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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
On 14/09/2026 08:12, Chris wrote:
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Note this sentence about Google's standalone car operating system:
-a-a-a Ironically, that alternative is being built around Android
Automotive
-a-a-a (not Android Auto), Google's standalone car operating system.
-a-a-a Rather than simply mirroring your phone apps, Android Automotive
-a-a-a runs apps directly on the car itself. You won't need to connect a >>> -a-a-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.
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 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:
-a-a-a Ironically, that alternative is being built around Android
Automotive
-a-a-a (not Android Auto), Google's standalone car operating system.
-a-a-a Rather than simply mirroring your phone apps, Android Automotive >>>> -a-a-a runs apps directly on the car itself. You won't need to connect a >>>> -a-a-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.
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.
I have been hearing rumours for some years, this or that car company ditching support. Nothing definite.
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 ...
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:
-a-a-a-a Ironically, that alternative is being built around Android
Automotive
-a-a-a-a (not Android Auto), Google's standalone car operating system. >>>>> -a-a-a-a Rather than simply mirroring your phone apps, Android Automotive >>>>> -a-a-a-a runs apps directly on the car itself. You won't need to connect a
-a-a-a-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.
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.
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.
I won't buy a car without AndroidAuto, period. They would have to do
heavy convincing. Like a 30% rebate on car total price.
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: >>>>>>
aaaa Ironically, that alternative is being built around Android
Automotive
aaaa (not Android Auto), Google's standalone car operating system. >>>>>> aaaa Rather than simply mirroring your phone apps, Android Automotive >>>>>> aaaa runs apps directly on the car itself. You won't need to connect a >>>>>> aaaa 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 :-/
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 ...
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: >>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a Ironically, that alternative is being built around Android >>>>>>> Automotive
-a-a-a-a (not Android Auto), Google's standalone car operating system. >>>>>>> -a-a-a-a Rather than simply mirroring your phone apps, Android
Automotive
-a-a-a-a runs apps directly on the car itself. You won't need to >>>>>>> connect a
-a-a-a-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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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 AppleN++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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 thatGo 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.
cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while driving?
HINT: Everyone parrots the propaganda bullshit w/o looking up the data. >>>
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.
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 certainlyDoesn't mean that the influence of phones should be ignored.
"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)
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 thatGo on then, provide the data that demonstrates that phone use while driving
cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while driving? >>>>>
HINT: Everyone parrots the propaganda bullshit w/o looking up the data. >>>>
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.
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.
Note that I never once said cellphones are a distraction.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 121:15:45 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,208 |
