It's not something I would ever use, so I don't want to have to pay for it. Its presence also implies that there are other things present that I actively object to, such as a touch screen interface and internet connectivity.
Where do you draw the line? I don't know anyone that wants to go back to paper maps for navigation. And backup cameras are unambiguously good for everyone.
Going back to paper maps isn't the alternative. I already have a device with me that can do all of the navigation, etc., that I'd need. None of that needs to be built into the car. Backup cameras are fine.
The only fancy thing I would like to have in my car is the ability to connect the sound system in it to my phone or computer via bluetooth as if it were headphones -- but I can add that easily as an aftermarket thing with the bonus of having actual knobs on it.
I really only have two reasonably hard lines. I don't want my car to be able to talk with any external servers (it's a car, not a smartphone on wheels), and I don't want a touch screen interface instead of physical knobs and buttons.
The presence of infotainment systems is a pretty solid indication that the car won't satisfy either of those things.
> a cleaner UI and larger screen to show you the contents of that device?
I haven't seen an in-car system that provides a better UI. Regardless, that's not actually important because I'm not interacting with the device or screen while I'm driving anyway.
A larger screen doesn't seem like a big deal. I'm not spending much time looking at the screen anyway.
> why do you care if your car has a computer on it or not?
I don't. I care about the connectivity, not the presence of a computer. It's all but certain that connection will be used to funnel data back to the manufacturer or someone.
> Seems overly paranoid, bordering on luddite…
No need to start with the personal insults here. I'm expressing my own desires, I'm not saying I want to deprive others of theirs. That I don't want things that you do doesn't diminish or harm you in any way.
Computers are built these days mainly to talk to other computers, due to the considerable value gained by offloading computational effort to a central location. Not wanting a computer to talk to other computers is like not wanting your oven to heat food except by friction.
And "overly paranoid, bordering on luddite" is no insult, it's a description that your comments fit. If these words are insulting, stop fitting so well to them!
I agree with him about the car talking to an external server. That is a disgusting grab by car manufacturers.
For me, I don't care about my car having a computer, but I don't want it to talk to services without my permission and building their own thing shows a disregard for that desire. I love CarPlay/android and not offering those two most popular options doubles down on that disregard for customer interests.
But the default of "privacy good at all cost" seems like massive overkill IMO.
If there's specific evidence that a car is doing something that will specifically cause you harm in some way via data sharing, that's one thing. If it's a vague, general distrust, that falls into the "luddite paranoia" category.
There's nothing vague or general about it. We have years of examples of how such data gets used. You may be fine with that, and that's OK. I don't understand why you get so upset that others aren't fine with it, though. Why is this so emotional for you?
No it's not that. It's that I believe they will be profit seeking with that data unless forced to be otherwise.
The last decade has worn out my optimism and tolerance about privacy concerns. If a company wants my trust, they have to proactively earn it by excessive transparency, at least GDPR level, on their part.
If they can do that, I’ll consider it; otherwise, no thank you.