The Wall Street Journal published an article recently about the virtues of the Ford – Microsoft collaboration designed to seamlessly integrate the automotive and electronics worlds.
Dubbed “Sync,” this system basically provides a platform for many Bluetooth and USB-enabled devices to connect (with and without wires) to a vehicle mainframe of sorts where the different data maybe be distributed to the right receptacle within the vehicle’s infotainment system (typically the radio).
The main impetus behind the project is to serve two distinct purposes. The first is to provide a user-friendly system that will allow drivers to access and use a plethora of information from a dizzying number of sources (no small task anywhere at any time, never mind while driving down the NJ Turnpike at 75, yeah right, 85 mph). The other is to at least temporarily merge the information highway and all its related companies and products with the actual highway, which has been a goal for ages, though never seems to last more than the very short lifespan of the current “in” gadgets.
The problem is these are two industries, which are defined by technological advancement, though are two that travel at very different speeds. Rather than let this degrade into a “when was the last time you actually listened to a cd or cassette?” I would rather talk about whether or not we stand to gain from more electronic capability than we already possess or do the laws of diminishing return kick in quickly.
Maybe we spend so much time wondering whether or not if we could, that we fail to consider whether or not we should.
One thing we have proved is that the automotive companies will never be able to keep up with the general electronics industry even as vehicles become more complicated, nor should they. There is incentive (and profit) however, in their trying, though it can leave consumers with a poor experience and/or outdated equipment, i.e. navigation, OnStar, etc.) The concept behind Sync isn’t new. It is an attempt to offer some hardware that will last just a bit longer in terms of relevancy and packages it with the previously heard concept of voice-activation.
Now, would it be cool to find a foreign radio station via your blackberry and stream it right to your radio while you drive along on a weekend road trip? Sure, it would be cool, probably once. When you consider the distraction question, which voice-activation hopes to address, however, you will quickly find studies that show any conversation (yep even hands-free) seriously impairs one’s ability to drive. Try as they might, people already have a big enough job keeping their eyes on the road.
So, for those of you who enjoy some music or news during the morning commute, do you really need to hear your emails dictated to you? And for those of us on a road trip, is it terribly difficult to let a passenger “drive” the communications. Safely getting over the next hump to a point where we really do drive mobile offices will take revolutionary advances in technology (auto drive highways, for example) and investment that in my opinion far outweigh the overall utility. Wanting to keep the commute to myself however, may just put me in the minority. The fact that the spell-checker didn’t red-flag the word “infotainment” is a pretty good indicator that we may be well on our way to emails and asphalt.
Great automotive blog and articles. Here is a great article on flooded cars, what they are and how to avoid them. They are everywhere and this is a must read for everyone:
http://www.mdwholesale.com/Beware_of_flooded_cars_1.html
Samuel Davis
Posted by: Samuel Davis | August 30, 2007 at 05:16 PM