I must whine about no NAV in the Bolt ...

[SeanNelson]

You obviously don't understand the concept of "bait and switch!" Once GM puts it out there that they plan to include a substantial feature such as an internal NAV, the burden is on GM to inform the public that it is NO LONGER INCLUDED!

In a perfect world that would be nice. But car manufacturers add and drop features all the time without issuing press releases - it's just the way the world is. Ultimately, when you by a vehicle it's up to you to check the list of included features - that's where the manufacturers are obligated to do their disclosure.

Your argument reminds me of trying to convince a judge that you had a verbal agreement that's been broken. Yes, you may prevail - but it's going to be an uphill battle.

 

[Anonymous]

You obviously don't understand the concept of "bait and switch!" Once GM puts it out there that they plan to include a substantial feature such as an internal NAV, the burden is on GM to inform the public that it is NO LONGER INCLUDED!

In a perfect world that would be nice. But car manufacturers add and drop features all the time without issuing press releases - it's just the way the world is. Ultimately, when you by a vehicle it's up to you to check the list of included features - that's where the manufacturers are obligated to do their disclosure.

Your argument reminds me of trying to convince a judge that you had a verbal agreement that's been broken. Yes, you may prevail - but it's going to be an uphill battle.

What exactly is your expertise for this opinion, Sean?

At least the great motion picture mogul, Samuel Goldwyn got famous with his "malapropisms" one of which was: "an oral contract isn't worth the paper its written on!" (Another: "Give me a couple of years and I'll make that actress an overnight success.")

What's your claim to fame with regard to legal analogies?

It is amazing to me that a bunch of people who have expressed that they have no professed interest in the feature of an internal Navigation system have so much to say about its lack of inclusion for those of us who DO want such a feature, let alone that it was promised by the CEO of the company at its pre-product premiere launch event, CES, in her "Keynote Speech!"

In my way of looking at things, if you do not want the feature, you just don't get a vote on its omission when its inclusion was promised! Go spend time in a thread about a feature that you actual want to be included in the future!

Oh oh, the fact that I rebutted Sean's post will now be charged against me as a "rant" or a "vent" or worse yet, with a "WOW!" or a "DUH!" hahahaha :lol:

 

[SeanNelson]

It is amazing to me that a bunch of people who have expressed that they have no professed interest in the feature of an internal Navigation system have so much to say about its lack of inclusion for those of us who DO want such a feature, let alone that it was promised by the CEO of the company at its pre-product premiere launch event, CES, in her "Keynote Speech!"

I think that should tell you that the general feeling is that trying to treat her keynote speech as some kind of binding contract is not seen by most people as being reasonable.

I get that you're annoyed, angry and betrayed. And you're venting on the forum, as many people who feel that way do. But on this particular issue you seem to be looking for sympathy for your position and I'm afraid to say that it doesn't look like you're going to get it. It may be time to move on...

 

[Anonymous]

It is amazing to me that a bunch of people who have expressed that they have no professed interest in the feature of an internal Navigation system have so much to say about its lack of inclusion for those of us who DO want such a feature, let alone that it was promised by the CEO of the company at its pre-product premiere launch event, CES, in her "Keynote Speech!"

I think that should tell you that the general feeling is that trying to treat her keynote speech as some kind of binding contract is not seen by most people as being reasonable.

As I pointed out before, the "most people" you are referring to, do not value an internal NAV as an accessory that they would acquire. In my view, using your analogy, they are NOT a "jury of my peers" and hence their viewpoint of what is reasonable is irrelevant!

I get that you're annoyed, angry and betrayed. And you're venting on the forum, as many people who feel that way do. But on this particular issue you seem to be looking for sympathy for your position and I'm afraid to say that it doesn't look like you're going to get it. It may be time to move on...

You are just plain wrong, Sean:

While I may be looking for sympathy for my position; so long as you and others give me rebuttable propositions in your continuing posts when you do not move on, I will continue to rebut them, pure and simple!

That is what I do for a living!

 

[SparkE]

Just be sure you download the maps from an unlimited data source and it won't use much data at all. It will be especially helpful when you are out of service ranges. I personally have an unlimited plan so it doesn't bother me but I support many that don't.

For me though, I hate iOS and Android so I bought a $50 android phone that is running off the hotspot from my normal phone. The maps are downloaded and I pretty much only use data for netcasts and traffic updates. Android Auto is good enough for now.

I had missed this when originally posted. gbobman proposed a solution that costs less than the add-on option for a Volt, and doesn't even require cell plan/service or satellite service to work. I'll have to remember this one for my 1996 Prizm! Thx!

 

[SparkE]

{{ Split off from the original topic, which was not about NAV. Feel free to participate in discussion, or simply ignore (as I will, unless posts are flagged). }}

 

[Anonymous]

{{ ,,,or simply ignore (as I will, unless posts are flagged). }}

Could you please set ALL of your posts this way as a general rule for your general lack of proper decorum for a Forum Moderator for naming this thread the way you did and listing my post first, hence giving the impression that I was the one who named it such (you bully!)!

 

[SeanNelson]

That is what I do for a living![/b]

Well then, best of luck with that...

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Nobody has mentioned simply buying a GPS - they are cheap, and if you get one with lifetime map updates, you get useful function for years - and no data charges.

If you use your phone, you get traffic info. And hopefully, we get Plugshare on the Bolt EV system - which hopefully has dynamic charging station info.

An example of wonky builtin sat nav - our 2015 e-Golf has been changing the route WHILE DRIVING. It loses the route preferences, and it just changed - which is unacceptable. It cannot be updated easily - or even at all. There are noticeable errors in its map, and setting it up to show only charging stations is a nightmare.

 

[drdiesel1]

Every integrated/embedded NAV system I've ever had was a TURD. Google maps are updated all the time and cost me nothing
to use :mrgreen: As far as comparing it to the Volt, the Bolt's systems are all new and have ZERO carryover from previous systems.

The Bolt's system has never been in any other GM products. It's 100% new to GM automobiles and currently only available in the Bolt.

 

[user 1034]

Nobody has mentioned simply buying a GPS - they are cheap, and if you get one with lifetime map updates, you get useful function for years - and no data charges..

I already own one (because of the old Monte). There isn't enough room on the dash to put one of these without causing a bigger distraction. My opinion anyway. I wanted to try to condense what is around me in to the least amount of displays and dash warts. Beside, I already have this nice big screen available for navigation in the perfect place.

Now for the calls, Android Auto likes to hog the Bluetooth connection and won't let anything else connect while it is active, so I am looking for another solution. I have Google Voice already and have found out that you can use Google Hangouts Dialer to route calls to the Android handset so you can use the WiFi connection instead of having cell service. Unfortunately it does not route through the AA interface. Maybe one day they'll allow that (and get Waze in and out of beta for AA as well - they haven't even released a testing candidate).

Now all of that is a bit much for most people to mess with but I like the project. This isn't a distraction while I am driving, just something to do while I am not .

And before anyone asks, yes I can just pop my SIM out and put it in the other phone but I just really don't like Android as an interface (personal preference). I want to keep my current phone.

 

[devbolt]

I've owned 4 different cars with built-in Nav systems and have used a couple of different aftermarket units, plus using my phone, and I much prefer using the built-in Nav systems, despite their shortcomings. The main reason for this? Integration with the car. The system is always there and on an available. There's a dedicated input system that doesn't require fumbling with an external device. I generally have a larger display that is more ideally located. If I have audio prompts turned on it goes through the car's speakers automatically and I can easily control the volume. I don't have to worry about whether I have a working cellular connection or how much data I'm sucking down.

That said, I knew when I bought my Bolt it didn't have a built-in navigation system and instead I would have to use Carplay or Android Auto in order to get Navigation functions. I actually read the press releases, looked over the spec sheet, and even looked at the manual to know this. Wasn't too hard to find this info.

It's a less than ideal setup, but it works for the most part, when I remember to plug in my iPhone. That's the biggest pain for me: remembering to plug the phone in. I would love for a wireless version of Carplay, but wireless Carplay doesn't appear to be forthcoming anytime soon for the Bolt, or pretty much any other car that supports Carplay. The only car that supports wireless Carplay currently is the 2017 BMW 5 series.

The big advantage of using Carplay (or Android Auto) is that you kind of get the best of both worlds: you have a large central display to use, integration with the car (display, controls, audio), and you always have up to date maps, plus traffic info. The disadvantage is that you have to plug in each time, and you are forced to use data, and of course, have to use a compatible smart phone. Life is full of compromises, this is a rather minor one in the grand scheme of things.

If you are willing to buy an EV, which requires a different way of thinking about owning and driving a vehicle, then you are already working outside most people's comfort zones. It's not a huge leap to also try a different Navigation system at the same time.

 

[dandrewk]

The days of installed NAV systems in new cars are numbered, for all the reasons you mentioned. Keeping them current is esoteric and often quite expensive. Worse, there is no uniformity from one manufacturer to the next. It's far easier (and cheaper) to hand this function over to another device.

Or... even better: Have the car's nav/infotainment act like a true, standalone device, running under iOS, Android or Windows. Rather than requiring a smart device, the OS is integrated within the system, and can access all user settings (contacts, etc) from the phone users account. Perhaps the integrated NAV mapping software could also have capacity to store maps offline to avoid data usage and eliminate connection issues. An integrated, model specific app would be included to handle functions unique to the car, e.g. climate control etc.

It would be great. One problem, though - manufacturers love to extol the virtues of their infotainment systems. The love wowing us with their spectacular user interfaces. Surrendering this to Apple, Google and Microsoft would be a tough pill to swallow. Imagine a high end BMW have the same UI as a Nissan Versa S. Yikes!

 

[GetOffYourGas]

It would be great. One problem, though - manufacturers love to extol the virtues of their infotainment systems. The love wowing us with their spectacular user interfaces. Surrendering this to Apple, Google and Microsoft would be a tough pill to swallow. Imagine a high end BMW have the same UI as a Nissan Versa S. Yikes!

I hate to say it, but the best infotainment system in any of the cars I've owned is in my CMax. And Ford handed that design over to none other than Microsoft. They don't try to hide it either; there is literally a "Powered by Microsoft" emblem on the dash right above the screen.

Microsoft actually did a decent job of the interface. The biggest complaint is that it crashes every now and then. I have to turn off the infotainment and turn it back on. Thankfully I can do this while driving with the push of a single button. I have to believe that Apple or Google would do better.

 

[dandrewk]

Yeah, I hate it when they "fix" things or "make it better" when it was great to begin with.

Still, having a true mobile OS integrated into the infotainment (as opposed to projecting from a smartphone) should make things easier for users and cheaper for manufacturers. The only thing getting in the way is .... marketing. And perhaps some digital rights nuances. But I still see this as almost inevitable.