Toyota Currently Has No Plans to Support CarPlay or Android Auto in U.S.

diamond.g said:

What I am curious about for Carplay Integration, it isn't safe to look at the infotainment screen while driving for directions, which is why, in my VW they helpfully put the next turn in the MFD (next to the speedometer). Does Apples solution allow directions, next turn, to be sent to such a display?

Click to expand...

That's a good point. I hope they do. Glancing at the screen at a red light still isn't bad, though.

----------

oneMadRssn said:

I like your thinking. Shouldn't be too hard to make it accept DC power - like most electronics is runs on DC power naturally. If you look at the teardown, there is a small ac-dc converter in there, outputting an odd 3.3V and 2.09A. http://weblog.rogueamoeba.com/2012/06/19/airport-express-disassembly/ The tricky part will be finding a 5V-3.3V stepper, if you don't want to build one yourself.

Click to expand...

3.3V, that's annoying. Looks like I have some research to do.
Edit: There are instructions I found here: http://www.instructables.com/id/Converting-a-Broken-Airport-Express-PSU-with-an-US/?ALLSTEPS

69Mustang said:

What? Please tell me you're kidding. That's just... not the smartest thing I've heard lately. Also not sure how you managed to take my question about CarPlay and turn it into an something about an Apple car. You and I are talking about totally different things.

Click to expand...

We're all weighing our options because Toyota bailed out on CarPlay. Since that means we will all be shopping around for cars, Apple Car becomes a viable option when it is released. Without Toyota in the game, I don't see any other automakers of interest right now. I'll hold onto my Prius and hopefully make a smooth transition to Apple car in 4-5 years.

wigby said:

So by your logic you drive a tank. It's safe and reliable and looks like a toaster on wheels. Choosing a car for CarPlay is no different than choosing a car for its styling and looks. Gave it, most cars are the same chassis with different colors. The only true differentiator for an average commuter is something like CarPlay.

Click to expand...

Except, what you used wasn't logic, it was hyperbole. My point is that mostly insignificant features such as CarPlay shouldn't be your primary purchasing decisions. There are plenty of safe vehicles out there, and plenty of unsafe vehicles. You shouldn't pick the unsafe ones. Of the safe ones, you can choose which one has the features you want. A tank has no features, and, while safe, isn't really a practical solution in an urban environment (just to emphasize your hyperbole a bit). I'd think this was all obvious, but...

----------

itguy06 said:

LOL. Any car for sale in the US meets certain safety criteria. So they will all do an adequate job of protecting you. As someone who grew up before wearing sealtbelts was the norm, before cars had a gazillion air bags, warned you about a million things, etc., the best way to avoid getting into an accident is be a better driver and pay attention. Do that and that vast majority of accidents vanish.

Click to expand...

First, I'd like to star things off in a similar fashion to the way that your post did:

LOL.

With that out of the way, let me point out that there are many unsafe vehicles out there on American roads today, most notably the SmartCar. It has virtually nothing protecting you on any four of its sides. You get into an accident with that baby, and you'd be lucky to survive. It's a deathtrap, yet it passed those "regulations" you speak of. That's probably an extreme example, but it does prove my point. You do have to use your head when purchasing a car, and safety really should come before features.

We own a 2013 Prius, and the infotainment system isn't too bad. You don't need it to do much if you're the one driving and Bluetooth works fine. Siri works too.

Dargoth said:

With that out of the way, let me point out that there are many unsafe vehicles out there on American roads today, most notably the SmartCar. It has virtually nothing protecting you on any four of its sides. You get into an accident with that baby, and you'd be lucky to survive. It's a deathtrap, yet it passed those "regulations" you speak of. That's probably an extreme example, but it does prove my point. You do have to use your head when purchasing a car, and safety really should come before features.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about this Smart Car?

diamond.g said:

Are you talking about this Smart Car?

Click to expand...

The SmartCar is known for just 'good enough' passing marks for collisions at normal speeds, and average to below good at highway speeds.

this is a direct sacrifice due to the size of the vehicle. Modern day Vehicles are built with the ability to crumple the non passenger areas in order to transmit the force of impact throughout the frame, panels and crumple zones (usually for and back).

Without the additional crumple zones, the smart car WILL translate more directional force into the drivers cockpit than would otherwise. Combine in, due to its size an extremely rigid frame around the passenger compartment (to avoid it crumpling in and crushing the occupants), there WILL be a lot of physical force directly translated to the occupants.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/deskt...results-are-relevant-to-fuel-economy-policies

After striking the front of the C class, the Smart went airborne and turned around 450 degrees. This contributed to excessive movement of the dummy during rebound — a dramatic indication of the Smart's poor performance but not the only one. There was extensive intrusion into the space around the dummy from head to feet. The instrument panel moved up and toward the dummy. The steering wheel was displaced upward. Multiple measures of injury likelihood, including those on the dummy's head, were poor, as were measures on both legs.

Click to expand...

http://www.thecarconnection.com/review/1086097_2014-smart-fortwo_safety_5

these cars are NOT made for high speed collision, and purchasers of these vehicles should be aware, while they can maintain highway speed, they are intended to be urban, low speed, point A to point B city vehicles, and not for climates that have varying weather patterns or lots of high speed driving needed.

Though, that didnt stop the guy I saw on the highway last week, driving his SmartCar at 120km/h down the highway, while, believe it or not, a Ski-Do poked out the rear of the vehicle. the guy had it going from front window, all the way a good foot or two out the back hatch.

Dargoth said:

Except, what you used wasn't logic, it was hyperbole. My point is that mostly insignificant features such as CarPlay shouldn't be your primary purchasing decisions. There are plenty of safe vehicles out there, and plenty of unsafe vehicles. You shouldn't pick the unsafe ones. Of the safe ones, you can choose which one has the features you want. A tank has no features, and, while safe, isn't really a practical solution in an urban environment (just to emphasize your hyperbole a bit). I'd think this was all obvious, but...

----------



First, I'd like to star things off in a similar fashion to the way that your post did:

LOL.

With that out of the way, let me point out that there are many unsafe vehicles out there on American roads today, most notably the SmartCar. It has virtually nothing protecting you on any four of its sides. You get into an accident with that baby, and you'd be lucky to survive. It's a deathtrap, yet it passed those "regulations" you speak of. That's probably an extreme example, but it does prove my point. You do have to use your head when purchasing a car, and safety really should come before features.

Click to expand...

So now I'm supposed to base my safety decision from a guy on MacRumors instead of the federal safety tests that all of these street legal cars passed? The only safety decisions to be made parallel with your needs. In other words, if you have a family or stuff to haul, you get a mini-van, van or SUV because you can justify the convenience and safety factor at the same time. If you just need to drive around yourself, you have more options. Of course a sports car will tend to take on more damage than a truck. That has never stopped someone who really wants a sports car from buying a sports car. Getting into more specifics than that is pointless because every accident is different. Hitting a Hummer the right way will total it just like any other vehicle.

wigby said:

So now I'm supposed to base my safety decision from a guy on MacRumors instead of the federal safety tests that all of these street legal cars passed? The only safety decisions to be made parallel with your needs. In other words, if you have a family or stuff to haul, you get a mini-van, van or SUV because you can justify the convenience and safety factor at the same time. If you just need to drive around yourself, you have more options. Of course a sports car will tend to take on more damage than a truck. That has never stopped someone who really wants a sports car from buying a sports car. Getting into more specifics than that is pointless because every accident is different. Hitting a Hummer the right way will total it just like any other vehicle.

Click to expand...

Obviously every car can be totaled; the question is how likely are you to be killed in the process. How is this insignificant? You'll just blindly take the government at its word then, eh? Does that make you a smart individual in your opinion?

Dargoth said:

Obviously every car can be totaled; the question is how likely are you to be killed in the process. How is this insignificant? You'll just blindly take the government at its word then, eh? Does that make you a smart individual in your opinion?

Click to expand...

Do you have your own testing lab at home? I suppose you don't believe anything the FDA says either? Ask yourself this. Who has more to gain by lying about a safety issue, the car companies or the government?

wigby said:

Do you have your own testing lab at home? I suppose you don't believe anything the FDA says either? Ask yourself this. Who has more to gain by lying about a safety issue, the car companies or the government?

Click to expand...

Yes, car companies can lie, but the FTC can be bought. You have to use your brain no matter who you get your information from. Sometimes things are obviously a bit off (The Smart Car for example...), other times, it's not as clear. Government can always have motivations to lie, depending on who's buying who at any given moment. You'd have to be pretty out of touch to think otherwise...

crashoverride77 said:

The icons are not tiny.
It's also properly safer to touch big icons than to use the BMW navigation wheel trying to go through lists of settings and options. Their multimedia stuff is cool but still hopelessly complicated, structured and presented.

Click to expand...

I agree somewhat. BMW has been working on iDrive since 1999, and it certainly feels like it. Too many tasks are buried in drill-down menus. But iOS integration is pretty good, including Siri voice command, so it's possible to bypass some of that complexity.

Also, the iDrive "puck" has an optional touch sensitive top surface so it's now possible to "write" on it to spell out addresses. I think you had to use a bizarre twist/click method to input alphanumeric addresses, but at least it had a predictive-typing-like feature to reduce the number of next-character candidates.

69Mustang said:

I hope you realize CarPlay will be using the exact same touch screens the manufacturers are using now. CarPlay will also be working through QNX as a software overlay. Outside of aftermarket head units, the only hardware involved will be your iPhone. Simplistically put, it's Airplay for the car. There's more to it than that, but at it's most basic, that's what you're getting.

Click to expand...

Really!?! CarPlay will use a car's existing touch screen? :roll eyes:

2015/6 and on in-built touchscreens (i.e. current models) are WAY better than the screens in the Pioneer aftermarket units.

----------

normanfox said:

Did you try the new AppRadio 4? or Nex5100? their UI was redesigned and fast, little to no lag. I was surprised when I got my appRadio 4.

Click to expand...

Have not tried the NEX5100. Will do so. Thanks.

anthonymoody said:

Really!?! CarPlay will use a car's existing touch screen? :roll eyes:

Click to expand...

yes.

CarPlay is designed to run on top of, NOT as a replacement to your cars entertainment system.

QNX car platform currently is the leader in Automotive operating systems and powers a lot of cars. As long as the Hardware meets carPlay's standards (Which is i believe a touchscreen, USB Port and a certain level of power), than yes, it is feasible to be usable on existing in car dash touch screens

LordVic said:

yes.

CarPlay is designed to run on top of, NOT as a replacement to your cars entertainment system.

QNX car platform currently is the leader in Automotive operating systems and powers a lot of cars. As long as the Hardware meets carPlay's standards (Which is i believe a touchscreen, USB Port and a certain level of power), than yes, it is feasible to be usable on existing in car dash touch screens

Click to expand...

My sarcasm
.
.
.
.
--------------
.
.
.
.
Your head

coolfactor said:

Too bad that will drive potential customers to other brands. I just can't see how their proprietary system could be better in any way.

----------



Toyotas are quality machines.

Click to expand...

Actually the chances of a buyer whose chosen a Toyota vehicle like their wildly popular Corolla, Camry, Prius, SUV's and Trucks aren't about to look at anything else over something that's as unproven and risky as Apple's system.

Especially since their current system (QNX) works perfectly and is reliably integrated with Toyota Telematics. Both Android and iPhones work ideally, therefore Toyota who's known for reliability is not about to take chances with no proven benefit.

I'd expect that if Apple does create something reliable, not as buggy and crash prone as iOS 8, then I'm sure Toyota will consider it if it offers some compelling features.

anthonymoody said:

My sarcasm
.
.
.
.
--------------
.
.
.
.
Your head

Click to expand...

Duly noted...

Cook just announce that every major brand is on board for CarPlay. So Toyota changed their minds?

diamond.g said:

Cook just announce that every major brand is on board for CarPlay. So Toyota changed their minds?

Click to expand...

Seems to be. I noted earlier in this thread that just a few days before this was originally posted, I got a survey from Toyota asking lots of questions about Carplay and Android auto. In the comments section I flat out told them that if those weren't included by the time I'm ready to buy my next car in about a year and half, Toyota would be off the table.

Toyota Wil Pay

I cannot speak for any other customer, but I hate all the auto manufacturers attempts to mimic the Google and Apple ecosystem. I do not want to learn a new device. I already have one. I will not buy any new vehicle unless and until it has complete iPhone integration via Apple CarPlay. So, if Toyota has decided to not adopt Apple CarPlay, then they have lost my business during the same period of time.