[londons_explore]

I read that as "strong preference for having Carplay/Android Auto over the car manufacturers own UI".

And everyone is just frustrated with laggy UI's in cars. But in reality they'll probably still just use Waze with a 10 buck phoneholder suction-cupped onto the windscreen.

[emodendroket]

Why on earth would you do that instead of using Waze on the larger, built-in screen? Especially if you are a buyer who "strongly prefers" having that in the first place? Nobody is using that kind of holder on a car with Android Auto or Carplay.

[fizigura]

Security-concious people like to keep the complexity low of things that are involved in their day-to-day activities. Having your car mingle with your phone is kinda the opposite of this.

[emodendroket]

I don't think this describes any significant portion of users.

[fizigura]

Maybe, maybe not. But it describes an answer to your "why on earth" question.

People may have different preferences from yours.

[emodendroket]

The proposition in question is whether Android Auto/CarPlay is “widely accepted,” so implicitly what I’m being asked to believe is that there is a large portion of car buyers who strongly prefer a car that supports these features but then don’t actually want to use them because of security concerns. I think the idea is absurd on its face.

[fizigura]

Not sure where you're being asked to believe that beyond a single thread contribution. I've argued your point earlier in this thread and agree that they are "widely accepted", so you may be barking up the wrong tree.

Nevertheless, some people prefer not to accept them while not being entirely anti-tech either. You may not be agreeing with choices other people make, but it goes a little far to call them "absurd on its face", don't you think?