Uh, Jason... bruh... ahh, yeah. I got nuthin'. But I will try.
There are tons of sportscars that have track day telemetry. I'm not sure what your concern is here. That telemetry is largely unnecessary on commuter cars. It's not practical and you're not going to see it beyond a select group of vehicles.
That's a weird response. There are a lot of commuter cars that can also be track cars. And the cost to add some of those features is not very much, and even those costs can be reduced. Will everyone use them? No of course not, but the option to add them shouldn't be a big deal. My point though was that one person might use their car in more than one way. I have a track near my house that you can take any car to. Just because I don't race competitively doesn't mean I don't have an inner child who likes speed.
I'm sorry but there's no realism here. Your expectation is a car manufacturer builds a billion dollar capital investment around your choice phone
.
They don't have to because Apple and Google already did that for them. In fact, the OP suggests that car manufacturers plan to spend money to avoid using technology that is built around phones. Which is weird because most people already look to their phones app store for most things they want to use in the car. OnStar wants $35 a month for navigation. That is stupid expensive. I would never pay that much because
1. It sucks. It takes nearly 5 minutes to update directions if you make a wrong turn.
2. Even in 2003 I had TeleNav for $10 a month. Now I have a choice of navigation software free with my phone os of choice.
I get that OnStar is owned by GM, but if Apple can't lock book and music sales on their platform, why can Chevy force their software?
What if your phone manufacturer changes it's UI to something you don't like?
Then I deal, just like when it happens to my phone. At least it has security and feature updates. Maybe you don't know, or maybe you forgot, but OnStar took 5 years to fix a hole that allowed people the ability to remotely activate your car. Doesn't matter if it was "hard". It should have been identified and fixed sooner. Apple, Google, and Microsoft are dragged over the coals for security holes that are far less of big deal than that. But then again, we expect them to update their software. We don't expect GM to do it.
All of the things you're asking for are currently available and have been for some time.
Please tell me you have used them, so I don't have to explain how bad they suck.
I could write a novel on all the things that could go wrong here. Suffice it to say, this is not a good idea.
Why? It would be more secure to it integrated into the OS because then it can use some of the proprietary chip security that makes NFC payments more secure.
See this makes me think you're pulling my leg. Why would a car need monthly updates?
Because then new features could be added without resigning another lease? Before you say car manufacturers want to sell new cars, they don't want us to get new features to cars we already own, keep in mind:
1. Tesla already allows you to upgrade your car to the new model. People pay the $5000 to $9000 to get improved performance and fuel efficiency.
2. This sort of update would be very unlikely to require new hardware.
3. If the OEM software is actually valuable they could charge people for it, and people would pay to get it.
Why would an app need weekly updates?
Because 3rd party apps change more often then first party? I have about 3 updates a day on my phone. I would like to expect the same level of proficiency with CP and AA apps.
?!?! Come on man, this ain't Win XP we're talking about.
At some point you have to see this goes beyond high expectations and into the area of, of WTF.
iOS has been around for almost 10 years already. With constant updates there shouldn't be any issues getting another 10 years out of the OS. Sure, it is possible that something could replace mobile phones, but why couldn't they still access the car display too? CP and AA don't really need a lot of hardware since the mobile devices do most of the heavy lifting. That's why the car OS doesn't need a lot of power.
I don't believe they will update the OS for 20 years either. No one does. No one will. Not even the manufacturer of your disposable glassy rectangle.
You don't think Apple expects to be in the mobile business for 20 years? You don't think Google sees a future for mobile browsing? Again, my current device doesn't need to make it 20 years, the dumb display that receives content from whatever I carry needs to. But you are right, many people won't keep their car for 20 years. They will want the improved display the new model car has. But more likely they will get a new car because they want to better performance, efficacy, and safety that it offers.
Please don't think I'm being dismissive of your desires. I'm not. But what you wrote is so far outside of reality and reasonableness, that it's hard to engage rationally.
I really don't see what's unreasonable. Car manufacturers haven't proven they are responsible enough to manage an OS. I'd rather someone else do it. Some that hasn't been trying to keep their device monopoly under the radar for the past decade. The fact that it took customer demands for AA and CP to get them to consider building an open source OS should make us evaluate how they handled auto computers so far.
Cars are primarily built for the masses.
The masses use primarily use Android and iOS.
They're people movers. What you're asking for is some type of impractical fantasy vehicle that wouldn't be built by anyone.
Until one manufacturer panics and adds it in a desperate attempt to sell new cars. Then everyone will start doing it.
But hey, we want what we want.
If autonomous vehicles become more mainstream, which looks more and more likely, the need for this sort of device will only increase. As it is now there is limited application support to audio, navigation, and car enthusiast apps. When people don't need to be involved in the act of driving any more cars will become more like mobile entertainment/workstations.
