• badgermurphy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    20 hours ago

    All of this leads back to an old rhetorical question I’ve often asked. Why the fuck isn’t the whole entertainment system and car connection just a standard touchscreen and communication protocol?

    The fact that I need these proprietary patent-gated apps to use parts of my car, instead of just a driver that could work on any device with the right port, is overtly user-hostile.

    • Evotech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Because many customers expect a seamless experience with zero tinkering

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 hours ago

        No, the lock in is not needed for seamless behavior. The lock-in is to secure various revenue opportunities.

        For example, if I connect a displayport cable to a displayport connection, poof, display happens. There’s no ‘tinkering’, there’s no “trying to match vendors”, it just works.

        Similarly, here folks sorted out the protocols in use, and none of the ‘seamless’ users were impacted. VW went out of their way to break them not to ensure a seamless experience, but because they wanted to paywall capability in a reliable way.

        One could easily imagine schemes that didn’t require the lock-in, but would not assure an enduring revenue opportunity.

      • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Totally possible with an open standard. Do you have to tinker when you plug in a monitor? Not really. How about a mouse or any other peripheral device? Generally not beyond installing the app, which would be the same with a car.

        Friction in the user experience has everything to do with lack of attention and time spent on that development goal, and nothing to do with it being open and standard.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Because the greed of corporations knows no limit. They sold you the (expensive) hardware, now they want to sell you the (specific, usually compatible but not really, and slightly buggy implementation) software. Can’t do that with open specifications.

      • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        It is rhetorical because that answer is self-evident to many, but you are exactly right nonetheless. It is a major exhibit in the case of why companies must be regulated to act in the public interest, because every time we don’t, they pull this same rent-seeking crap without fail: the “sell me a hammer and charge me when I swing it” routine.