Cars add all this software and soft-button shit and then angle to lock it all behind subscriptions anyway.
What's the point when you can just use a phone anyway? Just rip it all out, save a packet on software development and partner with Brodit to add a nice stock phone holder for an extra 5 euros in wholesale BOM costs.
Well presumably they do it to make money. And they definitely arent going to get rid of the screen. Used for backup camera and other stuff. Backup cameras are required by law in the US on new cars.
Due to safety and emissions regulations we just cant have a dead simple car even as a niche option.
They could charge for the screen and give the option to use a connected phone as screen instead. To use that phone you'd have to install the car manufacturer's app which could leech data from the user whether it was anywhere near the car or not.
Another alternative would be to use the dashboard screen - where the speedometer etc. used to be - to show the backup camera image, the speedometer isn't really needed when backing up anyway.
I like the approach Slate has taken - basically, bring your own device, then connect to the vehicle with our app. I'm not super confident that Slate will last as a company, and leaving subscription money on the table might be one reason they don't last. But I like this approach and I wish more companies would do it.
It's not in production but I read that Slate, the modular EV startup, is explicitly not putting any screens and letting out your own device on the console. Seems like the obvious way to do it.
I recently purchased a used car, but one of the criteria was to not have all of this subscription/telemetry nonsense. The in dash head unit is new enough to have bluetooth connectivity, but no navigation or anything. It wanted to sync my contacts, but at least gave me the option of not doing that. I'm assuming it was to be used for displaying the caller's name instead of just the number on the display, but anytime someone asks to sync contacts it is a hard no on principle. As you said, just use the phone. Being in the holder I can see it before the in-dash display anyways.
My partner replaced her 11 year BMW 5 GT with a new X4 last month. The nav is slow (probably updates the view twice a second) and out of date. I think it needs new roads updating via a USB stick.
The Android Auto and Carplay integration are fantastic though - silky smooth (better than the phone they're coming from) and always up to date.
Built-in navigation is more important and useful for long trips in an EV, where you want the nav to have detailed information on how much battery charge you have left and incorporate charging stops along your trip.
That's basically Tesla's secret sauce, their charger network + in-car nav makes taking trips in an EV pretty easy.
Android Auto and CarPlay are starting to incorporate these features though for cars that support sending those stats to the phone.
May I suggest caching/downloading your map data? Google Maps for example will allow you to cache areas. I used it when traveling cross country. Super duper valuable.
That's surprising, I have a '23 X6, and the built-in navigation is actually really nice. The maps have more detailed information than both Google and Apple Maps in many areas. I also haven't observed any lag/stuttering, but perhaps the hardware is worse or something on newer models.
Anyway, for me at least, the benefit of the built-in nav is not about routing, which is basically always worse than Google/Apple at this point, but about having detailed, offline maps. In my experience, offline Google/Apple maps are less detailed, and you have to download them in advance.
I use all three, depending on my needs at the time - each of them have their strengths. I prefer Google/Apple maps for day to day routing and things like that, but if I'm somewhere with poor signal, I use the native maps to navigate, because they are just more reliable.
It's all subjective though, and probably highly specific to location.
It’s awful if the vendor makes it awful. Know that this is deliberate lack of investment and not that it’s impossible. To my knowledge, there’s a few companies doing it right:
Tesla, whose nav is pretty great and responsive
Rivian, who appears to have copied a lot of the Tesla UI elements (and, has lots of former Tesla employees) and the snappiness and great nav is part of that.
Any car using Android automotive (different from Android auto) such as the Polestar lineup. Basically gives you an Android tablet with Google Maps, so nav is great, and it seems to be all held to a certain level of responsiveness.
Haven’t been on a Tesla recently but I really disliked the navigation system of the one we rented a while back. Small buttons, and common settings buried in multiple menu layers. What I like about Apple CarPlay and Android auto is that the UI is pretty consistent because it’s driven by the device I have with me.
I would never buy a car that doesn’t have CarPlay integration. I’ve rented a Tesla enough times to know that their infotainment system is a reason not to get it.
The built in navigation is a backup to preferred options like Waze, Google Maps, etc. via android/apple auto. You use those in normal situations and fallback to the car's navigation when you have to. It's not really competing with those nav solutions in my opinion.
Navigation does cost money though. Even maintaining a basic map.
One thing I would love to see is more industry collaborations to make software. The nav system of Honda/Toyota/Ford is never going to be a differentiator on the core product. Chip in resources to get a core platform that each vendor can cosmetically tweak.
Of course, this never happens, because humans. Yet I still dream.
My 2012 VW Passat’s system was the most responsive and dead-on accurate GPS I’ve ever used in a car or a phone. The only thing that beats it are handheld dedicated GPS units designed for ships and rescue workers.
That said, the maps got out of date and couldn’t be updated without a $200 SD card, which was annoying.
I have no idea about Android, but my understanding is for wired CarPlay a GPS in the dash is optional and for wireless CarPlay its required. The thinking is you can use a larger, better placed antennae. If you're using wireless CarPlay you may have your phone hidden away.
I’ve always wondered why manufacturers don’t just bump the sticker up by whatever the estimated LTV of these subscriptions would be. If you want to buy a new F-150, there’s functionally no difference between paying e.g. $52,500 instead of $51,250 and as a bonus Ford gets to avoid headlines like this.
Maybe the long-term goal is to push more people toward direct leasing?
Because they dream of doing what all the streaming services do, what comcast does, get people to use their service, push everyone to enable autopay, and then quietly triple the price and hope no one notices. That's the goal of all of this.
Same reason Basic Starter Economy Lite airfares exist: to rank higher in lists. Once they have you in the sales funnel and don't have price competition anymore, they can start upselling you on things you're missing.
> Probably because the LTV is at least an order of magnitude more than you are estimating.
This subscription costs $140 per year; even accounting for price increases over time, if someone has calculated that its 10-year LTV exceeds $14,000 then I think they need to go back and review the spreadsheet.
I haven’t bought a car in a hot minute but those options usually also included different in-dash displays, etc. If Ford standardized the hardware, eliminated the option, and bumped the sticker, nobody would bat an eye and they would capture that revenue from every buyer, not only the ones who choose to subscribe.
It feels like such an obvious win that I know I must be missing something, I just don’t know what it could be.
If I'm using a navigation system to actively guide me somewhere I usually use CarPlay.
If I'm just using it to display where I currently am and let me see the nearby roads sometimes I use CarPlay and sometimes the built-in Hyundai system.
CarPlay has a nicer looking map, but when not actively navigating it updates the display noticeably slower when I'm turning.
CarPlay's compass sucks--it just shows the heading as N, NW, W, SW, S, SE, E, or NE. Hyundai's does the more traditional spinning indicator that points North and has way better resolution. It's way better when I'm driving in some twisty place and am trying to understand my orientation--I can see at a glance rather than having to read CarPlay's text direction and translate in my head to a visualization.
CarPlay is quite a bit better at labeling streets. It usually names the side streets I pass. Hyundai tends to only name the bigger ones, and when it does the typography is less readable than CarPlay's. CarPlay is also more likely to show buildings.
Hyundai's colors are better at night.
Hyundai shows traffic lights, whereas CarPlay only shows them when actively navigating. I prefer to see them even when passively navigating.
The car is an EV and I think the Hyundai nav system has some features to help with finding chargers, but I haven't looked into that. I've got 48A @ 240V (11.5 kW) charging at home and in the nearly 6 months I've had the car I've never charged anywhere but home.
I do on occasion, because the navigation gets thrown onto the HUD of our Ioniq 5. That said, our new camper van (ProMaster chassis) apparently interfaces with CarPlay, and so the navigation gets put on the dashboard (no HUD) without using the built-in nav. That seems to be the optimal solution for me, interface with what I'm going to use anyway. But that doesn't pull in those sweet subscription dollars, I guess.
My older Toyota has a DVD for its maps and works without any comms — I use it all the time (and even pay to update the maps from OEM every few years).
I would LOVE to be able to use my modern Toyota's navigation system; unfortunately, this requires you to connect a modern cell phone (cannot use without it) which I don't own.
So for my new vehicle I instead purchased a stand-alone GPS unit ($60) which comes with lifetime map updates.
Well Tesla's built-in navigation is the best solution I've ever seen by far. Much, much better than any phone. But then you have to drive a fascistmobile. And they charge for it now. I'll keep my 2017 Tesla until it falls apart, with its free-data-for-life.
An important thing to note when buying a car that includes subscription services is exactly what those subscriptions are for.
For example if the maps, traffic info, alerts, etc depend on a subscription there are couple ways it can go.
1. The subscription is actually for that data and the alert services. The car's systems only accepts those sources and so if you do not subscribe when the trial ends those stop working.
2. The data and services can be accessed on the internet for no cost (you made need a free account with the car maker's site). The subscription is for cellular internet service for the car.
In case #2 it might be that the car is only capable of using that cellular connection for internet access and so you will need to subscribe if you want things to keep working.
Some cars however can use a WiFi connection instead of their cellular connection for internet access. If your phone includes a WiFi hotspot you may be able to set the car to use that and then maps, traffic, and alerts might keep working without needing a subscription.
Also many cars will let you update data by downloading it on your computer and putting it on a USB drive and then uploading to the car from the US drive. You won't get traffic info and alerts that way, but at least you can keep maps from becoming obsolete.
Having recently bought a new car after last buying a car at the end of 2005, dealing with subscriptions was by far the most annoying change since the last time. Just getting information on what depending on subscriptions and what my options were if I didn't keep the subscription was a pain for nearly every car.
I have mixed feelings about subscriptions - in some cases, they can actually be good for customers (mainly power users, whose usage is subsidized by other subscribers).
I have 4000 songs on my Spotify. That would be $4k on iTunes. With Spotify being $11/month, it would take me 30 years of Spotify usage to break even with the iTunes model if I never bought another song. For every additional song I listen to, that subscription becomes worth even more.
With cars, I hope 1) customers have the option to pay up front 2) it allows for cheaper production with assembly efficiencies 3) it lets people granularly pick which options are on their car, as opposed to being stuck with whatever options come with a given trim package 4) there are always non-subscription cars around to keep manufacturers from rent-seeking behavior.
I haven’t bought a car in a long time, so I don’t know if any of those are true.
I see why Fords ceo does not like Apple CarPlay Ultra. You can control everything from your phone or a tablet.
“CarPlay Ultra is Apple's advanced, next-generation CarPlay system that deeply integrates your iPhone with a vehicle's entire infotainment system, including the driver's instrument cluster. It extends the familiar iOS interface to all the screens in your car, allowing for comprehensive control of vehicle functions like climate, radio, drive modes, and vehicle settings directly from the familiar CarPlay interface.”
I have zero doubt that the car companies will do their best to make it effectively impossible to "own" your own car, in the same way you can no longer truly "buy" software.
Readit News
What's the point when you can just use a phone anyway? Just rip it all out, save a packet on software development and partner with Brodit to add a nice stock phone holder for an extra 5 euros in wholesale BOM costs.
Due to safety and emissions regulations we just cant have a dead simple car even as a niche option.
Another alternative would be to use the dashboard screen - where the speedometer etc. used to be - to show the backup camera image, the speedometer isn't really needed when backing up anyway.
This didn't used to be true and I'm not sure if it is now but it is required in California, which is why they are ubiquitous. Fun fact.
https://www.slate.auto/
My partner replaced her 11 year BMW 5 GT with a new X4 last month. The nav is slow (probably updates the view twice a second) and out of date. I think it needs new roads updating via a USB stick.
The Android Auto and Carplay integration are fantastic though - silky smooth (better than the phone they're coming from) and always up to date.
Who ever uses those built-in things?
That's basically Tesla's secret sauce, their charger network + in-car nav makes taking trips in an EV pretty easy.
Android Auto and CarPlay are starting to incorporate these features though for cars that support sending those stats to the phone.
I do. I use it only as a backup or corroborating source of info in situations where the maps are never quite right, but that happens quite frequently.
I spend a LOT of time out of cell-service though.
Anyway, for me at least, the benefit of the built-in nav is not about routing, which is basically always worse than Google/Apple at this point, but about having detailed, offline maps. In my experience, offline Google/Apple maps are less detailed, and you have to download them in advance.
I use all three, depending on my needs at the time - each of them have their strengths. I prefer Google/Apple maps for day to day routing and things like that, but if I'm somewhere with poor signal, I use the native maps to navigate, because they are just more reliable.
It's all subjective though, and probably highly specific to location.
Tesla, whose nav is pretty great and responsive
Rivian, who appears to have copied a lot of the Tesla UI elements (and, has lots of former Tesla employees) and the snappiness and great nav is part of that.
Any car using Android automotive (different from Android auto) such as the Polestar lineup. Basically gives you an Android tablet with Google Maps, so nav is great, and it seems to be all held to a certain level of responsiveness.
Navigation does cost money though. Even maintaining a basic map.
Of course, this never happens, because humans. Yet I still dream.
That said, the maps got out of date and couldn’t be updated without a $200 SD card, which was annoying.
Maybe the long-term goal is to push more people toward direct leasing?
GM dropped CarPlay support from some of their vehicles. They think subscription revenue is going to be at least $20 billion / year.
This subscription costs $140 per year; even accounting for price increases over time, if someone has calculated that its 10-year LTV exceeds $14,000 then I think they need to go back and review the spreadsheet.
It feels like such an obvious win that I know I must be missing something, I just don’t know what it could be.
If I'm using a navigation system to actively guide me somewhere I usually use CarPlay.
If I'm just using it to display where I currently am and let me see the nearby roads sometimes I use CarPlay and sometimes the built-in Hyundai system.
CarPlay has a nicer looking map, but when not actively navigating it updates the display noticeably slower when I'm turning.
CarPlay's compass sucks--it just shows the heading as N, NW, W, SW, S, SE, E, or NE. Hyundai's does the more traditional spinning indicator that points North and has way better resolution. It's way better when I'm driving in some twisty place and am trying to understand my orientation--I can see at a glance rather than having to read CarPlay's text direction and translate in my head to a visualization.
CarPlay is quite a bit better at labeling streets. It usually names the side streets I pass. Hyundai tends to only name the bigger ones, and when it does the typography is less readable than CarPlay's. CarPlay is also more likely to show buildings.
Hyundai's colors are better at night.
Hyundai shows traffic lights, whereas CarPlay only shows them when actively navigating. I prefer to see them even when passively navigating.
The car is an EV and I think the Hyundai nav system has some features to help with finding chargers, but I haven't looked into that. I've got 48A @ 240V (11.5 kW) charging at home and in the nearly 6 months I've had the car I've never charged anywhere but home.
I would LOVE to be able to use my modern Toyota's navigation system; unfortunately, this requires you to connect a modern cell phone (cannot use without it) which I don't own.
So for my new vehicle I instead purchased a stand-alone GPS unit ($60) which comes with lifetime map updates.
For example if the maps, traffic info, alerts, etc depend on a subscription there are couple ways it can go.
1. The subscription is actually for that data and the alert services. The car's systems only accepts those sources and so if you do not subscribe when the trial ends those stop working.
2. The data and services can be accessed on the internet for no cost (you made need a free account with the car maker's site). The subscription is for cellular internet service for the car.
In case #2 it might be that the car is only capable of using that cellular connection for internet access and so you will need to subscribe if you want things to keep working.
Some cars however can use a WiFi connection instead of their cellular connection for internet access. If your phone includes a WiFi hotspot you may be able to set the car to use that and then maps, traffic, and alerts might keep working without needing a subscription.
Also many cars will let you update data by downloading it on your computer and putting it on a USB drive and then uploading to the car from the US drive. You won't get traffic info and alerts that way, but at least you can keep maps from becoming obsolete.
Having recently bought a new car after last buying a car at the end of 2005, dealing with subscriptions was by far the most annoying change since the last time. Just getting information on what depending on subscriptions and what my options were if I didn't keep the subscription was a pain for nearly every car.
I have 4000 songs on my Spotify. That would be $4k on iTunes. With Spotify being $11/month, it would take me 30 years of Spotify usage to break even with the iTunes model if I never bought another song. For every additional song I listen to, that subscription becomes worth even more.
With cars, I hope 1) customers have the option to pay up front 2) it allows for cheaper production with assembly efficiencies 3) it lets people granularly pick which options are on their car, as opposed to being stuck with whatever options come with a given trim package 4) there are always non-subscription cars around to keep manufacturers from rent-seeking behavior.
I haven’t bought a car in a long time, so I don’t know if any of those are true.
“CarPlay Ultra is Apple's advanced, next-generation CarPlay system that deeply integrates your iPhone with a vehicle's entire infotainment system, including the driver's instrument cluster. It extends the familiar iOS interface to all the screens in your car, allowing for comprehensive control of vehicle functions like climate, radio, drive modes, and vehicle settings directly from the familiar CarPlay interface.”