Regardless of whether you prefer Apple or Google, the benefit of phone projection is that you can get a good experience with relatively low specs from the head unit because the heavy lifting is done by the phone which can be upgraded independently of the car.
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.)
I actually got rid of a chevy truck for this precise reason. GMs design choices in their god-awful infotainment system was so annoying I couldn't stand using it. I got rid of that thing within a year and traded it for a F150, which had a significantly better UI and support for apple carplay (even though it required it to be plugged in).
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.
I recently drove a brand new Chevy Bolt. It seemed to have a navigation system, but whenever I tried to activate it, I think it tried to make a phone call to a human(?). Anyway, it doesn't have a keyboard, and doesn't seem to even have onboard voice recognition. Hard pass.
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.
A daily infuriation for me is that my wife’s 2016 Chevy Equinox does not have a way for you to adjust the default volume of the radio in the firmware for some inexplicable reason. When you power on the vehicle, it’s set to “10” on some arbitrary radio station. There is no way to start the car with the volume muted - you are forced to always have the radio on or turn off the entire unit.
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:
We had din sized standards for years. Every display now is still some sort of rectangle. There's no reason we can't come up with another din-like standard for displays. Put some fucking 10 cents RCA connectors on it so I can hook up some amps and speakers that don't suck. Put a CAN bus interface so that may head unit can read all that data from your car and display it. Then you can buy whatever infortainment system you want and keep your car from becoming a dated turd inside.
The huge advantage of having the phone running the infotainment is that you already pay for the phone's data connection. If the car does it you need to pay an additional subscription to get that data connection.
I 90% agree, but also, there's a ton of informational & sensors & systems that need control. With physical knobs/dials/switches/buttons disappearing, the main console now has a lot more obligations than just infotainment like it used to, and it's not clear that letting a phone run the show is really viable with what's afoot, given the scope of systems the display has to control. Wait, sorry. It's not clear how we'd get sufficient data to the phone to let it try. We just don't have clear starting places to let the phone act as a good puppet-master over such an expansive complex multi-screened roving multi-functional device.
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.
Yes, removing CarPlay is not a great move, and is rightfully being bashed in this thread -- but these kinds of OEM integrations are far beyond a smartphone subsitute, especially given what's coming down the pipe for auto. As you allude to in your comment already, CarPlay is a "projection", a one-way deal -- whereas most of these integrations make heavy use of data from car sensors, which enables a lot of high fidelity features (including self-driving and advanced HUD indicators) that simply aren't possible with a smartphone, no matter how "independently upgraded" it is.
In the future, perhaps phones can integrate better with cars and enable that kind of experience, but we aren't there today.
You are being down voted in part because you're factually wrong. Apple Carplay is not one-way projection. The phone receives inputs from the car, such as screen touches, the microphone audio from the driver for phone calls, button presses, GPS signals, and even wheel speed information for navigation in tunnels.
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.
And I don't need that level of integration. The passive CarPlay UI projection is exactly what I want. It's not all about driving to charging stations. That is a rare occurrence.
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.
Part of that package is flawless CarPlay integration.
It’s simplified the music and navigation experience
more than I ever thought possible.
Yes. CarPlay and Android Auto support is absolute table stakes for me to even consider a vehicle.
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.
> 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.
It's not supposition. Every vehicle that has telematics hardware, regardless of subscription status or options purchased, is sending a near constant stream of location, vehicle, and environmental data back to the manufacturer.
The only way to stop it is to disconnect the antenna for the cellular modem or cut its power.
> if something demonstrably and overwhelmingly better came along.
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.
It works exactly like having a Mac/PC and a phone.
Right. It's now two devices to manage (car and phone) instead of a single one (just your phone, which treats the car like a second monitor)
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.
> It works exactly like having a Mac/PC and a phone
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.
Presumably the downvotes are because, from the point of view of an Apple user, every single thing you mentioned is demonstrably worse.
- 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.
My biggest issue with this would be that the Apple Music app only streams from the streaming service. Those of use happily chugging along with iTunes purchases and iTunes Match are out of luck.
> 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.
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.
I don’t think I would buy a car that didn’t have CarPlay. I’m an iPhone user and have no interest in changing my phone.
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 to mention, isn’t CarPlay just an interface for the phone to be able to connect to so the screen can display the software operating on the phone?
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.
problem is (from GM's perspective), with CarPlay, Apple takes over the UX of the car...the Apple logo is the first and last thing people see when driving
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
The reactions in this thread are interesting, because they seem to imply that this is the final straw that has convinced us to not buy Chevrolets and Buicks, as opposed to the last 30+ years of of their products being generally terrible.
If I needed a full-size truck, I'd consider a GM (alongside Toyota and Ford). Without CarPlay, I'll buy one of the other brands.
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.
My household has 3 EV Chevy cars - Volt, Bolt, Spark. Buying another Chevy EV at some point was certainly a possibility.
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.
Personally, I LOVE my (2019) Volt. FWIW, it also has AA/Car Play.
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.
It's been hard to predict the quality of electric vehicles based on the same brand's ICE/hybrid vehicles.
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].
Sort of. I know Tesla owners who've bought Bolts as secondary cars but would not otherwise be caught dead in a GM car. There are people who buy Corvettes who wouldn't consider another GM car. I avoid American cars at all costs but was still considering a Bolt before this news.
Exactly. I’ve long joked that buying a Buick in the modern era is a sign of severe brain trauma. Even the economic argument doesn’t make sense when you consider the reliability.
I said my next car would have to have CarPlay but the Tesla software in my Y is good enough to live without it. I rent a lot of cars with CarPlay, and like it, but now that the Tesla software supports both Apple Music and Spotify, I’m good. That said, I wouldn’t buy a car that supported Google Carwhatever but not Apple CarPlay.
Back in 2017, I didnt buy a toyota for the first time because they didn't offer carplay. I refuse to be stuck with a subpar experience for the 10 years I normally keep a vehicle. Absolutely ridiculous to not support both CarPlay and Android Auto.
That's where I'm at. Our 2016 Toyota has their horrible Entune system, and however much I like everything else about it, that thing irritates me every time I look at it.
Not only that but wireless CarPlay. I recently picked up a '23 RAV4 and I didn't think it would matter but the difference is noticeable. At least in this model it's connected before I'm even out of my garage.
They probably see how well Tesla/Rivian sell and they do not have carplay. I guess you are limited to what you can do with a carplay/andriod auto implementation. However, I prefer carplay vs any other (including tesla's) implementation. I'm sure there is an aspect to increased complexity as well.
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'm glad to see that I'm not alone in that being an absolute requirement for a car purchase. I guess it's not surprising that GM is making another stupid move though.
I'm honestly surprised anybody is still buying GM cars/trucks.
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!)
I will only rent a car if it has CarPlay. If it doesn't then I will rent another vehicle. It's not worth trying to get maps/phone setup in a car that I haven't driven and in a location that I am unfamiliar with. Where CarPlay allows me to use the same UI, apps settings et al that make it significantly easier.
> ”GM will absolutely lose this battle. Idiotic move.”
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.
“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.”
Ah yes pissing off your customers because you think they’ll not just accept a worse experience, they’ll actually pay more for it. It’s a bold strategy.
They sell 2.2M cars a year, so if 5 model years of cars are involved, that's >$2200 ARPU. This makes no sense at all. It's orders of magnitude too high.
This isn't actually a problem because Gen-Z can't afford a GM vehicle anyway. The domestic manufacturers have abandoned the affordable vehicle segment to all fight over the high margin luxury business. Even basic pickup trucks are $60k and rotting on dealer lots because the luxury vehicle market just isn't big enough for all of the people who want to be there.
If you listen to HN, GenZ worships bicycles and public transportation and is clamoring to ban cars ASAP when the Boomers and Xers die off.
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.
I largely ignored CarPlay since it came out since my car didn't support it and I didn't feel like I was missing much vs my mounted phone but recently I borrowed a car for a few days that had CarPlay and I really enjoyed it. So much better than anything from any car manufacturer and the integration was flawless. In fact, my biggest issue was figuring out how to get back into the CarPlay UI from the car default UI when I started the car (I'm sure there was an easy way and I took a convoluted way).
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.
Does carplay hijack the phone pretty aggressively? I've tried the Android one a few times, but it prevents manipulation of the phone while you're riding and the phone has to ask of the head unit (and be rejected) permission to disable Bluetooth to restore the phone. Then you have to ask the driver to get, unlock, and relinquish his phone for you to accomplish the task.
It's possible I was the victim of bad default settings, as I turned the whole thing off each time after this happened.
It used to work as more of a screen mirror (e.g. if the passenger changes apps on the phone the CarPlay screen would change as well) but they updated it a few years ago and now they are totally independent, except there’s only one “version” of each app so if you change the navigation destination on the phone it’ll change on the CarPlay screen.
It used to, but a few years ago (2019 I think?) they changed so that it's a properly separate display.
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).
IME the iPhone works normally, but if you have a navigation app running a route that app turns into a list of the next steps with no options to view a map, add a stop, or manipulate anything.
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.
Wow ditching both Apple CarPlay and Android Auto to target $20 billion to $25 billion in subscription revenue.
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.
And of course there is zero chance GM's software will be even 1/10 as easy to use as Apple's because no car manufacturer (except maybe Tesla) understands UI software or even acknowledges that it's important.
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.
i see it going two ways:
1. they do skeumorphic design in a way where comes out as a giant touchscreen with a bunch of static buttons like you see with physical interfaces on a car
2. very deep menus. e.g., a dozen taps to switch from radio to bluetooth
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
GM are seriously deluded if they think they can get anywhere near those figures. We all know how crappy their software will be, and why on earth would they think anyone will be stupid enough to pay a subscription for it when its free on every other car.
I think GMs backs are against the wall here. GMs margins are already so thin on most of that inventory (aside from top trims of trucks) that they’d be basically paying customers to take the cars off the lot. On top of that they lose a bunch of money on warranty claims and have no sustainable subscription models currently. GMs strategy is basically to cut off their nose to spite their face.
> GM’s move to restrict access to CarPlay and Android Auto […] will help the automaker capture more data on its customers’ driving, listening, and charging habits. It could also help inform future subscription products, as automakers across the board are seeking to generate more revenue beyond just selling cars.
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.
> your 2023 chevy bolt euv is already streaming all of your driving parameters to GM via onstar.
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.
My understanding is that CarPlay costs nothing other than implementation costs for car makers and head unit makers. Do you hav proof otherwise? This cost delta seems unlikely based just on CarPlay and Android Auto.
I would never buy a car that did not support both Android Auto and CarPlay. In fact, that is why I did not buy a Prius.
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.
Readit News
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.)
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.
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.
https://www.terrainforum.net/threads/radio-always-comes-on-w...
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):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09SG31NPT/
GM has done this so they can charge monthly fees, and it sucks.
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.
In the future, perhaps phones can integrate better with cars and enable that kind of experience, but we aren't there today.
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.
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?
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.
https://boingboing.net/2018/10/23/dont-touch-that-dial.html
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
Not mine. Oh well, another reason to skip GM.
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...
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.
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.
Isn’t this just the gift that just keeps on giving?
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
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.
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...
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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!)