Hasn't really seen widespread acceptance. I bet a sample of 100 cars on the freeway, perhaps only 25% would have carplay or android auto connected in the USA, and outside the USA adoption is far lower.
> A report from Straits Research found that 98% of newly produced vehicles were compatible with either CarPlay or Android Auto. Meanwhile, 80% of prospective car buyers strongly preferred having these smartphone-based infotainment systems in their new vehicles.
The same research also shows Asia-Pacific to be the biggest market for these products, though North America is the fastest-growing.
Tbf. 25% connected is huge. If you just jump into your car to quickly do groceries or pick up your kids, you may not be interested in connecting your phone to your car, even if you really like that feature. So there could be a natural ceiling for the "connected" number and 25% feels getting close to that ceiling actually.
My older car requires a hardwire connection for Android Auto, but my newer car will automatically connect over wifi so I no longer need to take my phone out of my pocket unless I want to charge.
If 80% of buyers express a strong preference for having Carplay/Android Auto I don't think it's reasonable to say that they haven't seen "widespread acceptance."
I read that as "strong preference for having Carplay/Android Auto over the car manufacturers own UI".
And everyone is just frustrated with laggy UI's in cars. But in reality they'll probably still just use Waze with a 10 buck phoneholder suction-cupped onto the windscreen.
Why on earth would you do that instead of using Waze on the larger, built-in screen? Especially if you are a buyer who "strongly prefers" having that in the first place? Nobody is using that kind of holder on a car with Android Auto or Carplay.
Security-concious people like to keep the complexity low of things that are involved in their day-to-day activities. Having your car mingle with your phone is kinda the opposite of this.
The proposition in question is whether Android Auto/CarPlay is “widely accepted,” so implicitly what I’m being asked to believe is that there is a large portion of car buyers who strongly prefer a car that supports these features but then don’t actually want to use them because of security concerns. I think the idea is absurd on its face.
Not sure where you're being asked to believe that beyond a single thread contribution. I've argued your point earlier in this thread and agree that they are "widely accepted", so you may be barking up the wrong tree.
Nevertheless, some people prefer not to accept them while not being entirely anti-tech either. You may not be agreeing with choices other people make, but it goes a little far to call them "absurd on its face", don't you think?
This sounds like a result of how often cars are replaced. What if you stopped a sample of 100 cars released in the last five years? That proportion would be far higher. Pretty much every car review I watch mentions support for either or both.
