GM dealers aren’t happy future EVs won’t support CarPlay | Hacker News Reader

GM dealers aren’t happy future EVs won’t support CarPlay

9to5mac.com

28 pointsuptown34 comments

I still don't get what Google software GM is targeting, exactly. If it's Android Automotive (not Android Auto), that ecosystem supports CarPlay. The new Volvo IVI is already doing it and it's in production.

From a linked article to the OP: "GM has been working with Google since 2019 to develop the software that will be used in future electric cars."

So is there going to be a third auto ecosystem from Google? I guess that's not surprising if true. What a mess.

I'm not familiar with GM's collab with Google, but if I'm understanding it right, it'll probably be a major Android Auto fork that's only available in GM cars.

Doubtful it will be based upon Android Auto since that is primarily a phone mirroring system similar to Carplay. It is likely an Android Automotive based system. Android Automotive is Google's infotainment OS. GM already has cars in production which use Android Automotive. There is nothing about Android Automotive which precludes the use of Carplay, and Carplay is already supported in other Android Automotive based infotainment systems. This is a GM decision to attempt to drive subscription revenues.

So why isn't GM getting out there and saying "don't worry, you can still use CarPlay"?

Unless the GM fork will prohibit it to maximize the data flowing to Google?

Because GM has made the decision to not support Carplay so they can drive subscription revenue. It has nothing to do with driving data to Google.

If it's a fork. It's not going to be great.

Anything made/modified by a car manufacturer will be absolute shit. Tesla and Rivian do a decent job from what I’ve heard but one could argue they are more software companies that make cars than the other way around. Also a huge complaint from users on both cars is they want CarPlay/Android Auto. Side note: how is Google so terrible at naming? (Auto/Automotive, it’s like they are trying to be confusing)

Car manufacturers are completely incompetent in this area, just give me a way to put my phone screen on the built in screen, just be a “dumb pipe”. This last the last gasp of failed arm of car makers (software) just like when the carriers lost that battle to Apple/Google.

Apple makes you jump through a large amount of hoops and approvals to allow CarPlay to work. Combine that with the incompetent manufacturers and you get this situation.

The manufacturers still have to make something to run on the screen. The owner may not have a phone, you're federally required to show a backup camera in all situations, etc etc etc.

Not defending anything here, just explaining that it's not as simple as "just" putting up a dumb pipeline.

If you count the purchase of Waze they have 4, plus the dead version of Android Auto that ran entirely on your phone.

I'm still mad at them for killing the standalone Android Auto. Google maps by itself is a sucky version of that and Waze is not as good either.

Waze is such a lost opportunity. Imagine if that crowdsourced data (accidents, traffic jams, obstacles, speed traps, etc) was integrated into the car itself instead of running in an offboard app.

Sorry, what is Volvo IVI?

In-vehicle infotainment system

My wife had two requirements for her new car, it looks cute and has CarPlay. I think in that order too. She's a complete normie though.

Same with my gf. Carplay is a must. She’s a normie but i think a lot of all-in Apple customers feel this way. For millions, there will be no need to even look at GM.

What is really going on here is that Google is trying once more to get all your data one way or another [0]. I would bet that Google offered a lot of money for GM to have Google automotive as their platform.

I really like GM and believe that they have a strong chance in the EV market long term but this essentially will prevent me from ever getting one of those cars.

[0] https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-data-google-collects-...

I don't get it.

The data mentioned in your link can also be collected from a phone connected to the vehicle. What is the problem then?

Does the author think that just because it's running on an ECU it will have unrestricted access to all vehicle data?? Does he not understand that a modern vehicle contains of multiple isolated networks??

>> The data mentioned in your link can also be collected from a phone connected to the vehicle. What is the problem then?

Exactly. With the phone connected I have the option to NOT connect the phone and NOT connect google auto. With google automotive that option disappears.

>> Does the author think that just because it's running on an ECU it will have unrestricted access to all vehicle data??

How much data is too much? It looks like it will be at least able to scrape your location.

9to5mac today:

   "GM dealers aren’t happy future EVs won’t support CarPlay: ‘There’s an infinite number of ways this could go bad'"

Probably 9to5Google in a few days:

    "GM dealers are excited about the new Android Auto in all future EVs: ‘Our customers love Google Maps'"

Just kidding, 9to5Google is basically the 9to5mac editors pretending they don't hate Google and android to make a few more bucks. They would never write something that is even remotely negative for apple.

You might be shocked at the market share of iOS devices in the US, especially when it comes to people who have disposable income to do things like buying new cars

Hmm - maybe its a GM 5D chess move... get the GM dealers to fold/close so GM corporate can go direct to consumer. Then when they all close, re-introduce CarPlay support.

This. And then all the cars in the field will support CarPlay. I think the majority of dealers would fold in less than a year.

This is gonna be a fiasco similar to when apple forced their own maps on everyone and subsequently had to backtrack with an apology. Apple maps is very good now but not when it released.

They made the mistake of taking away an existing feature before releasing something better and then deprecating the legacy stuff.

Which existing feature did they remove? You could still use Google maps (and you still can).

In ye olden days, Apple didn’t have its own mapping application, and Google Maps was the default map application for iOS. That changed in iOS 6 when Apple launched Apple Maps, users were defaulted to the inferior app. Google Maps wouldn’t launch its own standalone app on iOS for months (years?).

https://techcrunch.com/2012/09/26/the-apple-ios-6-maps-fiasc...

Mostly right... since iOS came out there has been an app called maps, which was using google apis until iOS6, which is the point people started differentiating "Apple Maps" and "Google maps".

IIRC, one of the big reasons it was an upsetting change is there wasn't an option to change default apps and google didn't even have a maps app when iOS6 dropped, so if someone sent you an address, or you clicked on an address link, it always would open in the apple version. Which at the time was dogshit terrible, it was like stepping back in time 5 years.

This because GM wants the recurring revenue from subscription services, etc., right? They're partnering with google for the software, probably some services, then they get to rent functionality to their customers.

Anyway, no CarPlay just removes them from consideration for me.

Well there goes any remaining chance I’d be buying a GM - why would I ever want my car to provide all my driving information to a spyware company?

You misread. It won't support Apple CarPlay.

... you are kidding right?

Any suggestion that google is somehow less of a spyware company than apple is laughably and objectively false.

But it doesn't matter, because they're both companies, and companies are inherently not your friend, so you shouldn't be thinking that your boo will be on your side forever (also see companies claiming that they're "a family"). That Qpple's business model is not dependent on spying on users, and Google's business model is dependent on no one having privacy is clearly a significant factor today. But in 10 years who knows? Corporations follow money, and there's only so much weight given to "our heartfelt truest of true beliefs of our customer's rights".

But that's still moot, as I don't use either system on any car, but now GM has built google's tracking infrastructure into the core of the car's "entertainment" system. If you use a car with android or apple car, the software is only running if you are using that with your device. Now GM is just saying screw it, Google is paying us to install their software as the only system on the car - do you really think google is doing that out of concern that to support GM's bottom line, or because google's entire business model is built on spying on people?

> but now GM has built google's tracking infrastructure into the core of the car's "entertainment" system.

No, GM is building Android Automotive into every car. Android Automotive is the automotive equivalent to AOSP and can be used with or without Google Automotive Services, which is the automotive equivalent to Google Play Services. Open source is your friend and the only way to guarantee that you are in control of your data. It doesn't matter whether Apple's business model is currently a lower fraction based on spying on its users. It will grow that business, as it has repeatedly signalled, because it ultimately wants to increase profits.

No. Currently I do not use either Apple's or Google's software for my car, now GM is saying all their cars will _always_ be running Google's software, and Google is an advertising company, who's entire profit model is built on top of invading privacy.

> Open source is your friend and the only way to guarantee that you are in control of your data.

Sure, if you can read all the code yourself, but it's kind of moot because:

* Android isn't open source, especially any Google [X] Service code

* Even if it were 100% open source all it means is you get to see the code sending your data to Google.

* It removes any choice for the user: there's no option to choose "do I trust google with my data", "do I trust apple with my data", or "just play music without touching the internet"

> It doesn't matter whether Apple's business model is currently a lower fraction based on spying on its users

I get that you have decided Apple is the enemy, but we need to be clear here. Apple's entire product marketing and product differentiation is privacy at the moment. Maybe in the future they will change (as I said earlier, companies are not your friend, and thinking one is on your side is not sensible), but to hold apple's potential future actions as equivalent to a company like Google, who's entire current business model is built on spying on people is nonsense. You might prefer google's semi-open source model but that doesn't mean it's inherently superior, and more to the point doesn't detract from my position on privacy of consumer data.

> Android isn't open source, especially any Google [X] Service code

As I explained in my previous post, AOSP and Android Automotive are open source and contain no Google service code.

> Even if it were 100% open source all it means is you get to see the code sending your data to Google.

It is, and we can indeed. It's exactly none.

> Apple's entire product marketing and product differentiation is privacy at the moment.

You confused product marketing with product differentiation. I grant you that Apple markets privacy. It does not actually deliver it, with iOS sharing more data with Apple that you cannot stop than even Google-flavored Android builds share with Google. You cannot get your location on iOS without sending your location to Apple, and you cannot install an app on iOS without telling Apple that you installed it.

Sweet, sweet short term monthly payments. Dumb.

Is it? A vehicle lasts for decades.

$10/mo * 20 years = $2400. That's almost an extra 5% you get over the purchase price, nicely hidden away at the time of sale.

You also self-select for the sort of customer who will put up with being treated like that. There's one born every minute.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com