Software Vendors: Better Choice for Auto OEMs Over Apple, Google

As the titans of Silicon Valley set their sights on the connected-car market, a few fundamental challenges will hamper their efforts.

Both Google and Apple have gained traction in this space and are bringing to market solutions that connect iOS and Android phones to the head unit of select vehicles. While Google and Apple certainly have been successful in building mobile-phone platforms, the connected car, on the other hand, presents fundamental challenges that may prove difficult for these companies to overcome in the longterm.

The way both Google and Apple have approached the in-car infotainment space is to project the existing phone app experience onto the vehicle’s head unit. Drivers are able to leverage some of the on-dash controls and displays to interact with their phone’s apps, but the experience is inherently phone-focused.

Without designing an experience specifically for the car from the ground up, the interface remains fragmented, with each company implementing its experience separately. The result? Missed opportunities for innovation and a decline in safety.

By simply projecting the smartphone experience onto the head unit, the experience is not integrated with existing built-in interface. This requires drivers to toggle back and forth between their native car interface and the over-the-top smartphone experience. Within the Apple and Android platform itself, apps and data are also siloed with completely separate interfaces – iOS versus Android.

The smartphone user experience is designed around stand-alone apps that require drivers to collect pieces of data from multiple apps in order to complete more complex tasks. When applying this approach to the experience of driving a car, flaws emerge. These apps predominantly are unique experiences and data is not shared between them.

Distracted driving is a serious hazard, and flipping through various apps and menus is a diversion. Too many choices and options lead to distractions. For example, to get to a meeting, drivers have to find the time and place of the meeting in their calendar, then enter the address into their navigation app. To listen to music on the way, the driver has to decide what app they want to use, such as Pandora, Spotify, XM, or music locally on the device, and then open it to find their artist and song.

Should unexpected traffic delay the driver’s arrival, he will have to find the person he is meeting in his device’s calendar, look them up in Contacts and launch a phone call or voice-to-text app to let them know of the delay.

In-car experiences need to be designed around specific tasks that alleviate these dangerous attention diverters. For example, drivers should be able to ask their car to complete a task, such as play a particular artist or song, and the car should do that task without the driver having to figure out what app to use.

Drivers should also be able to direct their car, via a navigation app, to go to meetings and their vehicle should know not only where that meeting location is, but also whom it is with, via the driver’s smartphone calendar.

There are also fundamental business-model challenges in the connected car that may be harder to change. For example, Google has done a good job of leveraging an asymmetrical business model that drives engagement with the Internet to drive its ad business, making up the vast majority of its revenues.

The company has provided the open-source Android OS, as well as many online services that make it easier to access and complete tasks on the web. Google generates additional ad revenue from this traffic. Greater engagement with the web drives revenues, but greater engagement with the web while driving a car can be distracting. And Google makes more money when a driver is less focused on the road, creating a difficult choice between greater revenues and safer driving.

Apple’s fundamental business approach will be a hurdle as it enters the in-car app market. The company has been successful controlling its entire value chain and experience. It controls the software, hardware, services and even the distribution channel for most of its existing products.

As it moves into the connected car and is forced to integrate with existing automotive systems, the company will have to cede some control to the auto OEMs. This could be an uncomfortable position for Apple and may lead to conflict, resulting in a disjointed experience for the driver.

Third parties who are focused on creating the best in-car experience with no ulterior motives or auxiliary businesses are better positioned to create an experience that is uniquely “automotive” and designed around the driving experience. This approach inspires innovation and brings developers to a platform where they can build unique and customizable apps.

Many manufacturers, such as Ford, have chosen to go against the tide to aspire to this differentiated experience. Through open-source standards like SmartDeviceLink (SDL), auto manufacturers, technology companies and app developers can work on a solution that is right for the industry, creating greater interoperable, safer and improved driving experience.

While Apple and Google face challenges in the market, they also possess tremendous resources, talent and brand equity to draw on. In order for car OEMs to maintain control of the in-car experience they need to create an interface that is better than what Apple and Google have to offer.

This will take significant innovation and testing. Without a significantly better experience, drivers will fall back to the smartphone experience, even if it is less safe.

Chris Ruff is CEO and president of Seattle-based software developer UIEvolution.