GM plans to phase out Apple CarPlay in EVs, with Google's help
finance.yahoo.com
finance.yahoo.com
Even powered by Google, the infotainment system is going to age like milk since you’ll be locked into hardware that will be midrange at best, several years old by the time it’s released with no upgrade path.
The only group of consumers that it could possibly benefit is people who want an EV but don’t use a smartphone and thus can’t take advantage of AA or CarPlay. I have a feeling that Venn Diagram is just two independent circles.
This is purely so GM can add subscriptions and harvest more data. Heaven forbid they make their money just selling a car.
Even a decent head unit these days has a HORRID UI.
I put a Kenwood DMX907s into my truck, specifically for the Carplay and/or Andorid Auto experience (being wireless carplay/AA)
Whenever I have to actually use the headunit, its shockingly bad UI. Ford, GM etc have similar. And they charge out the wazoo to do upgrade on poor unsuspecting customers like my in-laws, that rather opt to come visit and let me deal with the quirks (and there are plenty, including what type of USB-A drive you can use to perform an upgrade, nevermind trying an OTA on wifi and allowing the truck to idle for 4 hour in the driveway...)
Given that most cars now rely on in-dash/touchscreen style feature gadgets to attract new buys over things like reliability/serviceability, you would think they would prefer to allow the techy's do the software and UI design in Apple/Google and not vendor lock one or the other. I would guess whatever company opts to go with a seamless carplay/AA experience, possibly with a control app for things like AC controls, would be king in this spacec (NOTE: ive given up asking for 3 knob AC controls, apparently I the only soul this earth that things 3 knobs that doest require visual attention to adjust the climate in a car is perfection.)
In the future, perhaps phones can integrate better with cars and enable that kind of experience, but we aren't there today.
You tap add waypoint (or whatever) in Apple Maps, then tap EV charging station, or tap siri, and say "DC fast charger" or whatever. (Tested with a Chevy Bolt).
However the navigation isn't as well integrated with range, etc, as was common on older vehicles.
If this wasn't a blatant "have Google pay us to force our customers to give Google their data" move, I'd be cautiously optimistic that they weren't just trying to shovel crapware into their cars.
The reason this integration is not better is in no shape, way, or form Apple's fault. It is 110% caused by the atrocious hardware and software in cars, which is literally decades behind the rest of the world.
Perhaps you meant to say "this is why I downvoted you", in which case, I appreciate you taking the time to state your piece.
Its like nobody ever used their vehicles before they shipped it.
Some of my favorite anti-patterns (circa 2015):
- No way to remote start the vehicle with the remote (required a subscription and a phone app to remote start the car) - No way to enter navigation destinations in head unit (required subscription and phone app to do any GPS) - If you didn't have a phone, you had to use a phone based service - Bluetooth connections would randomly stop working - Bluetooth controls would only work from head unit requiring you to remove your hand from the wheel - Some faults would require you to turn off the vehicle, open the door and wait 30 seconds for the head unit to reboot
Overall, 0 / 10... would never own another vehicle from them again.
https://www.terrainforum.net/threads/radio-always-comes-on-w...
Car play support was decent about 80% of the time. The other 20%, I had to delete the phone pairing and repair to get it to reconnect.
I wasn't particularly impressed, especially given that this car has been in production since 2017, so I'd expect the radio software, etc. to be stable.
This is actually a very interesting ubiquitous & pervasive computing challenge. If we do want to let the phone be the main thing in control, it has to access & orchestrate a lot more systems than it has.
Back in 2012, the BMW/Land Rover/Jaguar folk (I think they were one entity then?) car-maker had started making interesting demos based on an already longstanding very interesting user-first user-sovereign ubicomp project, Webinos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webinos, still a halcyon model of what connected-computing might have been (but with almost no uptake)), & were making really interesting API-based integrations, over effectively VPN networks directly to their cars. I don't remember whether things like HVAC control or lighting were integrated (I suspect so), but there were definitely a lot of examples of radar/lidar integration, engine information (tach, fuel remaining, battery voltages, et cetera). This >10 year old example is by far the most pro-user most open-possibility system we've ever done, by a country mile. https://www.wired.com/2012/10/bmw-webinos/
One of the most interesting things to me was just a couple short years latter, 2015, with the Jeep hack. The emphasis was that someone could gain access to your car network & do bad things, but this was the first time we'd ever gotten a real peak into a car network & it was fascinating. The often-underlying QNX OS it turns out- even though it is not Linux- runs a bog-standard-ish FreeDesktop DBus service bus, and all car systems are exposed over DBus. ALL car services. So like, one could fully automate & script their own car, via the Jeep hack (which IIRC typically required some physical access to break in via). It would be utterly trivial to script a bunch of nice lighting & sound effects, to roll back the moon-roof & dynamically set a mild thumping VU meter lighting, to dynamically roll the EQ low & high,... the possibilities were so open, over such a common well known easy to control system. The Jeep Hack was the most exciting look at what life could be like, but it was mostly used to sell Fear Uncertainty & Doubt, to insure even less people had access to cars.
Somewhere someplace sometime this trend needs to turn around. Somewhere someplace sometime we need to start figuring out how to pipe relevant systems to the user's agent. Rather than forever letting the car take-over more and more, forever reducing agency, forever shrinking what is possible.
You have identified the problem.
Same with most desks.
We build our desks standard with OWC TB4 dock (same OEM part as Brydge or Kensington's TB4s) and a 3 way watch+phone+airpods charger with pivot head for the phone. Indeed the dock has four TB4/USB-C, and 4 USB-A ports as well.
What amazes me (not really, it's par for course) is even the most modern furniture makers are still building 12 watt (2.4amp) USB-A ports into their desks and conference tables instead of 100w - 240w chargers.
Desks should have a fireproof box underneath that can hold GaN chargers such as this one like a cartridge:
https://www.amazon.com/Charger-Station-WOTOBEUS-5-Ports-Char...
With ultra short and heavy duty connector cables to a replaceable plug strip.
As a super easy retrofit though, just plug this underneath a desk or standing desk, and set the flat part on top next to the monitor(s) stand(s):
GM has done this so they can charge monthly fees, and it sucks.
I bought a Chevy Blazer last year, and it’s the best car I’ve ever owned. Great balance of design, gas mileage, comfort, etc.
I was definitely planning to make my next car the EV version of this.
Part of that package is flawless CarPlay integration. It’s simplified the music and navigation experience more than I ever thought possible.
The only reason I wouldn’t demand it on my next car is if something demonstrably and overwhelmingly better came along.
Everything described in the article sounds worse.
Subscription services tied to my car and not my phone?
Needing to maintain navigation routes on my car AND my phone?
Being forced to use only built in apps like Spotify instead of “whatever is on my phone that supports car play”?
Waiting on my car to decide when I can get the newest navigation app or the latest update to Spotify like this is some janky non-Roku smart TV from 2012?
No thanks.
> GM's decision to stop offering those systems in future electric vehicles, starting with the 2024 Chevrolet Blazer, could help the automaker capture more data on how consumers drive and charge EVs.
That doesn’t even make sense.
NONE of those things would require an absence of CarPlay, nor would they require the presence of some omnipresent Google / GM replacement.
Those metrics are all collected by the systems using them, with the infotainment simply being one possible UI for display of those metrics.
Sucks. Just when I found a car brand and manufacturer that seemed to be doing things well, and I was excited for the EV version of it, they pull this.
Why can’t I have nice things?
> GM would benefit from focusing engineers and investment on one approach to more tightly connecting in-vehicle infotainment and navigation with features such as assisted driving, Edward Kummer, GM's chief digital officer, and Mike Himche, executive director of digital cockpit experience, said in an interview.
This is the actual reasoning provided by GM sources in the article. I jumped the gun.
I can very much sympathize with the desire to concentrate engineering efforts, and I’m sure there are things they would love to spend time on that would be eclipsed or ignored if the user lives in CarPlay or Android Auto.
But this is concentrating resources in the wrong direction, for the wrong reasons, with little useful gain.
The only way to stop it is to disconnect the antenna for the cellular modem or cut its power.
More on telematics control units:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telematic_control_unit?wprov=s...
I'm pretty sure that is what GM's play is here. There's a lot of confusion. They are moving to Google Automotive Services, complete with Android and the Play store where you pick what is on your car. Apple music is one of those apps.
> Subscription services tied to my car and not my phone?
Data Subscription, it is Google play under it all.
> Needing to maintain navigation routes on my car AND my phone?
Google Maps is on both and would likely work as well.
> Being forced to use only built in apps like Spotify instead of “whatever is on my phone that supports car play”? Google Play, how you get apps in next-gen GM Android Automotive would have the same apps.
It works exactly like having a Mac/PC and a phone.
Not mine. Oh well, another reason to skip GM.
Have you seen the shitshow which modern TVs are with their smart apps that stop functioning over time? A car is supposed to function for longer than 2 years and who is gonna force the manufacturer to support updates longer than that?
With CarPlay I am able to bring a functioning Nav, Music and everything.
It works exactly like having a Mac/PC and a phone.
Now I'd have to manage credentials on two different devices. Change my Spotify password? Two places to update it. Etc. And now I've got credentials stored in my car? That's a security situation to worry about in case of breakin/theft.
It also totally kills the use case of letting multiple passengers simply plug their phones into the car's head unit. Might have my phone, my wife's phone, or the passengers' phones plugged into the head unit depending on who's doing the navigating and who's doing the DJ'ing. Now thanks to GM instead of simply swapping the cable, I guess we can take turns signing in and out of a bunch of different apps? lol, nooooooo thanks.
I thought auto makers were finally wising up about a couple of things. One, it looks like they're finally slowly coming back around to physical controls where it makes sense.
Two, I thought they were giving up on the idea of their own bespoke entertainment solutions in favor of giving people what they actually want, which is Airplay/Android Auto. People don't want another device to manage. They just want to plug their freaking phone in.
Normally I wouldn't be irritated; I'd be happy to let the market vote. But cars are complicated beasts these days and there's an awful lot of functionality to demo and digest when shopping. There are a lot of auto features that aren't obviously terrible or obviously amazing; they only reveal themselves as such after you've lived with them for a little while.
Thanks. That clarifies, considering the article gives the impression this would be a GM-siloed system built in collaboration with Google.
The problems remain mostly the same, and the notion of GM de-facto crowning Google and its Android-based solution the "one true solution" feels like something that will isolate iPhone users.
There's a big difference between being able to use Apple Music because it's an app offered on the Google Auto Services version of the Play Store, and the general-purpose solution of being able to use it because Apple Music supports CarPlay and your car supports CarPlay.
There are other potential issues that I don't know the answer to without a bit more research. What about multiple users? The beauty of the Android Auto / CarPlay model was that my friend could hop into my car, plug in his phone, and immediately get access to his Spotify app, already on his phone, with his stuff. And just as quickly as he does that, he can unplug and let my paired phone take over again.
It's really a beautiful design in its simplicity for the end user - no installing apps, no signing in to an account on "yet another device", if it's on your phone, and it supports CarPlay, then you get it in your car.
Not only does it sound like this replaces that for iPhone users, it ALSO sounds like some of these problems will exist equally for Android Auto users, as once again you are moving the environment of apps and services from the individual user's phone, into the car.
Edit:
Doing a bit more research on Google Automotive Services specifically, I found this in an article [1]:
> Android Automotive is also responsible for every interaction with your car's in-dash display. [...] Even iOS users will launch CarPlay through Automotive, a humorous convergence of the two platforms.
If this applies, then it sounds like CarPlay could indeed be an option, by way of an app downloaded from the Play Store. If so, this mitigates a healthy number of my issues. However, if so, then why the article declaring CarPlay is going away in GM if it isn't?
Just very poor article writing? Lack of knowledge amongst the people interviewed at this stage?
Also, next from the article is this:
> GAS (yes, the acronym is almost certainly on purpose) is all of your favorite Google system applications rolled into one package. As an end-user, you'll never interact with GAS by its chosen name. Instead, you'll see the benefits of this system, specifically if you purchase a car from one of Google's partners.
> Considering how many drivers, especially in the U.S., rely on iOS and CarPlay to get from place to place, it makes sense that some automakers (especially smaller companies) might pass on adopting these services.
So... what does this mean? CarPlay and GAS are mutually exclusive? Can individual auto makers determine which apps are available in the Play Store?
I'm left with about as many questions as have been answered.
[1] https://www.androidpolice.com/android-auto-vs-android-automo...
- Apple Music, but now Google can spy on my music tastes? No thanks!
- Data subscription for my car? Why would I possibly want to pay for that?
- Google Maps: Again, Apple users have opted out of this ecosystem. Apple Maps is fine. Other options are also fine. Google Maps is my 4th or 5th choice. The whole point of this integration (per GM) is to force users onto Google Maps, and off competitive map services.
- It's like having a PC and an iPhone, or a Mac and and Android. Either way, all the cross device synchronization stuff breaks badly. Concretely: will my android maps car use siri in a privacy preserving way to check my CalDav calendar to see that I have a meeting across town, then offer to start navigation with a single tap? I think not.
Part of that package is flawless CarPlay integration.
It’s simplified the music and navigation experience
more than I ever thought possible.
Personally I don't use Android and could live without it if needed, but I have friends who do and it's nice for them to be able to plug their phones in and navigate or DJ when in my car.
People don't want another device to manage. They want their auto to be a display device for their mobile device, with which they are already infinitely familiar.
People reject cars all the time for even more trivial things (oh — this one doesn’t have wireless charging? Next.), so I can’t imagine this being a smart idea for GM.
Not sure if the associations are per-user or per-car, though. I believe there was work to move them along with some other settings to your "user profile" and would go with you across cars.
I won’t buy a car that doesn’t support CarPlay.
Additionally, my 2019 Model 3's infotainment is noticeably slower than a 2023's. I'd hate to be limited by compute in a car that I'll probably replace in 8 years. If it's my phone, the replacement time is much shorter (and much more affordable!).
It would not stop me from buying another Tesla. The infotainment is generally fantastic (as is the rest of the car). But CarPlay would make the music and podcast experience so much better.
Previously Tesla offered MCU1 to MCU2 paid upgrades for Model S/X owners. It seems unlikely that Tesla will offer anything similar for MCU2 to MCU3 but not impossible that it could be done as a 3rd party retrofit. The connectors and physical dimensions are different so it’s not trivial.
Does any major car manufacturer routinely nail their infotainment systems?
Basically with Tesla you get the latest model year car software on an ongoing basis, and it’s revolutionary from an owner’s perspective.
The alternative is needing to trade in/buy a whole new model year car to get to enjoy whatever new feature, which is how it always used to work, and is so scammy.
If you don’t want the latest software, you can always choose not the install it, but you would be seriously limiting the performance, comfort, safety and entertainment value of your car.
Most cars don’t get faster, safer, and cheaper to operate after you buy them, but Tesla’s do. The obvious trade-off to getting the latest model year’s software and features is getting the latest model year’s UI as well.
Bluetooth doesn't support the data rates necessary to deliver the data for CarPlay. As for the "maybe with slightly less functionality" would you take no display? You're basically talking about Siri Eyes Free where you'd have a button to activate Siri on your steering wheel, but wouldn't get much functionality. But I'm guessing you want the navigation to be displayed on your screen, not just a bluetooth audio connection with a Siri button.
Basically, the 1-2Mbps of Bluetooth really isn't enough to drive a display with any decent resolution and I'm guessing that real-world data rates are a bit less than spec with so much stuff in the 2.4GHz band. Microsoft notes that you need 1.5Mbps for 1024x768 and I'm guessing most car displays are better than that today (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/remote/remo...).
Maybe you'd argue that you'd take 5 FPS and semi-reliability, but I just don't think they want to implement something that's just kinda crappy. Apple doesn't want you going around saying, "wireless CarPlay is garbage." Yes, you might understand a retrofit to a car that doesn't really have the capability, but 99% of people won't. It's not that it's impossible as much as something likely to be way more pain than it's worth. Even if you want it and would be ok with the trade-off, that's not always how products work. Heck, if they did implement it and it didn't work, would you end up using tech support for it? That costs money. Would you post online where your problem-solving becomes interpreted as "Apple sucks" even if you don't mean it that way?
Worse, car manufactures might (and car dealers definitely would) start promising these models as supporting wireless CarPlay. Maybe Apple could deal with official marketing materials, but dealers will say almost anything to sell a car. People would be duped into buying these cars and then complain to Apple that their product sucks. People would be asking online "is this real wireless CarPlay or the fake kind?" The absolute headache!
You can buy an adapter that will plug into the USB port if you want wireless CarPlay: https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/27/carplay-wireless-carplay-adap.... Basically, the information goes from your phone to the adapter (via Bluetooth-setup-WiFi) and then the adapter just sends it over USB. That's way less headache for Apple and probably a better experience since it actually supports the right data rates. I haven't used one of these so you should read up if you want to buy one (or try it out and return it if it doesn't work for you), but this seems like a much better alternative than trying to jam CarPlay over Bluetooth (without WiFi).
Near zero cost to GM, tons of convenience for GM’s customers. I can only imagine GM wants customers’ data or subscription fees, and Apple will not allow that. And this is a business that got bailed out by US taxpayers, and is explicitly too big to fail.
GM doesn't want Apple or Google taking over the UX of the car, because then GM is eventually just another FoxConn
and sure, there's a money thing...they want revshare from Spotify and every other app they can position in the UI
CarPlay and Android Auto will be gone as fast as car makers can make it happen
This isn’t how it works in my Dodge. There is a Dodge logo / startup screen first, then a “don’t use screen while driving sign that I am forced to accept every time” and then it shows me CarPlay.
Apple announced the total UI takeover option (though I’m not sure if it works today) but no car maker supports it on a shipping vehicle.
Many have announced interest but at this point we don’t know if it will ever be available, even if only on some kind of ultra-luxury car.
I assume Kia is South Korea’s lower end offering, Hyundai is their mid tier offering, and Genesis is their luxury offering.
This will also be an opportunity for other car manufacturers to differentiate themselves: “We still support CarPlay”
but I doubt CarPlay will even end up as the lowest-common-denominator...one of GM or Mercedes or whoever will try to get their system good enough that they can license it to other car companies...so CarOS or whatever will be the default if your car brand doesn't have a bespoke experience
I like Android Auto and use it all the time, but I can't fault GM for not wanting to be treated as just another OEM...FoxConn does all the hard work for Apple on the hardware side and isn't even allowed to put their name on the product...the ultimate replaceable cog
Apple might have been received better by car makers if it hadn't threatened to be developing their own vehicle...now all the car makers see them as a competitive threat
GM is only doing this because they see an avenue to charge recurring fees, which smartphones obviated.
Isn’t this just the gift that just keeps on giving?
Looking around a bit, apparently there's also a neat though slightly more expensive product called the datalink maestro rr or rr2 that does the camera and head unit interfacing part while retaining additional features.
First they kill the Volt -- IMHO the best PHEV on the market when I bought it -- now they kill a vastly superior interface to anything I've ever used in a car.
Sorry GM, you might just have lost a (stockholding, for now, at least) customer.
For example, Toyota is head and shoulders better than the competition at ICE and hybrids, but they're arguably last in EVs. In fact, Consumer Reports says the Chevy Bolt is currently the best EV[1].
1. https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/electric-vehicl...
If I wanted a near-supercar, I'd consider a Corvette. Without CarPlay, I'll buy a Cayman S or something else instead. The Corvette might be measurably better in most performance metrics, but if I can't use the apps I'm accustomed to using, I won't buy it.
The rest of the GM line-up? Yeah, pretty uninspiring.
I even use Android, and don't personally care that much about Apple support, and I'm still unhappy about this and it's making me less interested in Chevy for the next car.
>General Motors plans to phase out widely-used Apple CarPlay and Android Auto technologies that allow drivers to bypass a vehicle's infotainment systems, shifting instead to built-in infotainment systems developed with Google for future electric vehicles.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/06/gen-z-survey-says...
I love Android, but I also know how to read.
GM will absolutely lose this battle. Idiotic move.
I love GM cars once you remove their terrible UI and escape to CarPlay/Android Auto. The biggest issue with cars is that they rely on a touch screen for controls and the UX is awful. I now have an Audi and a Porsche and the MMI suite is Android based. This isn’t too bad but the services and mapping are far behind Apple and Google.
Apple isn’t forcing anything. They don’t have exclusive contacts. Almost every car with CarPlay supports Android Auto.
Customers are just demanding it.
By comparison, nothing (not even Google) is stopping Apple from producing CarPlay for Android. All the APIs are there. They could even distribute it in the Play store.
Compare the PhoneLink capabilities between iPhone and Android, vs the macOS integration Apple offers iOS.
I was not talking about the infotainment OS. No one has an Apple OS running on a car so I don’t know how they could dominate the market.
It happily allows CarPlay from my iPhone.
CarPlay is (very roughly) the phone pushing video to the car's head unit like it's an external monitor (with a UI tailored for the size/location/usage of a typical car display).
My issue is that my #1 requirement (no functionality that requires a touchscreen to use) basically pre-empts me from having any other requirements.
I agree no touchscreen for AC/volume knob and some other things, but zero touchscreen at all (even for radio and menu) seems out there. Time to get a 2001 Cherokee.
My 2011 car can accomplish everything perfectly well without a touchscreen while I’m wearing giant ski mitts in -30 weather; I’m not interested in a downgrade.
They will, but not by standing firm. No, first will come the backlash, then GM will "listen to its customers" and backtrack on this.
The problem is, I've already as of this morning stopped listening to GM. I sent the link to my wife, and now we're planning which Hyundai/Kia dealer to go to first to look at Ioniq 5s and $(whatever the equivalent Kia is called). Doug in Edmonds says he has 65 of the l'il buggers. We might just drive one home this weekend, at which point GM has not only lost a sale but further convinced me to stay away from GM.
Did I mention that my father worked for GM all his career, and already pre-ordered an EV Blazer, which we said we'd take if he didn't want it at delivery? Yeah, I need to send Dad quick email about that...
I dunno. Lack of CarPlay support has not exactly stopped people buying Teslas.
On the other hand, Polestar uses Google’s Automotive OS for it’s infotainment system and yet also supports CarPlay. So the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Volvo/Polestar has a rather nice, well-integrated implementation of CarPlay, in fact. It definitely can be done. GM is insane.
That being said, not supporting CarPlay (and Apple Maps) is a big factor of me not buying a Tesla.
They were basically the only non-low end electric car. Also their infotainment is reportedly pretty good, not the quality of most car makers.
GM doesn’t have a Tesla quality infotainment system, and doesn’t have a “we’re the only choice” level hook.
It won’t work for them. And it may be starting to hurt Tesla as they lose their uniqueness selling point.
Yet.
Having poked around with a Polestar, Google’s infotainment software is actually very good.
It’s certainly in the same ballpark as Tesla’s. Clean elegant design, tight integration to the car’s systems, fast smooth performance. And has clear advantages over Tesla in some aspects (ie: ability to install 3rd-party apps).
Oh, it absolutely does. I bought TSLA when it was in the double digits, and I bought lots of it (and long since sold it all). Despite scooping up capital gains with a backhoe, my wife and I never considered a Tesla simply because it didn't have CarPlay. As it applies to any car maker, CarPlay/Android Auto seems like an easy win, and if the company can't be bothered, then we'll look elsewhere.
Lack of CarPlay just doesn't stop everyone from buying one.
There are ways to run CarPlay in the browser, and it works fine (plenty of videos about it), but it isn't enough of a value-add for people to want it.
If you want a truck, get a Ford. They're hands-down the best in class. Or get a Toyota or Honda if you roll that way.
If you want an SUV, well, everybody is making those and GM doesn't have any standout offerings.
If you want a luxury car then there are much better options that are not only more luxurious, but more reliable, and oftentimes cheaper.
If you want reliable, cheap transportation then you're getting a KIA or Hyundai.
No matter how you slice it and dice it, the answer is never GM. (I'll concede the Corvette, they're great sports cars, but c'mon! Not many people are buying those!)
And now they're nixing CarPlay?
Any Bolt is a better car hands-down on battery capacity alone.
On the infotainment topic: I have the top-spec LEAF for my year and the (upgraded) infotainment unit is hot garbage, easily bested by the $175 Android touchscreen I put in my wife's car.
United expects customers to be grateful if they get involuntarily rescheduled to arrive a day and a half after the original arrival time, with not so much as a free snack ticket to compensate e even when the flight delay is of their causing, not weather, that made the original connection impossible.
I’ll never buy the satellite radio plan for my car to stream music. Why would I? My phone already provides a cell connection.
I’ll never buy the car cell plan to stream Spotify. Why would I? My phone does that already.
I never bought the $200+ per year map updates for my last car. Why would I? I had Apple Maps on CarPlay and it updates for free.
In many ways this seems like trying to go back to 2006 when cars had some subscription stuff (maps, satellite radio) but consumers had no other choice besides going without.
Today we have another choice. Use our cell phones. And they’re often superior experiences.
This will be reversed after much shareholder pain.
Sure, but that revenue stream only exists in a situation where the auto manufacturer has monopoly power (over that particular service).
Prior to cell phones, they had that power over navigation and could charge a fee for updated maps (annually via DVD initially).
Attempting to subvert the market and create a monopoly here is anti-consumer, anti-competitive, and very likely a short-sighted decision that GM will regret in 5 years.
At the moment GM (and Tesla...) is capacity constrained so no reason to appease customers any more than they need to. Not till you have excess supply. I think GM can take the hit for a year or two and see if other OEMs follow. If not they can always say "whoops, here's an OTA upgrade".
If other OEMs follow what will consumers do - besides mounting their cellphone on their dash.
It'd be like if United split Economy into say Basic Economy and Economy with the difference being Basic Economy doesn't let you pick a seat. And then in Economy, they charged to pick anything but a middle seat.
Some auto leases are about that much!
In fact I’m surprised no one has suggested banning cars on this thread yet. Someone always seems to pop up suggesting that in any thread remotely related to cars.
Never mind we can also enable the heated seats for you without your having to pay a subscription.
I want the infotainment system to be a dumb terminal for my phone, not yet another soon-to-be obsolete Android device chock full of spyware.
Android auto isn't great but it's definitely going to be better than whatever a car company is going to give me.
For a long time I said "Just give me keyless entry/start, bluetooth, and a backup camera and I'll be happy" but now I really want CarPlay as well. The car I was driving was much nicer than mine in a number of ways (adaptive cruise control, lane keeping assist, etc, all stuff I enjoyed) but CarPlay was the one thing I'd really love to have.
It's possible I was the victim of bad default settings, as I turned the whole thing off each time after this happened.
It's really frustrating for us when, e.g. we have the route to the final destination on screen but the passenger wants to look for a place to stop and eat. They either have to use the car touchscreen (intended for the driver and limiting for someone who can give it full attention) or juggle multiple maps apps or phones.
The only thing you can't do is separately play audio from the phone (because the CarPlay unit is basically serving as its output while it's connected), or use your maps app to do something different while the navigation is running on the CarPlay unit (because CarPlay is just a view into the phone's apps, and so they'll both be in navigation mode).
We ended up using Google Maps for this while navigating with Apple Maps.
No, just let me view the damn map on my phone and the car display?
GM showing itself to be actively user hostile with this.
Owners will be paying an extra subscription cost for these apps to be in their car which are already on their phone.
Google Maps subscription free in these GM EVs only for the first 8 years. Then you pay a subscription with recurring billing.
These vehicles are no longer a consideration with this user hostile orientation. I hope this sends GM to bankruptcy round 2 and deters other car manufacturers from this nonsense.
I already pay "subscriptions" for my car in the form of loan payments, insurance, and maintenance. I'm damn well not going to pay Mary Barra a monthly fee to use her crappy music service or enable my seat heaters to work.
in either case, it'll have a 15hz frame rate and 800ms of lag between input and response. i expect nothing better.
meanwhile, if we had a full-on apple car, it would probably have a 120hz truemotion display, well-calibrated spatial audio, and a fully-utilized M2 Max chip
i was bearish on the idea of an apple car years ago, but now with tesla withering, i'm practically begging for it
With dealer lots full of new vehicle inventory, she is choosing to lay off employees and shut down production instead of make reasonable price cuts.
And to double down on that delusion, she said that GM was “…poised to capture any upside in the market in 2023.”
Yeah no thanks. I have a 2023 Chevy Bolt EUV that I absolutely love, but I will not be buying another GM vehicle if this is what they’re going to be doing.
the "help" they are referring to is offloading the transmission of these parameters to your wireless device vs their built-in wireless device ($$$)
Is it? I’ve already turned off the Chevrolet Smart Driver or whatever it’s called, I know about that one sending data back to GM. And I canceled OnStar as soon as I purchased the vehicle, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn if it’s still siphoning data anyway.
Still, the situation would get worse for me because at least right now using CarPlay they aren’t getting all the data about which books or music I’m listening to.
Do the cars have some sort of spite-brick functionality built in if the cars can't phone home? This is purely curiosity; I doubt that I would ever buy a GM car.
1. GM cars suddenly sell for $2-3k less than competition
2. Competition scrambles to catch up, implements similar shenanigans to monetize the car computer
3. No more unrestricted CarPlay
(or they just stick a $20 google crapware box in the engine compartment between the battery and the motors, then call it good.)
Either way the competitor gets to charge a $2K markup for screen mirroring software.
The software in a Chevy Bolt EV is unbelievably bad, taking several second to respond to presses of the power button, which means your awful experience starts from the moment you get in the car. I suggest that GM mercifully assign each and every member of their software division to literally any other non-software role, and let someone with good taste take over.
I see nothing has changed despite Tesla existing for over 10 years now.
Even though the Tesla doesn't support CarPlay, it doesn't have to, because its native UI is great (and responsive!)
I can do most things without interacting with the touch screen at all.
Physical knobs and these systems def. do exist.
Well, shit.
Fine, give me bluetooth or give me death!
I have a car with just aux, and I bought a $37 aux to bluetooth adapter [1] that works perfectly. It is a small puck shaped thing you can attach on the dash, with physical buttons for play/pause/prev/next, a good-enough microphone and you can answer/end calls with the play button.
If they release Bluetooth 6.0 or whatever with cool new features, then in a couple of years when I've bought a phone that supports this, I can just buy a new Bluetooth adapter.
[1] https://www.ebay.com/itm/185493363534?hash=item2b30441b4e:g:...
Good to know they work quite well! Thank you.
I've had rentals with Carplay/Android Auto and they're kinda neat when they aren't a pain in the ass to set up (probably due to the cheap head units' software). But I already see nav and hear directions/music/podcasts/calls through the car's stereo.
I thought about upgrading the head unit from stock, but then I realized I was looking at a few hundred bucks at least. I don't spend enough time in my car to need a slightly bigger screen when I already have one right in front of me, sitting in its mount.
Not as if I'd rip the thing out if I got a car with Carplay/AA built=in. I just don't see it as a huge selling point.
There is, it's Apple CarPlay and Google Carwhatever. The whole point of these are that it basically replaces the entire car infotainment setup.
A good example: In 2015 I bought a tiny little Toyota Aygo (UK). It came with "Mirrorlink", it was the first car I'd ever owned that had a fancy touch screen, and it was advertised as working with iPhone's.
Now bearing in mind this was a brand new model, you can imagine how pissed off I was when I got the car, tried my phone and it didn't work, only to be told it only works with the iPhone 4 - we were on the 6S at that point.
To this day there has never been a software update. They continued selling that model with the misleading claims for about 4 years, eventually releasing a new model with carplay support. If I want carplay support added to mine, it needs the newer head unit which is around £900.
Car manufacturers are assholes. I dont want them having anything to do with the software, just make it work with carplay and android auto and then dont touch it, let the people that actually maintain their software on your phone deal with it all.
General Motors plans to phase out widely-used Apple CarPlay and Android Auto technologies that allow drivers to bypass a vehicle's infotainment systems, shifting instead to built-in infotainment systems developed with Google for future electric vehicles.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gm-plans-phase-apple-carplay-...
It will just suck for renters a bit more than before.
And I would pick Enterprise over Avis if it came down to availability of CarPlay.
That is because you need CarPlay if you have an iPhone. With these systems, one wouldn't have to connect anything. It doesn't matter which phone a person has.
I use CarPlay daily and it is my preferred way to personalize the car. Yes, I do use Maps in CarPlay because that is where my Contacts are and that is where I am searching for businesses and use that to find directions. I don't want to switch to another system just for directions and traffic notices. I don't care about routing to chargers on a daily basis. the only comes into play on a rare road trip.
I also use CarPlay for listening to podcasts using OverCast. I absolutely don't want to give that up just to make GM happy.
This left existing owners of car stereos produced from 2011 (when AOA was introduced with Android 3.1) on.
This also created a problem in that no car stereo manufacturer seems to have implemented UAC1 or UAC2 support, likely because it treats the stereo as a 'dumb' DAC, so you can't control playback using buttons on the stereo.
So, why did they remove AOA? My only guess is that it was done in order to push Android Auto. I believe that Google will just screw over existing users at the drop of a hat if a brand manager decides it might increase some market share metric.
The audio device needs to report a 2nd interface to the host for an HID device which can then send forward HID media key events like a USB keyboard.
I’d wager this is how AOA v2 handled it as well–I don’t see any mention of controls in the audio interface docs.
When you’re dropping $75k on a car, you expect it not to have any compromises.
In that context "this car won't integrate with your phone so you'll need to rely on shoddy BT at best" is a pretty major issue.
I wouldn't buy a toyota I wanted simply because it didn't have Carplay and their infotainment sucked.
They’re dropping Android Auto, the CarPlay equivalent.
They’re switching to Android Auto, the infotainment OS. Or is that Android Automotive? Or Android for Autos? Or Android Auto(motive?) OS, which is AAOS. Or something based on Android Open Source for cars or maybe Android Auto Open Source?
Which is not AOSP. Or Android. But kind of is.
I’m not in the Android world but I’m never sure what to call the car Android thing as opposed to the phone Android thing for use in cars.
Using Android Auto with your Android based auto. Sigh.
I give up. I’m going to go watch Apple TV on my Apple TV through the Apple made TV app.
Their argument is that they want to make the internal software as good or better. I'll remain open minded as well..but TBH I fully expect almost all car makers to do this. No sane company would spend billions making a product and then let some other company overlay over it and make all the money.
The second was (and this is anecdotal, I was not directly involved in the conversations) the way that Apple and especially Google were behaving about data. Google wanted all of the data off the Infotainment system, and a bunch of the data from the car, and they were not willing to share any of that data back with us. They wanted it all for themselves.
Over the years, my company moved because it was a customer demand. My boss when I was hired said that a person would never buy a vehicle because of the infotainment system, but it might push them over the edge.
Last summer Apple said 78% of new car buyers want CarPlay. Not “or Android Auto”. CarPlay. (Note: may be US specific, don’t know)
Someone tried to look it up and ask around. And the basic idea is that new cars are more expensive than ever and going up. And that means if you’re buying a new car (as opposed to used) you have more money. And, at least in the US, that correlates highly with iPhone ownership.
If that’s true, that means that dropping CarPlay (even if you kept Android Auto, which GM isn’t) you’d be heavily annoying the vast majority of your buyers. Not 51%, but 78%.
I don’t think you can remove CarPlay and succeed at this point. Consumer demand is too strong. Now add in Android Auto diehards.
It's going to support applications like Spotify. I don't want to sit in my car and get Spotify installed, get logged in, and get it configured on my infotainment system. Same with other apps and services. Same with my Google account. I don't want to do any of that.
When I bring my phone, whatever apps I care about are already set up and ready to go. It's just easier.
And I'm someone who can figure out how. Imagine how delightful it will be for people who aren't very tech savvy.
> “We do believe there are subscription revenue opportunities for us,” Edward Kummer, GM’s chief digital officer, added. The company is targeting $20 billion to $25 billion in annual revenue from subscriptions by 2030.
Yech
I really, really do not want a subscription. My Teslas' subscription appears to be at cost; I doubt Tesla is making billions off of subscription fees for maps.
But, even though Tesla's infotainment system is a lot more slick than Android Auto, I must admit that at times I'd rather use that. I still use Youtube Music, which my Teslas do not have an app for. I haven't switched to Spotify because I don't want another subscription.
(I also think there is a way to share my phone's internet with the car and avoid the subscription, but I suspect the increased data could cost almost as much as the car's subscription anyway.)
It sounds like it wouldn't be a great experience, since YouTube probably has features that Bluetooth doesn't support. But does it at least solve the main part of the problem, or does that somehow not work?
(I have a podcast app that I sometimes play through Bluetooth when I can't connect via Android Auto. The Bluetooth version is less good, but it does let me listen even when my cable is flaky.)
Use their system or use Bluetooth like it’s 2004.
That’s not a great choice, even if their system is great.
We've replaced the unit in the Sprinter RV with a JVC (which, from what I can gather, is just a Chinese brand that bought the name) for something like $300. We pretty much only use CarPlay in that vehicle, which is fine because the rest of the unit is pretty low-end, including the UI. But the CarPlay piece gets the job done.
This is getting so tiresome. Not only have car prices exploded, now we have to pay for subscription features too.
I just don't know how much more of this we can take. Companies no longer innovate. They all just rent seek because there's no true competition anymore.
Android Auto is much better than Apple Carplay. Carplay was janky and the navigation stuttered. Also the layout of the on-screen UI was weird, and poorly thought out. As usual I think, Android Auto is probably designed to work ok on any size screen and gracefully degrade. Carplay is probably impeccable on a few cars and crap on the rest (like this Camry).
But my pain point is that it would be easy not to notice that this exists. My mum for example has a very new car, I'm sure it supports Android Auto, I'd be shocked if she knew it exists. GM could make plenty of money from people who don't know Android Auto/Carplay exists (or from those that prefer to not need a phone), while still supporting Auto/Carplay for those that want it.
It's worked fine with various sizes of screen.
As far as lag, there's some lag when using wireless Carplay mostly IME for audio playback, basically akin to the same delay when using Bluetooth.
I've never had nav issues with Apple Maps, but since iOS 16 or so, Google Maps frequently has issues where it stops updating my current location and gets stuck until I force-quit the app and re-open it, so that's a bummer.
Otherwise it's been fine. Handy the time I had to use a Kia rental and as soon as my phone was paired to it it was like my own personal car.
Oh cool, a company reducing features so they can collect more data on me.
There is a lot of information to digest when buying a car, particularly EVs. If the salesperson says "oh yeah, you can just plug your iphone in" I can see a certain % of people assuming it has actual CarPlay support and not bothering to demo that feature. It's the kind of thing you might not notice until after you've actually brought the car home.
People overwhelmingly don't want another device to manage. This is overwhelmingly true for both tech-savvy types and folks who are allergic to tech.
They are comfortable with their phones and don't go anywhere without them and they would just like the info screen on their car to be a relatively dumb display device for their phones.
GM is committing suicide here, what an idiotic move.
I've used maps/navigation with Android Auto, but really, it's the audio directions that are the killer app, not a visual map. So I usually just set it up on my phone, and not my cars screen.
What else is there to do on a car's touchscreen? Or are we just in the novelty phase of this technology? I'll admit it was a deciding factor in my latest car purchase. But the novelty has worn off, and if it would have been an optional feature with an additional cost, I would certainly have buyer's remorse.
I was uninterested in CarPlay until my last car had it. Now it’s a requirement for any car purchase. Similarly I was uninterested in wireless CarPlay (how hard is it to connect a Lightning cable) until my next car had it. I’d be a little more lenient on no wireless, but it is really convenient.
For sure. GM is operating based on fear here — just as carriers were terrified of being "dumb pipes", vehicle makers are terrified of being "dumb boxes". Somehow GM is under the delusion that Google is their friend, and that alienating Apple users won't impact vehicle buying decisions. GM will learn the hard way that both are incorrect.
"Buyers of GM EVs with the new systems will get access to Google Maps and Google Assistant, a voice command system, at no extra cost for eight years, GM said. GM said the future infotainment systems will offer applications such as Spotify's music service, Audible and other services that many drivers now access via smartphones"
Maybe the real money is in services?
It's possible they may sell fewer cars, but make more money overall. The article says they think they can generate $20-$25 billion of subscription revenue by 2030. That's the revenue from about 400,000 vehicles. If their vehicle sales drop by less than 17%, they win.
I don't care if it's "rational" behavior for the business; it's disgusting and shouldn't be allowed. The good of society should always come before increasing profits even higher for already-massive, already-highly-profitable companies.
Well I guess this will be my last GM vehicle!
The new system runs off "Google Automotive Services" (AKA: GAS - Native Google Android on the car's computer hardware) complete with the Play Store. Apple could always build iMessage and Apple Maps for GAS.
Every once in a while I end up renting a car that doesn't have CarPlay support and it sucks. CarPlay is great and it does what I need (music and directions, with the occasional message) while also keeping everything in sync with my phone.
> GM said it expects its in-car subscription services to generate nearly $2 billion in revenue this year and will reach as high as $25 billion by the end of the decade
I assume they view Carplay/Android Auto as a barrier to their subscription plans. Why would I pay for Map Updates, or Sirius subscription or whatever if I can just plug my phone in?
I would think a lot of people would just get a phone holder for their car, or just choose another car.
I mean GPS's charging for map updates hasn't been mainstream for 10ish years?
> Alan Wexler [...] indicated that consumers were willing to pay up to $135 per month on services for their vehicles
I'm sure they're working at this backwards, in that there's this bucket of money sitting there, and how to charge $135/mo to get at it.
There's a good argument that Apple is the bad guy here too: Their restriction of iMessage APIs and App-data over Bluetooth makes Carplay (and in a like way, the Apple Watch) the only real choice for iPhone owners. One could say they are taking the whole industry over the coals with this lockout which allows them to have people pay them app store subscriptions. There is a running line that "Apple believes they own every dollar that is spent on your iPhone", with carplay, it's every dollar in your car too.
Seems really short sighted, I feel most folks would use the built-in stuff but having the option to cast from a phone is a must have escape hatch.
Wireless CarPlay on our Bolt EV is one of the best features, sad to see that go.
But no CarPlay? You can keep your Blazer, Chevy, we're going to go buy a Kia.
I guess I won't have to look out for them in the future.
"We do believe there are subscription revenue opportunities for us," Kummer said. GM Chief Executive Mary Barra is aiming for $20 billion to $25 billion in annual revenue from subscriptions by 2030.
We bought a Toyota recently that will require us to pay to use the app if we want to keep using remote start. The app does nothing, but for some reason remote start is locked behind the subscription. I won’t be paying for it.
More seriously, Automotive is basically the car running Android, rather than running some custom firmware that can receive the “mirror” content from CarPlay/Auto. Because this means it’ll be running a full app platform, I wonder if CarPlay/Auto could be implemented on top of Automotive with relative ease. It may even be possible for Apple to publish a CarPlay app on the Play Store for example.
It can, and already has. Google offers an official Android Auto Receiver app for Android Automotive that allows for wired/wireless Android Auto projection onto an AAOS head unit. (It requires build integration so it can't just be installed from Google Play, but it's an option for OEMs.)
As for CarPlay, there's no official integration package from Apple, but it can be done, as demonstrated by Polestar.
That seems crazy to me. People might be coming to terms with subscription but 80$/month is an expensive one and you also need to convince them to pay that for a car - not excatly a natural market for it.
Aren't they way too optimistic on this one?
So no, they're right in line with right how they want to gouge customers.
These articles always call out Tesla as a success but clearly they have a cult following and have other innovations. Personally, lack of CarPlay is the reason I hate driving Teslas because if you’re not used to it the UI is abysmal.
Sorry but the Buick brand just doesn’t scream cutting edge UI to me.
Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The lede is buried as usual.
I’m buying another brand that doesn’t pull this shit.
If it came down to choosing between a GM without CarPlay and a Ford or Toyota with CarPlay, I wouldn't choose a GM.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/204267444756?hash=item2f8f49da14:g:...
But I'm 100% sure it won't be like that. I'm also 100% sure, the reason they plan to do it, is to force people into OnStar subscription for data. I'm not paying $35+ per month when I have phone in my pocket.
Most buyers wouldn't notice right away at least during the test drive and the absence of carplay will be noticed later in their ownership experience. By then the loss of payment/friction in changing cars will keep them tied to their purchase.
Back in 2006, Apple went to Verizon and wanted certain concessions from them for the iPhone - including no third party crapware. Verizon refused. Apple went to their competitor AT&T who did accept Apple’s demands.
Verizon started losing customers and they came crawling back yo Apple.
Apple did the same in other countries with the same results.
I love my car, it has a 1 din radio. Many years ago I replaced the tape deck with a unit that had a CD player. A few years after that, I had a 3.5mm aux jack and even a USB charger for my iPod Classic. After that - bluetooth baby. It works like a dream and it was like 30 bucks at walmart.
But look at the positive end: having a bland one screen for interfacing with your phone is ridiculous. And car manufacturers want to move those "buttons" around that interface with your phone. Like something that integrates with maps. And the podcast and radio. And the messaging and calling. Something that can move the map display to right above the steering wheel. Something that can move the messaging and video to windshield. And something that can let me switch sources for podcast and radio.
I don't think they will be able to pull it off. But I do hope they try.
I did it to my Nissan Sentra 2011, no regrets. Such a value add. GM deserves whatever they get for this move.
A recent survey had 87% of people between 14-25 in the US own iPhones and nearly 80% of those who made over median income own iPhones.
Who does GM think is buying new vehicles when economy car base prices are pushing $30k? Someone with a free government Android phone is not dropping $30k+ on a new car.
I can’t wait to see GM go out of business from this sheer stupidity.
The state of "journalism" in 2023.
C'mon, this is getting pretty awful
To get an idea of what to expect, see Volvo's GBI page - https://www.volvocars.com/intl/v/connectivity/infotainment-p...
"You can still drive the car and use Google Assistant and Google Maps without a Google Account. However, if you’re offline or signed out, some apps and features may not be available. Google Play requires a logged in Google Account whereas Google Assistant and Google Maps will not be as personalised in the signed-out experience."
If I'm spending $80,000 on a car it better be perfect in every way, and every little bit of it matters because I don't want to be disappointed in any part of it. I would hate getting into my $80,000 car every day and knowing that I wasn't getting what I wanted from it.