“How do you put a destination into the navigation system?” my father asked over the phone. He was trying to figure out how to use the navigation system in his Lexus. I know right away that I will not be able to successfully instruct him over the phone on how to use his car’s navigation system. I would like to say the problem is due to the fact that his vehicle is 9 years old and that if only he had a new car, this process would be simple. Unfortunately many of the problems that existed in 2003 still exist today: over-priced infotainment systems, an inconsistent market standard, and an overall confusing and clunky execution.
•Price: The pricing format that automakers have taken is akin to that of concession stands at a Yankees game or the prices charged in restaurants at the airport. In other words, they hardly correlate to external pricing rational. Take the 2013 Honda Civic for example. If you want to add the navigation system with backup camera? $1,500 option. The Hyundai Elantra is even worse: it will cost you $2,350 to add the technology package. You get more for your money with the Hyundai upgrade, but that is part of the problem as well. Many automakers are bundling navigation systems into even more expensive package options, forcing you to either pay more than you would like to get the features you want or to simply go without. So how is it that you can buy a windshield mountable Garmin for $100 and yet it costs 15-20x that for one to come standard in your car?
•Inconsistency: Each automaker is developing and implementing their own infotainment system: Ford has Sync, Kia has Uvo, Cadillac has Cue, Lexus has Enform, and Subaru doesn't even have a standard system yet. There is absolutely no standard in the industry. The only thing that seems standard right now is a CD player, and that is a terrible standard to have. In a world of Pandora, Rdio, Spotify, and iTunes, why do we continue to trifle with CDs? To show just how slow to adapt the auto industry is, look no further than the fact that it took manufactures until 2010 to fully phase out cassette decks! With how risk averse automakers are, we are unlikely to see true innovation in this area for the foreseeable future.
•Confusing: The operating systems in these systems feel designed by automakers, not technology companies. The problem is, they are designed by automakers. Some systems use touch screens, others buttons, while some use a combination of touch and controllers. Many systems feel more like an afterthought than a well thought out system. Performing simple operations such as changing the temperature in the car and then trying to change the song that is playing often requires way too many screen taps and menu layers to be convenient or safe. The update process is also confusing, with most updates (if there ever are updates) requiring an inconvenient trip to the dealership.
Ideal and Unrealistic Solution: In a perfect world the automakers would team up with Apple, Microsoft, and Google. The hardware installed in the vehicles would be capable of running iOS, Android, or Windows Phone operating systems. When customers went to the dealership to purchase their car, they would then purchase an "install option" that would allow them to choose which operating system was installed in their vehicle. Once chosen, the system would work just as it currently does on our mobile phones and tablets. Updates would be available over the air and could happen from the convenience of your own garage. There would be no drastic learning curve because each buyer could choose the mobile operating system of their choice.
Realistic Solution: As much as I love and prefer iOS to Android, it seems like Android is in a better position to become the standard OS in vehicles infotainment systems. Apple is a control freak and the willingness of Apple to collaborate with automakers seems unlikely. This leaves Microsoft and Google. With Google's Android being open source and Microsoft Windows not being open source, it would make more sense to go with Android.* The wide array of services that Google offers, from Google Music to Google Maps would make it a natural fit. Google has also been willing to play nice with Apple and Microsoft, still offering these platforms access to Gmail, Google Voice Search, and other Google functionality.** The more “open” Google stays, the better fit they would be in the auto industry. As automakers invest more money and development into their own proprietary systems, it will only get harder to convince them to switch. Now is the time that adoption of a standard in the auto industry must happen. The power lies with the automakers but it is up to one of these tech companies to make a compelling case. Which makes me wonder: If Google can’t pull it off, who will?
*Ford SYNC is actually developed by Microsoft and we’ve all seen how good that system is. Yawn. Next.
