Kia just did this with their EV9 update - it broke CarPlay with a blank screen a few minutes into driving, which then reverted itself a minute later. Another OTA mostly resolved it. Neither of these updates explained what happened or what the fix was.
Let me be a devil's advocate here: you have essentially two options.<p>1. You write release notes thet contain technical details. Less than 1% of your customers understand them. More than 90% probably won't even care, let alone understand the document. And then there are the folks who get confused or scared and reach out to customer support with weird questions. This generates extra workload.<p>2. You explain nothing. The release simply is. The technically minded people are mildly annoyed. A few customers affected by open issues wonder if it's fixed now. The rest of them doesn't even care that there is an uodate and carries on with their lives. Customer service continues to complain about the usual bunch of random and weird customer issues.<p>It's quite natural to start doing (2) in a consumer facing business, isn't it?
It would be very simple to write out details but make them harder to access. Motivated users will find them.
i remember when the TV station would shut down in the middle of the night.<p>Or businesses would close to do inventory.<p>We made do.
Those are reasonable. A business must take account of its stock - a useful thing is happening. A TV station shuts down in the evening as paying for electricity to broadcast and humans to schedule programming that goes unwatched is unproductive. It is not reasonable that a piece of working software in a product I paid a substantial sum of money for, which has no good reason to not work, should not work randomly.
That is an external service needing to do maintenance.<p>Not my own device on my own machine.<p>I don't remember a time my CD player on my car would stop working due to an update.
> Neither of these updates explained what happened or what the fix was.<p>"Bug fixes and performance improvements "<p>Even worse than the "reformat" commit message that your bisect landed on.
Once upon a time, physically shipping faulty software had real costs borne by the organization - production, redistribution and transportation of a physical disc.<p>Today there’s no disc, no recall - that cost to shipping broken software is gone. We the users pay the price.
> I am not your QA department<p>The article is a lovely cathartic rant against agile software development methodologies applied in the wrong place in the wrong way, whether or not the software(s) in question used such methods. On of the worst assumptions, I believe, is that the end-user is willing and able to function as testing/QA without detriment to the product and company.
Author blames the two week sprint. But that isn't this issue. It's testing gates. Plenty of teams can ship high quality software with two weak sprints. They just have great testing gates.
Auto manufacturers need to realize that one bad software experience means lost sales of entire cars. Fail to provide a good experience at the cost of your brand for years to come.
We just sold our 2025 Subaru Outback specifically because the software experience was bad.<p>To exit a climate control modal on the screen you have to find and tap a tiny red "X" box in the furthest corner of the screen from the steering wheel.
God... Subaru's whole interface is a horrific looking clusterfuck. That big-ass screen and it's just a huge waste.<p>I've driven the 2025 and the 2024. The 2024 not only had all the crappy UI, but the driver assistance features were also alerting you constantly, and they were terrible. I was amazed how much they toned it back and improved it with the 2025.<p>Still wouldn't buy either of them personally. The constant nags and alerts are so fucking annoying and distracting. The seat belt chimes that don't shut off and get louder and louder make me want to rage so hard. I am religious about wearing my seatbelt, so there's absolutely no reason for it to piss me off so bad.
Cathartic to read this! Just had a very similar experience with a Subaru from the same generation as yours.<p>While that particular issue isn't solvable, I am open to any advice on coding tools that might allow one to unlock other settings or make changes like "ensure auto-stop is fully disabled across restarts and drivers".
That's an absolutely disastrous UI choice!
I have a lot of trouble understanding how Subaru dashes turned into the modern monstrosity they are. They were very functional and well laid out for years. Now, geez, I’d need to be an octopus to drive a Subaru.
I despise our Outback's climate settings. It seems every time I start the car it picks a random temperature to set each side to. It'll be 30 deg outside and you look down wondering why its getting hotter and the car is set to 30 deg inside.
Auto manufacturers just don't know how to do software. They don't understand it. They treat it like just another line item on the BOM: Like a bolt or a gasket. Source it from the cheapest provider, give them checkbox requirements, and then spoon it into the car on the assembly line somewhere. They don't think of it as an ecosystem to build off of, or as something to make beautiful to compete with other car makers. It's just another costly assembly that they bolt onto the car and forget about.
It's not an indictment of modern software. It's an indictment of using SW where not needed.<p>Don't put discrete, isolated HW functions behind a SW powered screen. It's that simple.
Pretty much this. The less software on the car, the fewer problems.<p>It's practically impossible to test every permutation of code against every system. Maybe AI can help, but practically it'll just mean the software gets <i>more</i> complicated, with more features. And to top it all off, more and more features get <i>regulated</i>, so they <i>have</i> to be there. The rear-view camera requirement in particular, since you need a screen to see the output. And if you have a screen... well it's an already paid cost, so, might as well display other things too.<p>We should kill the reg.
It all comes down to cost. At scale, testing hardware is appreciably more expensive than testing software. The former requires specialized machinery that costs the soul of your firstborn, and the logistics overhead for each do-over means long iteration times. The latter can be done with a CI pipeline for pennies worth of compute in a fraction of a working day.
Stuff like climate control and radio/Bluetooth were included in many/most cars in the last decade. Expensive as they were, the cars were a lot cheaper than today's cars. And they <i>just worked</i>, which means they were either so simple that sophisticated testing wasn't necessary, or they tested it thoroughly.<p>I don't think they're saving <i>that</i> much by ditching them and going to SW.<p>They also didn't need updates (well, the Bluetooth module may have, but nothing else).<p>It definitely was nice not to have to worry whether the climate control may stop working because the radio was modified. Or because of any update.<p>As a driver, dumping everything into one SW system has significantly degraded my experience. What I gain ("Ooh, I can now use Waze on a bigger screen!") is minimal.<p>> The latter can be done with a CI pipeline for pennies worth of compute in a fraction of a working day.<p>I'd appreciate the point if they were successful at it. As it is, they're not. It's rare to find a non-buggy car.
It's Android Auto and Apple Carplay. Not sure how that's an "isolated HW function". That would be an issue if they put the turn signals or AC controls on the screen only.
It’s an indictment of business attitudes towards customers. It’s not the software’s fault, the software is doing what it was supposed to. The fault lies with the organisation that decided that’s what it should do.
wouldn't that be impossible in this case? since android auto needs to draw to the screen, control infotainment, etc. even a dedicated USB + rocker switch for android auto would still need a software path to do those things
Putting things like climate control, car settings, etc on the same screen as Android Auto is not at all necessary.<p>Older cars (that still had touch sensitive displays), simply had separate HW modules and HW interfaces (buttons/switches) for the rest. You never had to worry that modifying/repairing/updating one would impact the other.
When I bought my car, it had no Car Play or Android Auto. Upon some investigation I found out that both of them were installed on all the current models. It’s just disabled on the cars sold without the option. Some open source software for the car entertainment system flashed on the car was able to turn on the flags to enable various features including Car Play and Android Auto. So a happy story.
Even hardware features (heated steering wheel, rain sensing wipers, etc...) are now behind software switches which the car maker can control based upon subscription or trim-level purchase.<p>All the hardware pieces are installed at build time
You’re telling me it’s not cheaper for them to bundle the hardware but to disable it than not bundle the hardware?
> heated steering wheel<p>As a licensed driver who resides in the Sonoran Desert, can you even imagine the horrific visions that just flashed before my eyes?<p>We often joke around here that wearing oven mitts is a good way to get our cars started in the late afternoons. It's not really a joke.<p>I personally have several pairs of gloves, and I never fail to don those gloves when I go out, whether I am walking, riding an e-Scooter, or driving, because even as a pedestrian we must touch so many metal objects that bask all day in the direct sunlight.<p><i>Heated steering wheels</i>. What a world we live in today!
I scoffed at it, as someone that grew up in California and never lived anywhere cold.<p>Man, when it's freezing outside, it's awesome. I wouldn't buy a car without it now.
I put heated grips on my motorcycle. I thought it seemed dumb, your hands are out in the wind, and the back of your hands will still get cold. Nah, it warms up your whole body and it's a total game changer.
When it's minus -20°C outside, you'll be very happy for that heated steering wheel! For someone living in the desert, I wish there were cooled steering wheels, on the same level as heated/cooled seats, but maybe that's asking a but much.
As a licensed driver also living in the Sonoran Desert, I absolutely love my heated steering wheel. I live just South of Anthem, and we get a couple of hard freezes per year, and it gets cold enough that people wear gloves certain parts of the year.
There are also really cold places in the world!
Wow, clearly you've never left the tropics. Some of us start our cars in -30, C or F, take your pick, for at least some months out of the year.
Living in Australia where it gets hot and also kinda cold, having seats that are both heated and vented is awesome. Cold? Seat gives you a warm hug. Hot? Seat blows cool air to cool itself down after being parked, and to stop you getting sweaty.
>It’s just disabled on the cars sold without the option.<p>So exactly like software licensing? Most apps nowadays don't even require a purchase to download. The download is free but you need to pay $4.99/month subscription to use, or $99.99 for a "lifetime subscription". The code's are all there. The author just doesn't want you to use it.
Ahh, DRM-ed cars. I should have seen that one coming, really.
Geohot should focus his attention on jailbreaking cars now
They saw the "You wouldn't download a car?" meme one too many times, and panicked.
That’s not exactly the same. You don’t get to have a car for free with basic driving functionality and then pay for additional features once you realize the car is useful and the people do made it deserve to be paid for their work, which they were willing to meet you have for free in its basic form.<p>This is something far more heinous, you bought a thing for a lot of money and just in order to extort even more money from you, they simply disable/lock away a feature that you technically already possess.<p>A better analogy in software might be that you bought a video game for $60,000 and the only way to beat a lower level boss without spending 2,000 hours trying to, is to pay the developers another $5,000 for a super weapon.
this reminds me of the old IBM tabulation machines that were sold in 2 different models at different prices, the cheaper one just had a metal tab inserted to limit the processing speed - you could remove the tab to unlock full speed
As it should be.<p>You'd prefer they get nothing for the effort they put into developing the software?
Happy for the individual, sad for society
Please could you share the name of the manufacturer, so the rest of us know who to be wary of?
Volkswagen Group for example. Most of their brands are like this, Volkswagen, Seat, Skoda. Carplay/Android Auto is in the head unit but you have to
pay 200-300€ to unlock unless it’s part of the trim
level you choose.
The most expensive appliances (particularly stoves) are the ones with no LCD screens. "Smart" TVs are often cheaper then dumb ones. People have learned that software does not always make things better. Anything that has code in it I assume will last for about three years. In practice that's a little less then the average but a safe assumption.
Agree with the sentiment but the author's brain rotten rant is projection for being part of the problem
why OTA update OS that frequently?<p>I've been lately into mobile apps and i am finding that there is no system which combines these 3<p>1. AOT
2. JIT (for hot paths)
3. Interpreter for non JIT paths or where you explicitly do not want jit.<p>Imagine, a system which compiles your app to AOT but when you push OTA update, part of the app are selectively replaced to JIT or Interpreted mode.<p>it's theoretically possible but nobody seems to be doing it. I found react native / expo eas update but i don't think it's like this, it has a Hermes VM which runs bytecode but it has no JIT so you'll write native code for hot path then you'll need to upload a full update to Android. So, only toy level code performance can be can actually be written in JS?<p>Much better, patch the parts where AOT calls into JIT or interpreter.<p>Currently i am using react native and flutter. Flutter's UI framework code is in Dart if you load this whole code into JIT, it will consume a lot of resources on mobile device as the framework is big and does lot of work. If all framework code was AOT and your custom patchable code also comes with AOT but upon OTA replaced by JIT or Interpreted code, crazy performance!<p>But what if we could run the most of the code in AOT and only run changed code in JIT or interpreted mode? arguably it would perform as good as it does not being complete AOT while also providing react native like fast updates.
Sounds like someone isn’t doing their load-bearing smoke tests.
Assuming your car has all the functions you care about, and the OTA updates aren't bringing you any bugfixes or feature updates you care about, is there any good reason to update? Or even have it online to begin with? I'm not expecting someone to hack my car; on the contrary, I'd rather have it be impossible for the automaker to reach my car in any way without it being obvious to me (i.e. me flipping a switch to get it online for whatever reason).
> Everything you create should be an artistic endeavour aiming for perfection.<p>Amen. If you go to a bakery, you expect them to care. If you hire a photographer, you expect them to care. Software isn’t (usually) a factory line; CRUD may be similar concepts throughout, but everyone is making it themselves.<p>Give a shit about what you make.
Glad to own a car that will only update via USB and even then only when I want it to.<p>Which is never, unless something is broken.<p>Having rolling releases for a CAR is absolutely stupid.
You still did not learn the lesson? Once you take possession of a fixed-function appliance, NEVER EVER EVER take any updates, and do not connect it to the internet (CarPlay does not require internet connectivity in the car). Do not buy fixed-function appliances that require internet, that is what computers are for.
If we had a software building code, it could mandate the testing procedures for consumer devices, like a car's headunit firmware. This building code could be backed by an industry body that could revoke its certification from manufacturers if they don't comply with the code. Super-advanced-testing-procedure #1: <i>plug a phone into a test car and check it works before release</i>.<p>(This software building code is more necessary for software used in critical infrastructure. But it should also be applied to consumer devices as basic protection for consumers against manufacturers breaking functionality the consumer paid for)
Plug <i>one of every combination of vendor, model, OS, and config</i> into the car and check if <i>everything</i> works. That’s what would be required to actually ensure functionality.
Wasn't LLM tech supposed to fix this?
Most people with experience in the tech industry would say that LLMs will make it <i>worse</i>. They make more mistakes than a human, faster than a human, but get treated (by management) as preferred to a human. The end result was never going to be more reliable software.
His good points here are undermined by the profane, emotional high-cortisol crashout. There’s a place for well-written, witty diatribes and polemics, but throwing F-bombs and F-yous into complaints is not that.
It's his blog. He can talk however he wants. You, however, don't have to read it.
When the blog post is under discussion, I think comments critical of it are just as fair game as ones which appreciate it. If the parent poster was emailing the author to make the same complaint then I think the "you don't have to read it" criticism applies, but not so much in a discussion forum. The point is to discuss what we think, even if that is a critical opinion.
Did you just come off the Mayflower?
When did grown adults start getting so fucking bitchy about profane language? I swear it wasn't like this 20 years ago.
Lewis Black once said that swearing has a point--it is how we express a sufficient level of rage and anger against something extremely dysfunctional. What <i>should</i> we say, he asked: Oh, pussyfeathers?
So glad my car has the dumbest head unit on offer in 2019, does bluetooth, radio, CD, shows a map (slowly) it just does what I need it to.
The practical solution here would be closing the feedback loop with customers. The business does want happy customers, it's important they return to purchase in 5 years. The problem with car companies is that they don't get immediate feedback (telemetry, tickets, etc) when they do push an issue. And they obviously don't have gradual roll outs the way tesla does.<p>Rather than hamstring all software by requiring DOT testing before firmware updates are published, follow Tesla's model which has been very reliable within the industry
<p><pre><code> Rather than hamstring all software by requiring DOT testing before firmware updates are published...
</code></pre>
I don't know how the rules work in the UK or Ireland where the author is, but the US has no such mandatory testing. Also, all manufacturers have telemetry these days and the ones I'm familiar with all do gradual rollouts (to varying levels of competence). You basically can't do immediate rollout given the scales involved.<p>Please don't take this as suggesting any of them are <i>good</i> at software, mind you.
You're right the facilities may be there for telemetry & feedback, but none of the Tesla competitors are structured to manage that telemetry and feedback. Often the brands are repackaging software from vendors (e.g. Bosch) that are terrible at fixing things.<p>Let's face it, this really is about Tesla, vs the rest of the major players (ford, kia, VW etc)
Obviously I'm under NDA, but the data I've seen at $(OEM) was down to the level of variant tracking and real time geolocation. The commercial fleet management programs can do things like scheduled updates and know what hardware/software is in each component of each vehicle, which the manufacturer has to keep track of anyway for recall purposes.
Does MINI make their own software? I thought it was the same as BMWs with another skin. My BMW gets quarterly updates. Only once in the past year I've had it did I notice anything new (new voice assistant), otherwise it just resets my driver screen and sets my interior lighting on full blast every time it updates.<p>If Android Auto stopped working I'd also be livid because I don't use the built in crap.
Users are complicit. Why did this user install the update? Were they suffering from an issue it supposedly solves? My six-year-old Honda has never had a software update, and in any case "OTA" updates can only be initiated by the user.
They described their car as having "auto-installed" the update.<p>An update which advertised, amongst other features, that it "rectifies errors and prevents security gaps" and stated "This update is recommended for everyone."<p>Borderline insane to refer to the user as "complicit" in that case.
The user is not at fault for installing an offered update.
No win scenario. We need to install updates because of security vulnerabilities. But we shouldn’t install updates because they might introduce bugs.
Of course, we largely only need to worry about the security vulnerabilities because manufacturers increasingly hook our hardware up to the internet so they can exfiltrate data about us.
Security vulnerabilities get too much credit. It's "think of the children" of the software world. Most updates don't fix any, most vulnerabilities won't get used in the real world against you either, and in many cases the security is for the corporation against the customer instead.
While the users are not at fault, this culture has certainly turned me way more careful and deliberate about applying updates - if it's not broke, I usually don't; big corporations are more suspicious of breaking things and open source are usually good about them; and if there's no changelog or it's very generic, I'll stay away as well.
Some cars will force the update on you after dismissing it.
Not even 13 days ago another article on here was glazing the infotainment system. I even have the article. <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48769397">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48769397</a> People were attacking the critique I levied towards shallow praise flippantly gravitating to the word consistency, but now I feel vindicated.
that's a symptom of a bigger problem.<p>Someone in auto industry decided that plugging device, and dependency on core functionality of the car to 3rd party device, that might be lost, have battery died, used for something else, etc is a good way to save money and not do proper software. It's even more bizare now, mid 2026, when software is solved with AI.<p>It's good that there are some companies, that ban android/apple car since that's an ugly experience for the user.
> Someone in auto industry decided that plugging device, and dependency on core functionality of the car to 3rd party device, that might be lost, have battery died, used for something else, etc is a good way to save money and not do proper software.<p>On the contrary, having cars <i>stop trying to provide a bespoke more-proprietary outdated piece of software you have less control over, probably have surreptitious telemetry reporting back from, and might have to pay a subscription fee for</i>, and instead just delegate to the smartphone you already have, is a huge and surprising win.<p>> It's good that there are some companies, that ban android/apple car since that's an ugly experience for the user.<p>It's a terrible user-hostile loss when cars do that, typically because they want to maintain more control or try to extract more revenue from the user.<p>If you don't want to use it, don't use it; there's nothing forcing you to do so.
you settle with one failure story for another failure story.<p>there are companies with amazing software experience, Rivian, Tesla, Nio, Lucid, even gm is start moving into that direction, and WV is buying software from rivian.
> there are companies with amazing software experience<p>I don't <i>want</i> an amazing software experience. I want an <i>unsurprising</i> experience, ideally the one I <i>already have</i>.<p>The only thing better than Android Auto would be to just provide a standardized port (and perhaps a wireless standard) for a combination of video output, audio output, touchscreen input, and charging, with optional standardized sensor inputs. Then you wouldn't need two different standards (Android Auto and Apple Carplay), just one, which would also work with any new device that came along to break that duopoly.
you just stuck in this paradigm, this apple/auto surprised me so many times :<p>- when you need to re-pair Bluetooth<p>- when you forget the cable to charge and you need to drive<p>- when you want to share your car to someone and they need to spend 5 minutes to accept every single ToS possible to simply put a GPS<p>- several people with phones paired before, now you dealing with complete random<p>you name it.<p>- you listen music and you need to go out to buy something while others in the car<p>None of these problems exist if you have a decent, dedicated computer in the car that just works, it knows profiles, it does need you to be always on wire, or on the line.
The TLDR; answer to all your problems is: "Just use a freaking USB cable".<p>I rent tons of cars and my experience with the wired AndroidAuto is:<p>1. Plug it in.<p>2. That's it. It just works. No ToS or any other crap.<p>3. The same cable also supplies power!<p>Some cars _may_ need me to press something on the screen to switch to AA mode, but it's rare.<p>And it works perfectly with _everything_ on my phone. A navigator properly pauses my audiobook before announcing a turn, for example.
> standardized port (and perhaps a wireless standard) for a combination of video output, audio output, touchscreen input, and charging, with optional standardized sensor inputs<p>So a web browser loading a page off the phone? :)
Emphatically not. I want the head unit to act as a <i>dumb terminal</i> for the phone. My first instinct would be a USB-C docking station supporting DisplayPort video, various interesting USB devices, and a descriptor that makes it clear it's a car's head unit so the device can intelligently offer a car-specific experience.
Oh, right, more like a car-flavoured docking station? That does sound better, it relies on the car for less in terms of functionality so it should be more consistent and futureproof.
> there are companies with amazing software experience, Rivian, Tesla, Nio, Lucid<p>I own a Tesla, and a Ford. Amazing is not how I would describe the Tesla software experience. It lacks features like iMessage for group and for non-phone recipients that I am able to use in my Ford. Even though many people would say the Ford software is otherwise inferior. And if history is anything to go by, there are features in CarPlay today that Tesla will <i>never</i> add to their infotainment system.
> there are companies with amazing software experience, Rivian, Tesla, Nio, Lucid<p>Are you fucking serious? Tesla's head unit software is barely passable. It's shit.<p>Nearly half of the screen is taken by useless toy car depictions, and navigation can't even render the full street names because the width of the input field is fixed.
[dead]
> On the contrary, having cars stop trying to provide a bespoke more-proprietary outdated piece of software you have less control over, probably have surreptitious telemetry reporting back from, and might have to pay a subscription fee for, and instead just delegate to the smartphone you already have, is a huge and surprising win.<p>I'd agree if it worked.<p>Android Auto sucks. And I don't like that my auto manufacturer can wash their hands off it by pointing at Google.<p>> If you don't want to use it, don't use it; there's nothing forcing you to do so.<p>As long as the car manufacturer gives me basic functionality (radio, stereo, Bluetooth, etc). Nominally they do, but it sucks in a different way from Android Auto. So I have to ping pong between these two.<p>My prior car's aftermarket Bluetooth receiver was <i>fantastic</i>. The fact that I can't install something like that on modern cars is a huge regression.
why on earth you need an aftermarket receiver of Bluetooth? The cost of the module is few dollars. My cheap ac has bluethooth, just to connect it wifi, i used it once in it's lifetime.<p>The entire idea that everytime you sit in the car you need to pair your devices, what if you have several devices in the car etc ? it's such a horrible, broken, neurotic idea.
> Android Auto sucks.<p>No, it doesn't. It's a very simple streaming protocol.<p>It's literally a gRPC-encapsulated stream of h264 frames over a USB connection. With touch events and some car-related telemetry streamed back. You can implement it in a weekend: <a href="https://github.com/mrmees/open-android-auto" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/mrmees/open-android-auto</a><p>You can create whatever you want, including just streaming videos onto the head unit or making it play Doom while driving (with steering wheel for input).
Given that the (user-facing) software that comes with the car is always broken (modulo Tesla and a few other modern exceptions), it's no wonder people want to replace that software with literally anything else that actually works.<p>This isn't the auto industry deciding that you need to use your phone. On the contrary, GM and others tried hard to push back on Carplay and AA. This is the buyers telling the auto makers that they want Carplay and AA since they know that that actually works, and they know that the software the car actually comes with will be garbage, or at the very least unfamiliar and not really worth dealing with when you can hook up your phone and let that actually solve the problems the user wants to be solved.<p>It's insane to me that anyone could be of the opinion that it's good that some automakers ban/don't implement Carplay and AA. It's just taking away user choice. It's hard to believe anyone could have this opinion without either never having driven a modern car, or just being an industry plan.
> It's good that there are some companies, that ban android/apple car since that's an ugly experience for the user.<p>Absolutely nonsensical. Both Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are better experiences than any first party car interface I’ve experienced.<p>In many ways the auto industry stumbled when they allowed this connectivity, just like phone networks stumbled when they let Apple dictate the iPhone from top to bottom. Good news is those stumbles worked out great for users. We get iPhones without bundled crapware apps and we get cars that don’t require monthly subscriptions for basic functionality your phone provides.
> software is solved with AI<p>Presumably every car manufacturer can use AI. Yet there are still bugs. If all bugs are solved with AI, and therefore every car manufacturer with access to AI writes bug-free software, the only remaining conclusion is that some car manufacturers don’t have AI yet.
> It's even more bizare now, mid 2026, when software is solved with AI.<p>Why doesn't op simply ask AI to write software to fix his problem?
> It's good that there are some companies, that ban android/apple car since that's an ugly experience for the user<p>Hello, Elon<p>Seriously this is so wrong. I love being able to carry all my preferences from my phone directly to the car without any additional configuration. Before this, we had to do stupid stuff like entering individual contacts in the cars system.
[flagged]
Ai will solve it. Car manufacturers are slow to take on new technology but they’ll be forced to