Because there's a vibrant ecosystem around Android with wonderful third party support, with a rich platform & ecosystem already well known & loved by many developers & consumers alike. Where-as QNX is a toolkit for building one-off custom appliances that no third party will ever see or improve or enrich. One is a dead end stuck in a niche, the other realized it had to create more value than it captured. And generally the Google open ecosystem one is pretty ok.
Well that's you, somebody else might want to use the subscription music service they pay for and use car controls to change the tracks, someone else might want a map that displays in the center console as opposed to their phone, etc etc. With android there's the possibility of adding apps that people would want to the car itself. This would be something device manufacturers could be interested in for dash cams or other electronics that could benefit from richer control interfaces.
And, if like more than half of Americans I decided I didn't want an Android phone, now I get coerced to use Android to listen to my subscription music service, etc.
I suggest you research Android Automotive and what exactly it is, as it's not an "Android phone". As for half of Americans not wanting to use Android, because it's Android, I find that statement amusing as you would rather force their customers to continue using their maligned Ford Sync system then a superior solution with an actual ecosystem.
Yes, it's not an Android phone. It's an Android tablet hardwired into my vehicle's bus so it can hoover up data directly from the vehicle and has to be on when the vehicle is. It still runs Google Maps (and reports my location to Google) has the Google Play Store (so any apps would also feed data and money to Google) and still permanently runs the microphone's input through Google's algorithms 24/7 for the Google Voice Assistant.
I don't see what meaningful way it differs.
Is it even going to get updates for a longer period than Android phones? Maybe against security threats. Or it's just been 3 years, upgrade your car.
I suppose it doesn't make phonecalls, that's a difference.
And yes, what I want is a bluetooth speaker that has a radio. My point is I don't want an ecosystem for my car. Saying "Ford Sync system then a superior solution with an actual ecosystem" as an argument to upgrade gets everything backwards.
No, it's not an Android tablet, just like it's not an "Android phone" as you previously purported. I suggest you research Volvo's implementation of Android Automotive to get a better understanding of what it is rather than trying to equate it to an old version of Android you used on a phone or tablet.
How about you tell me where I am wrong or how they are different . Because I read your wikipedia link and it just seemed to reinforce that it's extremely Googley with Play Store, Voice Assistant and GPS built in to Fords and Volvos. And I found no meaningful differences I didn't already cover. Nor did I on Volvo's page[1]
I'm not going to watch like an hour of youtube videos. I tried scrubbing and didn't see any great UI, although if you want to show me some screenshots I'll look. But it also doesn't matter. I wasn't saying "the UI/UX is bad". I was saying "I don't want any touchscreen UX in my car". I also said "they are uploading my position, speed, car data and microphone data inside the car to Google, as well as letting them control the App Store to my car and thus impose things on all the apps I would want." Although Google may in fact process the audio locally.
Because the car company has a talent pool it can hire from & will have an easier time not f-ing it up. Because what you already know about screens is already present & not reinvented totally custom.
You seem to have very select demanding opinions about what is and isnt ok to allow in, and to reject being over well served. From what I can see, neither QNX nor Android nor any carmaker of note (aside from exotics) has your selective anti-needs in their concern. At this point I dont disagree with your desire, but trying to insist on un-soft computing, on only a couple hardset paths is an elite & narrow concern intolerant to broad usability. We should both understand & respect your narrow, peculiar desires, because they tell an important tale, but have deference to more general answers.
And alas, we just see shitty implementations. Slow ones like this article, where Ford seemingly must be running on a 8 bit toaster controller. And just as bad, the very very very little reporting/available information on what data gets sent to whom. Which I feel is probably not so very bad as many jump to assume... but we dont know & there's no benefit of a doubts left remaining, especially given how impossible finding answers is.
If "broad usability" and "general answers" suggest many people want a touchscreen, why not make it an option? And is it "general answers" to create a piece of technology that will rapidly become out of date as opposed to some simple gauges and a bluetooth connection for audio? Broad usability, to me, implies simplicity. QNX, by virtue of being harder to move functionality into, better fits my anti-needs (nice phrase).
I'm not sure why a company Ford's size couldn't handle "it's a screen" in QNX, but it can handle how many I want in a car - no pixel matrix screens at all. The article makes it clear that a major annoyance with the slow computer is the replacement of physical buttons with slow swiping. Well, we could just have buttons.
Okay, but I recognize that for some reason I've lost this fight. Fragile, quickly obsoleted and hard to replace computers are going to try to make cars have a short lifespan. The fact that they're harder to use while driving will also continue to perplex me but there will be no other option.
But then they want to install software on my car that helps Google spy on my real-world locations? Or where the only way to sync my phone to the audio is to let Google listen in to the connection. You're right that we have no clue if Ford is spying on us now, but surely that data collection is going to continue. We're just adding Google to the list of companies.
All this makes me sad because an E-F150 was the EV I was hoping to get once supply exists.
How on earth is it "better"? Dumb cars are better. Obviously, I want the EV to have mission critical things related to it being an EV, but there's no reason for anything else to get fancy.
Tesla has the worst cockpit experience because it's a single large screen.
