Making smart cars that last

Posted on January 11, 2012 by Tunde Cockshott

There are big changes afoot in the technology in our cars. While modern cars can have dozens of computers to manage the engine, traction, braking, vehicle stability and so on the only one we would recognize as a computer and directly interact with is the sat nav. Ford pioneered the introduction of user focused computers and connected devices with their Fordsync. Now other manufacturers are playing catch up and introducing similar technology.

But introducing usable and future proof technology into a car is a difficult problem. We renew our phones every two years and the whole OS may be updated on a yearly basis. New trends emerge and services appear which millions quickly find they can no longer do without. Think back to when you bought your last car and now think of all the apps on your phone or online services you use since that purchase. The digital world evolves faster than manufacturing; it is always easier to change bits then atoms.

Cars have to last longer and most drivers are not (yet) used to upgrading their cars software, Ford have recently tried this but so far we do not know how successful this has been. Their approach to it is very old school, sending out USB sticks to ¼ million drivers rather than having a system of auto updates http://bit.ly/tLRE6n . They have had to implement this update as a result of their JD Power approval rating falling from 5th place to 23rd, primarily due to driver dissatisfaction with FordSync, with users citing complexity and system reliability amongst the problems.

In the automotive industry consumer focused technology has tended to evolve at a slower rate than technology in other sectors. A perfect example of this is show in the key in-car driver centric item of technology, the car radio. We now call them in car entertainment systems but in reality they have essentially remained the same since Motorola popularized the car radio in the 30’s. The basic UI element the “radio button” has remained the same for at least 60 years. We may have more options and more informative displays and we can play different imported media but the way we interact has remained constant. Adding new functionality often leads to confusion and smaller and smaller UI elements.

Adding additional functionality and services is a balancing act between real utility, usability and safety, with safety limiting the amount of cognitive burden that one can place on the user. BMW’s used to bristle with buttons to control every aspect of the car but in 2011 thet introduced the iDrive to reduce this clutter and the burden on the driver. The iDrive allows the driver to control the sat nav, in car entertainment, parking assist and heating controls. Sony faced a steep learning curve with this and in its current form has faced criticism from some drivers. If this were to go further and include connected services its usability may diminish even further.

One solution to this is bringing the services into the car with the driver and allow them to use their smartphone as the control hub for connected services. This has the advantage of using an established platform and piggy backing on the existing developer base, rather than creating a new platform. It also allows the car to benefit from advances in the capabilities of smartphones. The problem is that most apps user interfaces are simple. They are still designed for a different form of interaction, one where the user can devote time to the UI. One route may be to develop specific in-car apps which adhere to a set of guidelines to make them safe(r) to use in cars. The automotive manufacturers could spearhead this approach by setting the guidelines and offering incentives to developers. The guidelines and standards serve both the developers and the customers. A Ford approved in car app is preferable to one without their seal of approval, etc.

The pairing of the phone to the car will have to be simple and seamless otherwise only early adopters and buyers in the first flush of ownership excitement will bother to pair or sync their phone.

Voice control has long been touted as a way forward. Most in car systems are limited to command line interaction and are unreliable and error prone, they can listen but they can’t understand, or act. Apple’s advanced voice activated assistant, Siri, is an example of the level of sophistication that is required to make this approach work. While it is still in public beta it shows promise. If Apple open this technology up to app developers then it could provide a method for controlling apps and reading updates to users.

We do not live in the perfect view of the future touted by the likes of Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/office/vision/) where all out appliances are shinny and new, and all talk and collaborate with each other using the latest software. We know our TV is a few years old, our phone is not the very latest and we still don’t trust DAB radios. But in the future we will expect our car to at least try to keep up to date.