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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#155918 — Car manufacturers are ditching CarPlay in 2026 (and Android Auto)

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.
-- 
On Usenet, we old men trade facts so everyone can make better choices.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#155920

I'm not sure what to think. Right now my car is running an aftermarket 
Android-based head unit with support for wireless Android Auto. 
Basically, it identifies itself as a tablet, and has an app that 
automatically connects to my phone wirelessly if it sees it.

I've installed OsmAnd and Aurora store on the head unit itself, as well 
as downloaded local maps, but I still end up using the app installed on 
my phone by default, just because it's right there next to the music 
player when I'm driving.

A friend of mine offered to sell me a unit running Linux instead, but 
that one doesn't support wireless connection (wired AA connection only), 
which is a huge downside for me personally. Not to mention additional 
effort needed to replace the unit, as well as other stuff that unit is 
missing (car specific integration to replace the missing buttons from 
the original unit that came with the car).

On one hand, I find it annoying that I basically have duplicate apps on 
the unit itself, but at the same time, I am glad that, if needed, I can 
use maps without having to have my phone with me, charged and connected 
to my god damn car. I have considered restoring the original unit, but 
in the end, I just KNOW I will miss the map display that's right there.

Recently I started hating my smartphone more and more, so if and when 
they take this flow away and replace it with something more awkward, or 
not as functional, might just be the time I just go "screw everything" 
and go back to using a dumb phone, mandatory banking app be damned.

-- 
-Nick

Take care, it's a desert out there

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

#155921

On 2026-09-14 03:52:46 +0000, Nick said:
> 
> I'm not sure what to think. Right now my car is running an aftermarket 
> Android-based head unit with support for wireless Android Auto. 
> Basically, it identifies itself as a tablet, and has an app that 
> automatically connects to my phone wirelessly if it sees it.
> 
> I've installed OsmAnd and Aurora store on the head unit itself, as well 
> as downloaded local maps, but I still end up using the app installed on 
> my phone by default, just because it's right there next to the music 
> player when I'm driving.
> 
> A friend of mine offered to sell me a unit running Linux instead, but 
> that one doesn't support wireless connection (wired AA connection 
> only), which is a huge downside for me personally. Not to mention 
> additional effort needed to replace the unit, as well as other stuff 
> that unit is missing (car specific integration to replace the missing 
> buttons from the original unit that came with the car).
> 
> On one hand, I find it annoying that I basically have duplicate apps on 
> the unit itself, but at the same time, I am glad that, if needed, I can 
> use maps without having to have my phone with me, charged and connected 
> to my god damn car. I have considered restoring the original unit, but 
> in the end, I just KNOW I will miss the map display that's right there.
> 
> Recently I started hating my smartphone more and more, so if and when 
> they take this flow away and replace it with something more awkward, or 
> not as functional, might just be the time I just go "screw everything" 
> and go back to using a dumb phone, mandatory banking app be damned.

I've never had any mobile phone, my car is 30 years old so has ye olde 
radio-cassette player single-DIN box behind the gear stick, and I 
either use a paper map book that stays in the car or more rarely print 
out a Google / Apple Maps page before I leave home to go somewhere new.

There's no actual need for all this fancy electronic gimmickry - it's 
simply extra expense  aimed at the lazy-more-money-than-sense brigade 
and something else that can go wrong. As for satnav guidance, including 
Google Maps directions, they give such idiotic instructions (even worse 
with stupid AI) that they certainly aren't worth the money.

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

#155922

Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote
> Nick wrote

>>  I'm not sure what to think. Right now my car is running an aftermarket  
>> Android-based head unit with support for wireless Android Auto.  
>> Basically, it identifies itself as a tablet, and has an app that  
>> automatically connects to my phone wirelessly if it sees it.
>>  I've installed OsmAnd and Aurora store on the head unit itself, as  
>> well as downloaded local maps, but I still end up using the app  
>> installed on my phone by default, just because it's right there next to  
>> the music player when I'm driving.

>>  A friend of mine offered to sell me a unit running Linux instead, but  
>> that one doesn't support wireless connection (wired AA connection  
>> only), which is a huge downside for me personally. Not to mention  
>> additional effort needed to replace the unit, as well as other stuff  
>> that unit is missing (car specific integration to replace the missing  
>> buttons from the original unit that came with the car).

>>  On one hand, I find it annoying that I basically have duplicate apps  
>> on the unit itself, but at the same time, I am glad that, if needed, I  
>> can use maps without having to have my phone with me, charged and  
>> connected to my god damn car. I have considered restoring the original  
>> unit, but in the end, I just KNOW I will miss the map display that's  
>> right there.

>>  Recently I started hating my smartphone more and more, so if and when  
>> they take this flow away and replace it with something more awkward, or  
>> not as functional, might just be the time I just go "screw everything"  
>> and go back to using a dumb phone, mandatory banking app be damned.

> I've never had any mobile phone, my car is 30 years old so has ye olde  
> radio-cassette player single-DIN box behind the gear stick, and I either  
> use a paper map book that stays in the car or more rarely print out a  
> Google / Apple Maps page before I leave home to go somewhere new.

Wota fucking dinosaur

> There's no actual need for all this fancy electronic gimmickry - it's  
> simply extra expense  aimed at the lazy-more-money-than-sense brigade  
> and something else that can go wrong. As for satnav guidance, including  
> Google Maps directions, they give such idiotic instructions (even worse  
> with stupid AI) that they certainly aren't worth the money.

Completely off with the fucking fairies

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

#155925

In article <op.3vmkvmppohnwxp@pvr2.lan>, bhju88@gmail.com says...
> 
> Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote
> > Nick wrote
> 
> >>  I'm not sure what to think. Right now my car is running an aftermarket  
> >> Android-based head unit with support for wireless Android Auto.  
> >> Basically, it identifies itself as a tablet, and has an app that  
> >> automatically connects to my phone wirelessly if it sees it.
> >>  I've installed OsmAnd and Aurora store on the head unit itself, as  
> >> well as downloaded local maps, but I still end up using the app  
> >> installed on my phone by default, just because it's right there next to  
> >> the music player when I'm driving.
> 
> >>  A friend of mine offered to sell me a unit running Linux instead, but  
> >> that one doesn't support wireless connection (wired AA connection  
> >> only), which is a huge downside for me personally. Not to mention  
> >> additional effort needed to replace the unit, as well as other stuff  
> >> that unit is missing (car specific integration to replace the missing  
> >> buttons from the original unit that came with the car).
> 
> >>  On one hand, I find it annoying that I basically have duplicate apps  
> >> on the unit itself, but at the same time, I am glad that, if needed, I  
> >> can use maps without having to have my phone with me, charged and  
> >> connected to my god damn car. I have considered restoring the original  
> >> unit, but in the end, I just KNOW I will miss the map display that's  
> >> right there.
> 
> >>  Recently I started hating my smartphone more and more, so if and when  
> >> they take this flow away and replace it with something more awkward, or  
> >> not as functional, might just be the time I just go "screw everything"  
> >> and go back to using a dumb phone, mandatory banking app be damned.
> 
> > I've never had any mobile phone, my car is 30 years old so has ye olde  
> > radio-cassette player single-DIN box behind the gear stick, and I either  
> > use a paper map book that stays in the car or more rarely print out a  
> > Google / Apple Maps page before I leave home to go somewhere new.
> 
> Wota fucking dinosaur
> 
> > There's no actual need for all this fancy electronic gimmickry - it's  
> > simply extra expense  aimed at the lazy-more-money-than-sense brigade  
> > and something else that can go wrong. As for satnav guidance, including  
> > Google Maps directions, they give such idiotic instructions (even worse  
> > with stupid AI) that they certainly aren't worth the money.
> 
> Completely off with the fucking fairies

I'm 85 and my car has no built-in satnav, but without Google Maps on the 
dashboard I doubt whether I could get to medical appointments that NHS 
seem to scatter far and wide these days.

-- 
Jim the Geordie

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

#155923

Nick wrote:

> A friend of mine offered to sell me a unit running Linux instead, but 
> that one doesn't support wireless connection (wired AA connection only), 
> which is a huge downside for me personally.

My previous car had wired android auto only.  I bought an AAwireless 
device, which works as a USB connection as far as the headend is 
concerned and a WiFi connection as far as the phone is concerned (in 
effect an android auto bridge) worked perfectly.

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

#155924

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. 

This is simply marketing to ensure people upgrade their cars more often. 

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

#155926

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.

-- 
Jeff

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

#155927

Jeff Layman wrote:
>> 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.

Hi Jeff,

I can't imagine that the car companies can keep up, but they'll likely
still sell their stuff on high-end vehicles, I suspect, 'cuz people usually
lease them and therefore only hold them for a few years afterward.

The lack of meaningful updates or cost-efficient updates, therefore falls
on the secondary buyers as the leasing companies ditch their 3-year stock.

Speaking of maps/gps updates, like most of us, when GPS was first made
available, we literally put laptops on our lap when we drove, with antennas
on the roof and inverters in the cigarette lighter, where those maps on the
PC could easily be updated.

Then we switched to the Garmin six-battery beanbag GPS, and then to the
Nuvi's and other sandwich-sized routing systems, but they were super
expensive to update so we generally didn't bother updating.

Plus, they didn't have free traffic as the traffic was only free for the
first few months, as I recall (using the Costco Nuvi/Magellen GPS units).

Nowadays, all that was put out of business, where I remember, at the time,
thinking the same thing I did when Kodak was still king, that while Garmin
was king, they should have "done something" to not lose all their business.

(Yes, I know they own a substantial commercial business, but not so much
with little ole' us billions of people driving cars here and there today.)

At this point, the car manufactures have to make a choice if they want to
keep us or lose us, where I don't use the built-in car navigation, but I do
use the phone navigation from time to time (often when in "the city").

Given all that, I'm in the crowd that says the car manufacturers, like
Kodak, and like Garmin, prolly don't stand a chance of keeping up with us.
-- 
On Usenet, old men with vast experience voluntarily share that knowledge.

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

#155928

Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 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. 

That is true. I'd forgotten. I think it was something crazy like £300 for a
SIM card with an updated database. 

> 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 

Sorry meant making people buy new(er) cars. 

> 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.

Manufacturers often do recalls. Even after many years. 

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

#155929

On 2026-09-14 13:33, Jeff Layman wrote:
> 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.

An quite expensive. And need a visit to the garage, which happens once a 
year.

> 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.
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#155931

On 14/09/2026 22:04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-14 13:33, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> An quite expensive. And need a visit to the garage, which happens once a
> year.

 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 onto the same stick, then 
ran it. It read the code and that allowed a file to be produced which 
could be uploaded into the satnav to update it. The problem was that the 
*.exe had to be run to get it all to work. Not much use if your OS is 
Linux! I think I read somewhere that it wouldn't work with Wine, either.

-- 
Jeff

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

#155938

On 2026-09-14 23:23, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 14/09/2026 22:04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-09-14 13:33, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> An quite expensive. And need a visit to the garage, which happens once a
>> year.
> 
>  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.

> onto the same stick, then 
> ran it. It read the code and that allowed a file to be produced which 
> could be uploaded into the satnav to update it. The problem was that the 
> *.exe had to be run to get it all to work. Not much use if your OS is 
> Linux! I think I read somewhere that it wouldn't work with Wine, either.

Sigh :-/


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

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

#155943

On 2026-09-15 11:52:28 +0000, Carlos E. R. said:
> On 2026-09-14 23:23, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 14/09/2026 22:04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-09-14 13:33, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> An quite expensive. And need a visit to the garage, which happens once a
>>> year.
>> 
>> 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.



>> onto the same stick, then ran it. It read the code and that allowed a 
>> file to be produced which could be uploaded into the satnav to update 
>> it. The problem was that the *.exe had to be run to get it all to work. 
>> Not much use if your OS is Linux! I think I read somewhere that it 
>> wouldn't work with Wine, either.
> 
> Sigh :-/

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

#155946

On 2026-09-15 23:12, Your Name wrote:
> On 2026-09-15 11:52:28 +0000, Carlos E. R. said:
>> On 2026-09-14 23:23, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 14/09/2026 22:04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-09-14 13:33, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> An quite expensive. And need a visit to the garage, which happens 
>>>> once a
>>>> year.
>>>
>>> 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.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

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

#155953

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.

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?
-- 
On Usenet, we pool our knowledge so everyone's a little smarter.

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

#155954

Maria Sophia wrote:

> 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?

You'd have aspect-ratio and resolution hell if simply projecting the 
phones's screen onto the car's screen.

I can see an eventual case for an independent middle layer, adoptable by 
apple and google on one side and by every car manufacturer on the 
vehicle side, it would handle the usb/wifi/whatever connection and match 
screen size/resolution.

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

#155957

Andy Burns wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> You'd have aspect-ratio and resolution hell if simply projecting the 
> phones's screen onto the car's screen.
> 
> I can see an eventual case for an independent middle layer, adoptable by 
> apple and google on one side and by every car manufacturer on the 
> vehicle side, it would handle the usb/wifi/whatever connection and match 
> screen size/resolution.

Hi Andy,

All good points, where I thank you for thinking about the problem set.

The aspect ratio & resolution "hell" isn't as bad as one might think.
In fact, I mirror ever day and I see almost none of that "hell", although
the resolution displayed depends on whether I use scrcpy or vysor to do it.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/xdSMtBkn/vysor36.jpg> scrcpy vs Vysor resolution

What I'm saying is there is no "hell" that I can see, and I mirror all day,
every day, where my A32-5G phone has a completely different aspect ratio &
resolution (20:9,720 � 1600) than my monitor which I just measured at a
screen (visible glass) height of 22 inches and a corresponding visible
width of 39 inches.  

I just measured the mirrored phone at 20 inches tall & 9 inches wide.
Hey! that's interesting. It's the same aspect ratio.

But even so, that's "big enough" to use in a vehicle, and, of course, I can
stretch it to the edge of the monitor, where scrcpy will not distort, but
it will add black space along edges kind of like how the Tor browser does.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/5NrK7jtg/scrcpy16.jpg> powershell hide-console trick
 (It's not stretched in that old screenshot, but you can get the point.)

But given the height of the glass, I can only stretch it usefully when it's
in landscape mode (e.g., when I want to watch with NetPipe on the monitor).
 <https://i.postimg.cc/g2yNftw0/scrcpy15.jpg> Trick to pin batch shortcut

Of course a vehicle screen is tiny compared to my huge Sharp AQUOS
LC-45GD7U (45-inch, diagonal) LCD TV with a 16:9 aspect ratio & 1920 � 1080
resolution, but it seems to me the real estate is bigger than the phone.

So the phone will easily fit, just as it easily fits on my monitor.
Even though the aspect ratios are completely different between them.

As for USB/Wi-Fi, either, of course, is fine, but it should do both.

Regarding your suggestion of an "independent middle layer", they exist.
 a. Android already does scrcpy over adb as the middle layer
 b. But Android already has a middle layer for AA which is AAP / GAL
 b. As with Android, iOS already does mirroring using AirPlay
 c. iOS also has libimobiledevice, remoteXPC & iAP2 (which CarPlay uses)

The question isn't whether or not there is a middle layer.
The only question would be which middle layer. 

But why not use the *same* middle layer as they're using today?
 A. For Android Auto, it's AOA (Android Open Accessory) as the
    USB transport/setup layer plus Android Auto Application Protocol 
   (AAP) which is often called GAL (Google Automotive Link) protocol
 B. For CarPlay, it is Apple�s iAP2 (iPod Accessory Protocol 2) as the 
    USB transport/setup layer, plus the CarPlay communication/session 
    protocol, with wireless CarPlay additionally using Bluetooth for 
    discovery/authentication and WiFi for the main data connection.

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?
-- 
On Usenet, the best ideas often come from someone else's software needs.

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

#155972

Maria Sophia wrote:

> The question isn't whether or not there is a middle layer.
> The only question would be which middle layer.
> 
> But why not use the *same* middle layer as they're using today?
>   A. For Android Auto, it's AOA (Android Open Accessory) as the
>      USB transport/setup layer plus Android Auto Application Protocol
>     (AAP) which is often called GAL (Google Automotive Link) protocol
>   B. For CarPlay, it is Apple�s iAP2 (iPod Accessory Protocol 2) as the
>      USB transport/setup layer, plus the CarPlay communication/session
>      protocol, with wireless CarPlay additionally using Bluetooth for
>      discovery/authentication and WiFi for the main data connection.

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.

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

#155975

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.

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.

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.
-- 
Knowledge is shared like Italian pizza & German beer, among your friends.
	.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web