Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #155918 > unrolled thread

Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto)

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-13 20:30 -0700
    Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Nick <nick@koohii.invalid> - 2026-09-14 05:52 +0200
      Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-09-14 17:12 +1200
        Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) blacky <bhju88@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 15:44 +1000
          Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Jim the Geordie <jim@geordieland.co.uk> - 2026-09-14 12:20 +0100
      Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-14 07:27 +0100
    Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 07:12 +0000
      Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-14 12:33 +0100
        Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-14 07:56 -0800
        Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 20:29 +0000
        Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-14 23:04 +0200
          Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-14 22:23 +0100
            Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-15 13:52 +0200
              Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-09-16 09:12 +1200
                Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-16 01:41 +0200
                  Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-16 16:55 +0000
                    Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-16 18:26 +0100
                      Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-16 19:02 +0000
                        Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-17 11:34 +0100
                          Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-17 18:06 +0200
                            Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-17 18:33 +0200
                              Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-17 20:24 +0300
                                Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-17 20:44 +0200
                                  Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-17 23:02 +0300
                                    Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2026-09-18 20:19 +0100
                                      Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-21 12:52 +0300
                                        Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-21 13:03 +0300
                                  Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-18 14:15 +0000
                                Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 20:07 +0000
                                  Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-18 00:36 +0300
                                    Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 07:15 +0000
                                      Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Nick Charles <none@none.none> - 2026-09-18 19:49 +0000
                                        Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-19 02:43 +0000
                    Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-16 20:46 +0200
                      Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-16 19:58 +0000
                        Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-17 08:31 +0200
        Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-09-15 14:37 +1200
    Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-14 23:21 +0200
      Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-15 08:47 +0100
        Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-09-15 12:49 +0100
          Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-15 13:54 +0200
            Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-15 14:47 +0000
        Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-09-16 09:13 +1200
    Re: Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto) Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-09-18 04:02 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#155977

On 2026-09-17 18:06, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>> But Apple are unlikely to use Google's protocol and vice-versa, look how
>> long it took to get them to recognise the presence of each other's trackers.
>>
>>> All it would need is a suitably similar car-focused generic middle layer
>>> similar to those which already exist, to simply mirror the phone on a dash.
>>>
>>> I've never used (nor even seen) CarPlay/AndroidAuto in action.
>>> Is that what they do? Mirror the device? Like I do with my PC?
>>
>> No, what is on the car's screen isn't a "scrape" of what's on the
>> phone's screen, it's like having a PC with dual monitors where the
>> "remote" one using the car's screen is drawn separately, using a simpler
>> GUI that's better suited to the task.  There's no connection between
>> which app is displayed on the phone's screen vs the car's screen.
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> Thanks for sticking with me on this 'cuz I have never even seen any of
> these things in operation, since I no longer rent cars nor travel much.
> 
> Unlike most Usenet posters who invest a few seconds of their energy into
> responding to people, when I responded to you I looked up a lot, and when I
> subsequently responded to Carlos, I looked up a lot more, so now I "think"
> I am just scraping the surface in understanding a solution to the problem.
> 
> Having only older cars (which I can maintain myself even down to replacing
> clutches, timing belts and mounting and balancing the tires at home), I had
> literally almost less-than-zero technical knowledge of carplay/androidaudio
> until now (I still have none, but now I get what it does, I think).
> 
> First off, it turns out that we *can* just mirror the phone, on a
> vehicle-by-vehicle basis, with vehicle-specific mirroring hardware.
>   <https://www.beatsonicusa.com/blogs/articles/carplay-vs-smartphone-mirroring-which-do-you-need-beat-sonic>
> 
> Of course, no vehicle OEM is going to give you that out of the factory,
> so they give us these more rigid built-in systems, useful for rental cars.
> 

Mirroring is considered not safe (for driving).

> While there's also libimobiledevice & remoteXPC for iOS and adb for
> Android, CarPlay and Android Auto seem to be remote application/UI
> projection frameworks, while the BeatSonic smartphone mirroring is
> essentially a video/framebuffer transport of the phone's display.
> 
> They're all different.
> 
> For example, as you astutely noted, with CarPlay/Android Auto, the phone
> isn't simply sending a picture of its screen to the car. The phone and the
> car are participating in a well-controlled well-defined interface and
> projection system, with the car providing the display and controls and the
> phone providing some of the displayed applications and their data.

and cpu.

> 
> The shortest distinction between them might be this distinction I found:
>     CarPlay and Android Auto are remote rendering/application
>     projection frameworks, whereas Smartphone Mirroring is a raw
>     framebuffer copy/video stream transport.
> 
> And then there's Android Automotive, which, unlike any of the above, is not
> a projection system but an operating system for the car's dash computer.
> 
> To make matters more jumbled up, at least in this initial stage where I'm
> bringing my knowledge up from less-than-zero, the Android Automotive
> Android-based embedded operating system for the vehicle can do AndroidAuto.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155981

Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Of course, no vehicle OEM is going to give you that out of the factory,
>> so they give us these more rigid built-in systems, useful for rental cars.
>> 
> 
> Mirroring is considered not safe (for driving).

Hi Carlos,

One out of a million people analyze that statement for corroborating facts.
Most people, believe that propaganda bullshit without questioning the data.

We've studied that utterly absurd statement you said above years ago, when 
"hands-free" laws were all the rage, and the fallacy of that commonly-held 
point of view is proven when we looked at traffic accident rates.

Most people simply parrot, as you did, the "old wives tales" of "common 
wisdom" since it seems to obvious, to them, that cell phone use while 
driving has 'caused more accidents' and yet, the facts tell the truth.

I'd wager I'm one out of a million people who actually check the facts.

Suffice to say, a *lot* of things 'cause' accidents, and certainly 
"distracted driving" is one of them, but there are *plenty* of things above 
cell phone use that contribute to accidents, so they overwhelm phones.

We've had this discussion many times, so this isn't for you because you'll 
never believe it, but people need to analyze the propaganda for bullshit.

If cellphone use "caused" accidents, why are there no consistent increase 
in accidents in the USA (where the data is good) during the years that 
cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while driving?

HINT: Everyone parrots the propaganda bullshit w/o looking up the data.
--
Knowledge should be shared, like Spanish olives & French wine, among 
friends, and when they disagree, they work it out, like friends do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155983

On 2026-09-17 19:24, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Of course, no vehicle OEM is going to give you that out of the factory,
>>> so they give us these more rigid built-in systems, useful for rental cars.
>>>
>>
>> Mirroring is considered not safe (for driving).
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> One out of a million people analyze that statement for corroborating facts.
> Most people, believe that propaganda bullshit without questioning the data.
> 
> We've studied that utterly absurd statement you said above years ago, when
> "hands-free" laws were all the rage, and the fallacy of that commonly-held
> point of view is proven when we looked at traffic accident rates.
> 
> Most people simply parrot, as you did, the "old wives tales" of "common
> wisdom" since it seems to obvious, to them, that cell phone use while
> driving has 'caused more accidents' and yet, the facts tell the truth.
> 
> I'd wager I'm one out of a million people who actually check the facts.
> 
> Suffice to say, a *lot* of things 'cause' accidents, and certainly
> "distracted driving" is one of them, but there are *plenty* of things above
> cell phone use that contribute to accidents, so they overwhelm phones.
> 
> We've had this discussion many times, so this isn't for you because you'll
> never believe it, but people need to analyze the propaganda for bullshit.
> 
> If cellphone use "caused" accidents, why are there no consistent increase
> in accidents in the USA (where the data is good) during the years that
> cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while driving?

Data in Europe contradicts you, and it is forbidden to touch the phone 
while driving. Even touching the GPS device is prohibited, with serious 
sanctions. All backed by hard data.

> 
> HINT: Everyone parrots the propaganda bullshit w/o looking up the data.
> --
> Knowledge should be shared, like Spanish olives & French wine, among
> friends, and when they disagree, they work it out, like friends do.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155986

Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> If cellphone use "caused" accidents, why are there no consistent increase
>> in accidents in the USA (where the data is good) during the years that
>> cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while driving?
> 
> Data in Europe contradicts you, and it is forbidden to touch the phone 
> while driving. Even touching the GPS device is prohibited, with serious 
> sanctions. All backed by hard data.

Hi Carlos,

If you have the data, I'll take a look, but I don't need you to look
because I searched extensively years ago, and that data didn't change.

We went through all the data at the time, where I do agree that, in the UK,
surprisingly, supposedly the "evidence" showed an uptick in accident rates.

However, in the USA there was decidedly no uptick in accident rates, which
is the point, since the USA has kept excellent data since the 1920s.

Notice that point, since most of the so-called data people tried to quote
(all of which was bullshit) was from primarily four tainted sources:
 1. Lawyers 
 2. Politicians (who stand something to gain)
 2. Insurance companies
 4. Law enforcement 

Yet... and this is critical, when you *read* what they claimed was their
rationale, you see the bullshit as easily as when Apple says only they can
innovate by adding AI or a folding phone or "more RAM" to their lineup.

In our in-depth studies, only Australia (surprisingly) and the USA (not
surprisingly since the USA has kept good statistics for a century) showed
that the accident rate did not even feel so much as a blip during that
time.

In fact, not surprisingly, the accident rate in the countries that had good
data showed no change to the slow trend of accident rates going down.

Of course, accident rates are all that matter, since fatalities or
injuries, while beautifully & cleverly sensationalized by the lawyers and
politicians, can't even happen if there is no accident in the first place.

And the *rate* is what matters because people change their habits based on
a billion factors such as weather, economy (e.g., gas prices), etc.

There is a good scientific reason why the accident rate trend remained
unchanged, but that good reason is lost on people who think, "Oh, a
cellphone is a distraction so it must be causing more accidents".

I'm well aware that 999,999 people out of a million would say that.
But not a single one of those people ever looked up the good data.

If you can show good data for the EU, let me know and I'll look at it, but
note that fatalities or injuries are meaningless without the accident.

And *anything* from a layer, cop, insurance company or politicians, is
bullshit, by its very nature, but if you quote them, expect me to rip them
apart in terms of their utter lack of sound scientific basis.

Cellphone actually enable fewer injuries and fatalities, it turns out, but
that's a second-order effect due to the quick response *after* an accident.

They also reduce accidents by the second-order effect of better driving
when in unfamiliar territory, so there are fewer "u turns" and the like.

In fact, we could argue the use of cellphones in vehicles is probably the
biggest factor ever in lowering the accident rate, since there was NO
EFFECT in accident rate from seat belt laws, tire sensor laws, even the
third-brake light laws, which even I would have thought it should work.
-- 
Only after you compare the claims versus the data do you smell the BS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156018

In message <118hh1d$13v6$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
          Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

> Carlos E.R. wrote:
> > > If cellphone use "caused" accidents, why are there no consistent
> > > increase in accidents in the USA (where the data is good) during the
> > > years that cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while
> > > driving?
> > 
> > Data in Europe contradicts you, and it is forbidden to touch the phone 
> > while driving. Even touching the GPS device is prohibited, with serious 
> > sanctions. All backed by hard data.
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> If you have the data, I'll take a look, but I don't need you to look
> because I searched extensively years ago, and that data didn't change.
> 
> We went through all the data at the time, where I do agree that, in the UK,
> surprisingly, supposedly the "evidence" showed an uptick in accident rates.
> 
> However, in the USA there was decidedly no uptick in accident rates, which
> is the point, since the USA has kept excellent data since the 1920s.

You're looking at it from the wrong direction.

It's very difficult to ascribe a change in rates of anything like this
where there are multiple causes.  You would have to remove all the
confounding factors.  It's pretty much impossible in the case of road
accidents.

What is very clear, though, is that significant numbers of accidents
are caused by drivers who are distracted by their mobile phones.  There
have been so many in the UK alone.  I find it distressing to read about
them in the news, and even more distressing to see in-vehicle video
leading up to the point just before what would have been a horrific
accident.

You can count me as a firm supporter of the laws against use of mobile
phones while driving.

David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156083

David Higton wrote:
>> However, in the USA there was decidedly no uptick in accident rates, which
>> is the point, since the USA has kept excellent data since the 1920s.
> 
> You're looking at it from the wrong direction.
> 
> It's very difficult to ascribe a change in rates of anything like this
> where there are multiple causes.  You would have to remove all the
> confounding factors.  It's pretty much impossible in the case of road
> accidents.
> 
> What is very clear, though, is that significant numbers of accidents
> are caused by drivers who are distracted by their mobile phones.  There
> have been so many in the UK alone.  I find it distressing to read about
> them in the news, and even more distressing to see in-vehicle video
> leading up to the point just before what would have been a horrific
> accident.
> 
> You can count me as a firm supporter of the laws against use of mobile
> phones while driving.

I live in California where I'm familiar with the nanny state mindset.

We can't even buy real windshield wiper fluid where I live. 
It's illegal (because of the VOCs).

But back to your point, you're likely the only one out of a dozen
respondents or so, who looked at this from the standpoint of logic.

Everyone else looked at it purely emotionally, as in "My sister's best
friend's mother was hit by a guy using a cellphone while driving".

Note that I never once said cellphones are a distraction.
I never once said cellphones aren't an added distraction.
And I never once said distractions don't cause a minor number of accidents.

But do you know what is the major cause of accidents?

HINT: It's not even close... 

 Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
 Subject: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:28:28 +0300
 Message-ID: <118hm1r$3s0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

-- 
Most people don't own the capacity to question what everyone else thinks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156084

Maria Sophia wrote:
> Note that I never once said cellphones are a distraction.

TYPO... 
 aren't

1. I never once said cellphones aren't a distraction.
2. I never once said they aren't an added distraction.
   (although we can make a case that routing reduces distractions)
3. I never once said distractions don't cause accidents

What I said was if people test their hypothesis that the skyrocketing
cellphone ownership rates caused a spike in the USA accident rate (where
good data has been collected for more than a century), they won't find it.

What I'm asking people to do is think.
Think about the propaganda and check it against the data.

That's all I'm, asking people to do.
Instead of taking everything on religious faith, look at it like science.

Instead of parroting that "premium gas makes my Honda Civic more powerful",
think about what an octane rating really means.

Instead of parroting that "orbiting astronauts are weightless", think about
where weight comes from, even as gravity itself is not a true force.

Instead of parroting that scuba divers "breathe oxygen a <100 foot depths",
think about the known toxicity of oxygen at those pressures.

My point is that people parrot what sounds believable to them, but they
don't bother to check if what they're parroting has any basis in science.

What do you think the major cause of accidents is, anyway?
HINT: It's not distractions. 

 Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
 Subject: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:28:28 +0300
 Message-ID: <118hm1r$3s0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
-- 
Only after you compare the claims versus the data do you know the answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156010

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-09-17 19:24, Maria Sophia wrote:
[...]
> > If cellphone use "caused" accidents, why are there no consistent increase
> > in accidents in the USA (where the data is good) during the years that
> > cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while driving?
> 
> Data in Europe contradicts you, and it is forbidden to touch the phone 
> while driving. Even touching the GPS device is prohibited, with serious 
> sanctions. All backed by hard data.

  I am sure the relatives, friends, etc. of killed innocent bystander
victims will be ever so grateful for 'Arlen''s explanation that mobile
phones do not cause accidents. Everybody is just lying about it, it
didn't happen, it doesn't happen and will not happen. It's all a hoax!

  And a clue-by-four for 'Arlen': As has been explained umpteen times
before and now several times again, there are *other* factors which
affect the number of accidents / the accident rates, but realizing (read
acknowledging) that, requires a non-closed mind.

[This space is intentionally left blank for yet another vanity thread.]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155987

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Of course, no vehicle OEM is going to give you that out of the factory,
>>> so they give us these more rigid built-in systems, useful for rental cars.
>>> 
>> 
>> Mirroring is considered not safe (for driving).
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> One out of a million people analyze that statement for corroborating facts.
> Most people, believe that propaganda bullshit without questioning the data.
> 
> We've studied that utterly absurd statement you said above years ago, when 
> "hands-free" laws were all the rage, and the fallacy of that commonly-held 
> point of view is proven when we looked at traffic accident rates.

This royal "we" of yours is hilarious. As per usual there was no "we"
involved in this conclusion. You declared your position as fact and then
rebuffed all evidence to the contrary . 

You like logic so your premise sits firmly in the "absence of proof is not
proof of absence" camp. 

> Suffice to say, a *lot* of things 'cause' accidents, and certainly 
> "distracted driving" is one of them, but there are *plenty* of things above 
> cell phone use that contribute to accidents, so they overwhelm phones.

Doesn't mean that the influence of phones should be ignored. 

> We've had this discussion many times, so this isn't for you because you'll 
> never believe it, but people need to analyze the propaganda for bullshit.
> 
> If cellphone use "caused" accidents, why are there no consistent increase 
> in accidents in the USA (where the data is good) 

No it isn't. The way the data was collected changed significantly during
the period of interest 2000-2010 meaning that conclusions over time
couldn't be made. 

> during the years that 
> cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while driving?
> 
> HINT: Everyone parrots the propaganda bullshit w/o looking up the data.

Go on then, provide the data that demonstrates that phone use while driving
is perfectly safe. Note this is not logically the same as data showing no
increase in deaths or accidents. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155991

Chris wrote:
>> We've studied that utterly absurd statement you said above years ago, when 
>> "hands-free" laws were all the rage, and the fallacy of that commonly-held 
>> point of view is proven when we looked at traffic accident rates.
> 
> This royal "we" of yours is hilarious. As per usual there was no "we"
> involved in this conclusion. You declared your position as fact and then
> rebuffed all evidence to the contrary . 
> 
> You like logic so your premise sits firmly in the "absence of proof is not
> proof of absence" camp. 
> 
>> Suffice to say, a *lot* of things 'cause' accidents, and certainly 
>> "distracted driving" is one of them, but there are *plenty* of things above 
>> cell phone use that contribute to accidents, so they overwhelm phones.
> 
> Doesn't mean that the influence of phones should be ignored. 
> 
>> We've had this discussion many times, so this isn't for you because you'll 
>> never believe it, but people need to analyze the propaganda for bullshit.
>> 
>> If cellphone use "caused" accidents, why are there no consistent increase 
>> in accidents in the USA (where the data is good) 
> 
> No it isn't. The way the data was collected changed significantly during
> the period of interest 2000-2010 meaning that conclusions over time
> couldn't be made. 
> 
>> during the years that 
>> cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while driving?
>> 
>> HINT: Everyone parrots the propaganda bullshit w/o looking up the data.
> 
> Go on then, provide the data that demonstrates that phone use while driving
> is perfectly safe. Note this is not logically the same as data showing no
> increase in deaths or accidents.

Instead of putting it into this offshoot tangent, let's employ a dedicated
separate thread, which also includes automotive and driving newsgroups.

 Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
 Subject: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:28:28 +0300
 Message-ID: <118hm1r$3s0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Bear in mind, most claims are propaganda by insurance companies, lawyers,
law enforcement and politicians, so let's stick to the documented facts.
-- 
Intelligence, when bestowed upon a person, affords them wondrous insight.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156000

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>>> We've studied that utterly absurd statement you said above years ago, when 
>>> "hands-free" laws were all the rage, and the fallacy of that commonly-held 
>>> point of view is proven when we looked at traffic accident rates.
>> 
>> This royal "we" of yours is hilarious. As per usual there was no "we"
>> involved in this conclusion. You declared your position as fact and then
>> rebuffed all evidence to the contrary . 
>> 
>> You like logic so your premise sits firmly in the "absence of proof is not
>> proof of absence" camp. 
>> 
>>> Suffice to say, a *lot* of things 'cause' accidents, and certainly 
>>> "distracted driving" is one of them, but there are *plenty* of things above 
>>> cell phone use that contribute to accidents, so they overwhelm phones.
>> 
>> Doesn't mean that the influence of phones should be ignored. 
>> 
>>> We've had this discussion many times, so this isn't for you because you'll 
>>> never believe it, but people need to analyze the propaganda for bullshit.
>>> 
>>> If cellphone use "caused" accidents, why are there no consistent increase 
>>> in accidents in the USA (where the data is good) 
>> 
>> No it isn't. The way the data was collected changed significantly during
>> the period of interest 2000-2010 meaning that conclusions over time
>> couldn't be made. 
>> 
>>> during the years that 
>>> cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while driving?
>>> 
>>> HINT: Everyone parrots the propaganda bullshit w/o looking up the data.
>> 
>> Go on then, provide the data that demonstrates that phone use while driving
>> is perfectly safe. Note this is not logically the same as data showing no
>> increase in deaths or accidents.
> 
> Instead of putting it into this offshoot tangent, let's employ a dedicated
> separate thread, which also includes automotive and driving newsgroups.
> 
>  Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
>  Subject: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
>  Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:28:28 +0300
>  Message-ID: <118hm1r$3s0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

As per usual you use that tactic to avoid addressing the clear flaws in
your argument. 

> Bear in mind, most claims are propaganda by insurance companies, lawyers,
> law enforcement and politicians, so let's stick to the documented facts.

Talk about coming into this with a closed mind. It's also notable you
present no evidence whatsoever in support of your premise. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156019

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>>> We've studied that utterly absurd statement you said above years ago, when 
>>>> "hands-free" laws were all the rage, and the fallacy of that commonly-held 
>>>> point of view is proven when we looked at traffic accident rates.
>>> 
>>> This royal "we" of yours is hilarious. As per usual there was no "we"
>>> involved in this conclusion. You declared your position as fact and then
>>> rebuffed all evidence to the contrary . 
>>> 
>>> You like logic so your premise sits firmly in the "absence of proof is not
>>> proof of absence" camp. 
>>> 
>>>> Suffice to say, a *lot* of things 'cause' accidents, and certainly 
>>>> "distracted driving" is one of them, but there are *plenty* of things above 
>>>> cell phone use that contribute to accidents, so they overwhelm phones.
>>> 
>>> Doesn't mean that the influence of phones should be ignored. 
>>> 
>>>> We've had this discussion many times, so this isn't for you because you'll 
>>>> never believe it, but people need to analyze the propaganda for bullshit.
>>>> 
>>>> If cellphone use "caused" accidents, why are there no consistent increase 
>>>> in accidents in the USA (where the data is good) 
>>> 
>>> No it isn't. The way the data was collected changed significantly during
>>> the period of interest 2000-2010 meaning that conclusions over time
>>> couldn't be made. 
>>> 
>>>> during the years that 
>>>> cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while driving?
>>>> 
>>>> HINT: Everyone parrots the propaganda bullshit w/o looking up the data.
>>> 
>>> Go on then, provide the data that demonstrates that phone use while driving
>>> is perfectly safe. Note this is not logically the same as data showing no
>>> increase in deaths or accidents.
>> 
>> Instead of putting it into this offshoot tangent, let's employ a dedicated
>> separate thread, which also includes automotive and driving newsgroups.
>> 
>> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
>> Subject: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:28:28 +0300
>> Message-ID: <118hm1r$3s0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
> 
> As per usual you use that tactic to avoid addressing the clear flaws in
> your argument. 
> 
>> Bear in mind, most claims are propaganda by insurance companies, lawyers,
>> law enforcement and politicians, so let's stick to the documented facts.
> 
> Talk about coming into this with a closed mind. It's also notable you
> present no evidence whatsoever in support of your premise. 

He never ever EVER does.  He posts LOTS of links.  But they never ever EVER
support the claim he is making AND many times his own links prove him to be
wrong.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156028

Nick Charles <none@none.none> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> We've studied that utterly absurd statement you said above years ago, when 
>>>>> "hands-free" laws were all the rage, and the fallacy of that commonly-held 
>>>>> point of view is proven when we looked at traffic accident rates.
>>>> 
>>>> This royal "we" of yours is hilarious. As per usual there was no "we"
>>>> involved in this conclusion. You declared your position as fact and then
>>>> rebuffed all evidence to the contrary . 
>>>> 
>>>> You like logic so your premise sits firmly in the "absence of proof is not
>>>> proof of absence" camp. 
>>>> 
>>>>> Suffice to say, a *lot* of things 'cause' accidents, and certainly 
>>>>> "distracted driving" is one of them, but there are *plenty* of things above 
>>>>> cell phone use that contribute to accidents, so they overwhelm phones.
>>>> 
>>>> Doesn't mean that the influence of phones should be ignored. 
>>>> 
>>>>> We've had this discussion many times, so this isn't for you because you'll 
>>>>> never believe it, but people need to analyze the propaganda for bullshit.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If cellphone use "caused" accidents, why are there no consistent increase 
>>>>> in accidents in the USA (where the data is good) 
>>>> 
>>>> No it isn't. The way the data was collected changed significantly during
>>>> the period of interest 2000-2010 meaning that conclusions over time
>>>> couldn't be made. 
>>>> 
>>>>> during the years that 
>>>>> cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while driving?
>>>>> 
>>>>> HINT: Everyone parrots the propaganda bullshit w/o looking up the data.
>>>> 
>>>> Go on then, provide the data that demonstrates that phone use while driving
>>>> is perfectly safe. Note this is not logically the same as data showing no
>>>> increase in deaths or accidents.
>>> 
>>> Instead of putting it into this offshoot tangent, let's employ a dedicated
>>> separate thread, which also includes automotive and driving newsgroups.
>>> 
>>> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
>>> Subject: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
>>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:28:28 +0300
>>> Message-ID: <118hm1r$3s0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
>> 
>> As per usual you use that tactic to avoid addressing the clear flaws in
>> your argument. 
>> 
>>> Bear in mind, most claims are propaganda by insurance companies, lawyers,
>>> law enforcement and politicians, so let's stick to the documented facts.
>> 
>> Talk about coming into this with a closed mind. It's also notable you
>> present no evidence whatsoever in support of your premise. 
> 
> He never ever EVER does.  He posts LOTS of links.  But they never ever EVER
> support the claim he is making AND many times his own links prove him to be
> wrong.  
> 

Correct. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155956

On 2026-09-16 18:55, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>  From what I remember, you plugged a clean usb memory stick into the
>>>>> car's usb socket, and downloaded some code from the satnav. You then
>>>>> downloaded the satnav update *.exe from Garmin
>>>>
>>>> Can't do.No Windows here.
>>>
>>> Just go to the nearest car mechanic. They'll be running Windoze for all
>>> their diagnostic software.
>>
>> And they will charge for the operation.
> 
> I think that's the biggest problem, which is the car manufacturers (like
> Garmin was) would charge far more for an "update" than Google Maps or Apple
> Maps charges for their updates (which is zero).
> 
> I remember the Garmin updates were atrociously expensive, at a healthy
> percentage of the $600 or so (as I recall) that I paid for the unit.

Currently the TomTom updates  are gratis. Maybe it depends on what 
hardware you bought. What I have to pay are for the traffic updates and 
the radar warnings.

> 
> In addition, maybe people want to use free offline maps, such as OSMAnd~
> for their navigation, which isn't in the vested interest of auto OEMs.
> 
> What I'd like to see is a screen, about the size of mine right now, on the
> dashboard, which simply displays the phone GUI and operates it, like I do.
> 
>   <https://i.postimg.cc/k5gv0yw8/vysor34.jpg> Apple iOS & Android mirroring
> 
> Is it even possible for a car screen to simply "mirror" that of the phone?

Maybe, but that is not what they do. Apps run, modified (simplified). 
Not all of them. Like a video will not play if the car is moving.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155960

Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> I remember the Garmin updates were atrociously expensive, at a healthy
>> percentage of the $600 or so (as I recall) that I paid for the unit.
> 
> Currently the TomTom updates  are gratis. Maybe it depends on what 
> hardware you bought. What I have to pay are for the traffic updates and 
> the radar warnings.

It's good your TomTom updates are free. I went from a physical laptop in
the late 1990s plugged into an inverter with a rooftop GPS radio antenna to
a $1,200 6-doubleA-battery beanbag StreePilotIII around 2001 but the
MapSource maps stored on Garmin data cards were outrageously expensive at
about $100 per region, but there was a catch in that the thumbnail-sized
memory cards were $550 for the 28 MB size (yes, that's megabytes).

But it was lightning fast compared to waiting for a laptop to cold boot to
GPS while waiting to figure out the next stop in the daily itinerary.

Here's a photo and review of the StreetPilotIII that I used for years.
 <https://the-gadgeteer.com/2003/07/29/garmin_street_pilot_iii_deluxe_version_gps_review/>
I think, but don't recall, that I bought it as a package at Costco.

>> What I'd like to see is a screen, about the size of mine right now, on the
>> dashboard, which simply displays the phone GUI and operates it, like I do.
>>   <https://i.postimg.cc/k5gv0yw8/vysor34.jpg> Apple iOS & Android mirroring
>> Is it even possible for a car screen to simply "mirror" that of the phone?
> 
> Maybe, but that is not what they do. Apps run, modified (simplified). 
> Not all of them. Like a video will not play if the car is moving.

I've never used (nor even seen) CarPlay/AndroidAuto in action.
Nor AndroidAutomotive, which is an operating system built into the car.

Looking up why they don't just mirror the damn thing, apparently they do.
 *CarPlay vs. Smartphone Mirroring*
 <https://www.beatsonicusa.com/blogs/articles/carplay-vs-smartphone-mirroring-which-do-you-need-beat-sonic>

The beatsonic pricing for mirroring depends on the vehicle, but it seems to
range from $250 for Japanese vehicles to $650 for the expensive stuff.
 <https://www.darksidemotoring.com/products/beat-sonic-if-02bep-smartphone-mirroring-kit-for-toyota-models-lexus-models-without-factory-navigation>
-- 
On Usenet, we improve our knowledge by sharing it & discussing it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155965

On 2026-09-16 21:58, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> I remember the Garmin updates were atrociously expensive, at a healthy
>>> percentage of the $600 or so (as I recall) that I paid for the unit.
>>
>> Currently the TomTom updates  are gratis. Maybe it depends on what
>> hardware you bought. What I have to pay are for the traffic updates and
>> the radar warnings.
> 
> It's good your TomTom updates are free. I went from a physical laptop in
> the late 1990s plugged into an inverter with a rooftop GPS radio antenna to
> a $1,200 6-doubleA-battery beanbag StreePilotIII around 2001 but the
> MapSource maps stored on Garmin data cards were outrageously expensive at
> about $100 per region, but there was a catch in that the thumbnail-sized
> memory cards were $550 for the 28 MB size (yes, that's megabytes).
> 
> But it was lightning fast compared to waiting for a laptop to cold boot to
> GPS while waiting to figure out the next stop in the daily itinerary.
> 
> Here's a photo and review of the StreetPilotIII that I used for years.
>   <https://the-gadgeteer.com/2003/07/29/garmin_street_pilot_iii_deluxe_version_gps_review/>
> I think, but don't recall, that I bought it as a package at Costco.


The connection has timed out

Ah, today it works.

...

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155934

On 2026-09-14 11:33:50 +0000, Jeff Layman said:
> On 14/09/2026 08:12, Chris wrote:
>> Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Note this sentence about Google's standalone car operating system:
>>> 
>>> Ironically, that alternative is being built around Android Automotive
>>> (not Android Auto), Google's standalone car operating system.
>>> Rather than simply mirroring your phone apps, Android Automotive
>>> runs apps directly on the car itself. You won't need to connect a
>>> smartphone at all.
>> 
>> Worst idea ever. Car manufacturers are very bad at supporting tech long
>> term. This matters critically for cars as they last much longer than other
>> devices. Even a 7 year support cycle is inadequate. Our eight year old car
>> has not had GPS map updates for several years.
> 
> Because you have to pay for them. I haven't updated mine either, but 
> that's because Garmin ar stupid enough to only allow updating via a 
> *.exe, or Apple equivalent. Fortunately I don't need it these days, and 
> if I had to I'd just use OSM or Streetmap.
> 
>> This is simply marketing to ensure people upgrade their cars more often.
> 
> I doubt that the manufacturers update the car's computer system unless 
> there's a legal issue that they could be sued for if an accident 
> occurred. Honda don't appear to update anything, as the issues I 
> reported at the first service 9 years ago are still apparent.

Depends on the make and model of the car. Some modern car systems need 
to be manually updated with (for example) a USB stick, while others can 
update automatically "over the air", (e.g. Tesla) usually via a mobile 
phone or wi-fi internet connection, but other ways are sometimes used 
(for example, our Sky TV box updates itself via the satelitte dish 
since it is not connected to any internet network).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155930

On 2026-09-14 05:30, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Note mention of Google's standalone car operating system...
> 
> I don't use carplay/androidauto as I maintain my vehicles myself, so
> they're much older than most people can afford to maintain vehicles.
> 
> But this story about manufacturers ditching carplay & android auto
> is interesting if it's a trend toward the future in general, or not.
> 
> However, the story below could just be clickbait for low-news time frames.
> Or, it may portend a trend... dunno...
> 
> Do you use CarPlayAndroidAuto?
> Is the story reasonable?
> 
> Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026: Here's why
>   <https://www.engadget.com/2252850/why-car-manufacturers-ditching-carplay-explained/>
>    "Apple CarPlay has given drivers a great alternative to clunky
>     car infotainment systems for over a decade. It has a simple premise:
>     connect your iPhone and use the apps you already know. Like Android
>     Auto, CarPlay is a service that vehicle manufacturers have adopted in
>     great numbers and with relative enthusiasm -at least, until lately.
> 
>     General Motors, for instance, has been removing CarPlay from its EVs
>     and plans to phase it out completely. Tesla and Rivian have never
>     offered support for it...
> 
>     General Motors is the one making the biggest pivot with CarPlay so far.
>     It's already begun the process by removing CarPlay and rival Android
>     Auto support from its newest electric models, including the Chevrolet
>     Blazer EV. It's also expected to begin removing support from gas-powered
>     cars once its own centralized computing platform is released...
> 
> Note this sentence about Google's standalone car operating system:
> 
>     Ironically, that alternative is being built around Android Automotive
>     (not Android Auto), Google's standalone car operating system.
>     Rather than simply mirroring your phone apps, Android Automotive
>     runs apps directly on the car itself. You won't need to connect a
>     smartphone at all.

I have been hearing rumours for some years, this or that car company 
ditching support. Nothing definite.

I have an Opel Corsa of 7 years, I think. It came with both CarPlay and 
AndroidAuto support via USB cable, which I have supplemented with a 
wireless dongle to connect to Android. I like the system and can not 
consider of a car without it.

The system is not reliable, though. It can crash in the middle of an 
intersection. It may boot instantly, or take several minutes. But if it 
works, I can send the location of an appointment (in Google!) to the map 
with one or two taps. This is nice.

I also have a TomTom Go hardware device, much more reliable. But sharing 
a location that I get via WhatsApp, say, to the tomtom is a pain. It 
also periodically forgets the credentials every few months.


I recently rented a Fiat 600e (electric), and this car has both tomtom 
included and android support, possibly iphones to but I didn't look. 
This car is full of gimmicks. A dream for a geek :-)

The advantage of Android Auto (or CarPlay, I guess) is that you can run 
several of your own phone apps (those that have support for cars). I can 
run internet radio apps, or podcast apps (or apps for charging the 
batteries). I don't like the idea of the car having its own independent 
"tablet". Where does it gets internet phone, another SIM that you have 
to pay for it? How about sending a location that I got in email, wasap 
or rcs?


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155935

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> I have been hearing rumours for some years, this or that car company 
> ditching support. Nothing definite.

GM seem fairly determined to drop both CarPlay and AndroidAuto, I think 
they're crazy as screen mirroring is the best thing that's happened to 
car navigation/entertainment systems for decades ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155937

In comp.mobile.android Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
> > I have been hearing rumours for some years, this or that car company 
> > ditching support. Nothing definite.
> 
> GM seem fairly determined to drop both CarPlay and AndroidAuto, I think 
> they're crazy as screen mirroring is the best thing that's happened to 
> car navigation/entertainment systems for decades ...

It's a power play by GM.  They want to 'own the glass' (to quote an
advertising exec) so they have access to all your juicy data that they can
sell on to advertisers.  You're the product, not the customer.  Of course,
what they don't seem to understand is how much CP/AA are a dealbreaker for
buyers - those buyers are lost to GM.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web