entire focus is on how they automakers can make more money, now longer about providing objectively valuable services.
