GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto(theverge.com)
theverge.com
GM confirms $130k Cadillac won’t have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto
https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/10/23827059/gm-no-carplay-android-auto-escalade-iq
103 comments
Darn. I got excited for a moment thinking that a major car manufacturer was selling a car that didn't have any infotainment features at all. Oh well.
With backup camera being mandatory, all cars are going to have a screen. If you have to have a screen anyway, might as well load it up with infotainment from strategic partners.
> If you have to have a screen anyway, might as well load it up with infotainment from strategic partners.
I understand this from the carmakers point of view. They want to extract every dime from my pocket that they can. But I don't want it. Having a screen for the backup camera is fine, but I don't want any ongoing services connected to it.
I understand this from the carmakers point of view. They want to extract every dime from my pocket that they can. But I don't want it. Having a screen for the backup camera is fine, but I don't want any ongoing services connected to it.
It's quite possible to do. Get a new Subaru, then get a double DIN dash kit https://www.crutchfield.com/p_003SBK931B/American-Internatio... and then you can ask your car stereo guy for a blank Double DIN plate. It's not out of the box, but you'll block off the screen entirely and you won't have audio or screen or anything except your HUD.
That might make your vehicle not Street Legal soon since backup cameras are required equipment going forward. Not sure how after-market factors in though.
In the US, backup cameras are required to be included with the car to be sold. There is no law that I'm aware of that prevents people from disabling or removing them after the sale.
EDIT: I think I was incorrect. The law says "an altered vehicle that was completed on or after this date that was equipped with a rearview camera that already meets the new rearview requirements must continue to meet these requirements after the alterations."
https://www.camerasource.com/industry-news/understanding-new...
But I'm not sure how broadly that actually applies. So I don't know.
EDIT: I think I was incorrect. The law says "an altered vehicle that was completed on or after this date that was equipped with a rearview camera that already meets the new rearview requirements must continue to meet these requirements after the alterations."
https://www.camerasource.com/industry-news/understanding-new...
But I'm not sure how broadly that actually applies. So I don't know.
It hasn't been tested to my knowledge, but at a minimum you will need to “restore” your car’s functionality to sell it legally.
It sounds like installers won't be able to do this modification moving forward either, so you would have to do it DIY.
It sounds like installers won't be able to do this modification moving forward either, so you would have to do it DIY.
Yes, that's the part I'm unclear about. And, honestly, backup cameras aren't a thing that I'm bothered by. It'd be interesting to know what the law actually means, though!
Why wouldn't you want any infotainment features? Surely it's a positive if done well.
I can't speak for who you're asking but personally, there's an important nuance here:
I want (some) infotainment features. I do NOT want them baked into the car. Some of my main reasons:
1. Honestly, the reasons are long (I'm a gearhead, I know cars better than I know code, and I've been coding for 20 years), and largely centers around the idea that in my opinion, EVERY single modern automotive manufacture is terrible at UX in their infotainment. Tesla's UI (not UX) is okay. It doesn't deserve the praise it gets imo but at least it's usable, but that's a pretty low bar imo, but the fact that Tesla wants the touchscreen to be the primary interface ruins anything they have going for it.
2. Additionally, one of the beautiful things about Android Auto/Apply CarPlay is that you bring your accounts and media with you in your pocket. When your car is a separate device as opposed to something you just stream to like with Carplay/Auto, that's another thing to trying to sync accounts/creds and manage data, and I refer you to my above complaint on why I have an issue with that. I mean, it could literally INSTANTLY sync the things that I want flawlessly, and that still doesn't actually add any value to me. It at best reaches parity with the phone that's already in my pocket with android auto, and that's assuming the entire rest of the infotainment functions well.
3. I quite simply don't trust ANY automotive manufacturer to do competent user facing software, and I can't think of a single automotive manufacturer I would trust personal data/credentials to (yes I'm already aware they do that to extent, it's why I'm against it, they already suck at it, last thing I want to do is hand over more data into yet another walled garden).
4. Walled garden's suck, and as this is a value add service with no announcements yet (that I'm aware of) of any other manufacturer working with GM's initiative to establish/adhere to standards/specs or facilitate any sort of portability or openness or flexibility. If it's not a walled garden, great, but I'm assuming it will be, and I don't want it.
I want (some) infotainment features. I do NOT want them baked into the car. Some of my main reasons:
1. Honestly, the reasons are long (I'm a gearhead, I know cars better than I know code, and I've been coding for 20 years), and largely centers around the idea that in my opinion, EVERY single modern automotive manufacture is terrible at UX in their infotainment. Tesla's UI (not UX) is okay. It doesn't deserve the praise it gets imo but at least it's usable, but that's a pretty low bar imo, but the fact that Tesla wants the touchscreen to be the primary interface ruins anything they have going for it.
2. Additionally, one of the beautiful things about Android Auto/Apply CarPlay is that you bring your accounts and media with you in your pocket. When your car is a separate device as opposed to something you just stream to like with Carplay/Auto, that's another thing to trying to sync accounts/creds and manage data, and I refer you to my above complaint on why I have an issue with that. I mean, it could literally INSTANTLY sync the things that I want flawlessly, and that still doesn't actually add any value to me. It at best reaches parity with the phone that's already in my pocket with android auto, and that's assuming the entire rest of the infotainment functions well.
3. I quite simply don't trust ANY automotive manufacturer to do competent user facing software, and I can't think of a single automotive manufacturer I would trust personal data/credentials to (yes I'm already aware they do that to extent, it's why I'm against it, they already suck at it, last thing I want to do is hand over more data into yet another walled garden).
4. Walled garden's suck, and as this is a value add service with no announcements yet (that I'm aware of) of any other manufacturer working with GM's initiative to establish/adhere to standards/specs or facilitate any sort of portability or openness or flexibility. If it's not a walled garden, great, but I'm assuming it will be, and I don't want it.
It's not something I would ever use, so I don't want to have to pay for it. Its presence also implies that there are other things present that I actively object to, such as a touch screen interface and internet connectivity.
Where do you draw the line? I don't know anyone that wants to go back to paper maps for navigation. And backup cameras are unambiguously good for everyone.
Going back to paper maps isn't the alternative. I already have a device with me that can do all of the navigation, etc., that I'd need. None of that needs to be built into the car. Backup cameras are fine.
The only fancy thing I would like to have in my car is the ability to connect the sound system in it to my phone or computer via bluetooth as if it were headphones -- but I can add that easily as an aftermarket thing with the bonus of having actual knobs on it.
I really only have two reasonably hard lines. I don't want my car to be able to talk with any external servers (it's a car, not a smartphone on wheels), and I don't want a touch screen interface instead of physical knobs and buttons.
The presence of infotainment systems is a pretty solid indication that the car won't satisfy either of those things.
The only fancy thing I would like to have in my car is the ability to connect the sound system in it to my phone or computer via bluetooth as if it were headphones -- but I can add that easily as an aftermarket thing with the bonus of having actual knobs on it.
I really only have two reasonably hard lines. I don't want my car to be able to talk with any external servers (it's a car, not a smartphone on wheels), and I don't want a touch screen interface instead of physical knobs and buttons.
The presence of infotainment systems is a pretty solid indication that the car won't satisfy either of those things.
I very much agree with your two hard lines.
Why wouldn’t you want a cleaner UI and larger screen to show you the contents of that device?
Also why do you care if your car has a computer on it or not? Seems overly paranoid, bordering on luddite…
Also why do you care if your car has a computer on it or not? Seems overly paranoid, bordering on luddite…
> a cleaner UI and larger screen to show you the contents of that device?
I haven't seen an in-car system that provides a better UI. Regardless, that's not actually important because I'm not interacting with the device or screen while I'm driving anyway.
A larger screen doesn't seem like a big deal. I'm not spending much time looking at the screen anyway.
> why do you care if your car has a computer on it or not?
I don't. I care about the connectivity, not the presence of a computer. It's all but certain that connection will be used to funnel data back to the manufacturer or someone.
> Seems overly paranoid, bordering on luddite…
No need to start with the personal insults here. I'm expressing my own desires, I'm not saying I want to deprive others of theirs. That I don't want things that you do doesn't diminish or harm you in any way.
I haven't seen an in-car system that provides a better UI. Regardless, that's not actually important because I'm not interacting with the device or screen while I'm driving anyway.
A larger screen doesn't seem like a big deal. I'm not spending much time looking at the screen anyway.
> why do you care if your car has a computer on it or not?
I don't. I care about the connectivity, not the presence of a computer. It's all but certain that connection will be used to funnel data back to the manufacturer or someone.
> Seems overly paranoid, bordering on luddite…
No need to start with the personal insults here. I'm expressing my own desires, I'm not saying I want to deprive others of theirs. That I don't want things that you do doesn't diminish or harm you in any way.
Computers are built these days mainly to talk to other computers, due to the considerable value gained by offloading computational effort to a central location. Not wanting a computer to talk to other computers is like not wanting your oven to heat food except by friction.
And "overly paranoid, bordering on luddite" is no insult, it's a description that your comments fit. If these words are insulting, stop fitting so well to them!
And "overly paranoid, bordering on luddite" is no insult, it's a description that your comments fit. If these words are insulting, stop fitting so well to them!
Eh, whatever. I think you're more interested in picking a fight than engaging in a useful or interesting conversation.
I think you're dismissing what I'm saying because you don't have a good reason to disagree with it, but you find it important to ape the "pro privacy" line, as that's what you see others do online.
You haven't really said anything for me to dismiss. It looks to me that the only assertion of fact that you've made is "Computers are built these days mainly to talk to other computers", which I didn't comment on at all. I will here, though -- that assertion is untrue by being overly broad. Many are built with that in mind, but many are not.
Everything else you've said is asking me for details about my opinion and stating that you disagree with my opinions. Which is totally fair, but I'm not sure what response you expect from me about that aside from "I disagree".
> you find it important to ape the "pro privacy" line, as that's what you see others do online.
Another personal attack.
Everything else you've said is asking me for details about my opinion and stating that you disagree with my opinions. Which is totally fair, but I'm not sure what response you expect from me about that aside from "I disagree".
> you find it important to ape the "pro privacy" line, as that's what you see others do online.
Another personal attack.
I agree with him about the car talking to an external server. That is a disgusting grab by car manufacturers.
For me, I don't care about my car having a computer, but I don't want it to talk to services without my permission and building their own thing shows a disregard for that desire. I love CarPlay/android and not offering those two most popular options doubles down on that disregard for customer interests.
For me, I don't care about my car having a computer, but I don't want it to talk to services without my permission and building their own thing shows a disregard for that desire. I love CarPlay/android and not offering those two most popular options doubles down on that disregard for customer interests.
Fully agree re: CarPlay/Android Auto support.
But the default of "privacy good at all cost" seems like massive overkill IMO.
If there's specific evidence that a car is doing something that will specifically cause you harm in some way via data sharing, that's one thing. If it's a vague, general distrust, that falls into the "luddite paranoia" category.
But the default of "privacy good at all cost" seems like massive overkill IMO.
If there's specific evidence that a car is doing something that will specifically cause you harm in some way via data sharing, that's one thing. If it's a vague, general distrust, that falls into the "luddite paranoia" category.
> If it's a vague, general distrust
There's nothing vague or general about it. We have years of examples of how such data gets used. You may be fine with that, and that's OK. I don't understand why you get so upset that others aren't fine with it, though. Why is this so emotional for you?
There's nothing vague or general about it. We have years of examples of how such data gets used. You may be fine with that, and that's OK. I don't understand why you get so upset that others aren't fine with it, though. Why is this so emotional for you?
Nothing emotional in what I write, just pointing out that you have precisely zero examples of how shared data from your car has been used to harm you specifically.
It's not about what I'm fine with or not, it's about what you're posting on HN in advocacy of. You claim "years of examples" but you have literally nothing specific, because nothing specific to you exists.
You fear new technology because it is unfamiliar to you, and that is the very definition of luddite.
It's not about what I'm fine with or not, it's about what you're posting on HN in advocacy of. You claim "years of examples" but you have literally nothing specific, because nothing specific to you exists.
You fear new technology because it is unfamiliar to you, and that is the very definition of luddite.
> precisely zero examples of how shared data from your car has been used to harm you specifically.
That might be because I never made such an assertion.
> You claim "years of examples" but you have literally nothing specific
I'm specifically referring to years of data collection by companies without consent. Typically for marketing or other monetization purposes.
> You fear new technology because it is unfamiliar to you, and that is the very definition of luddite.
Another personal attack. You don't know me. Everyone who does would be laughing at how ridiculous this assertion is. I very strongly embrace new technology (and the tech we're talking about here isn't actually all that new) and I'm very familiar with it. I even develop some of it. My house, my car, and even what I carry with me is riddled with high tech stuff. I am the opposite of a luddite.
You're making a whole lot of incorrect assumptions about me here. And it's odd that you do, because it would be so easy to talk to me about what I'm actually saying rather than building a straw man representing me in your mind so you can attack it.
That might be because I never made such an assertion.
> You claim "years of examples" but you have literally nothing specific
I'm specifically referring to years of data collection by companies without consent. Typically for marketing or other monetization purposes.
> You fear new technology because it is unfamiliar to you, and that is the very definition of luddite.
Another personal attack. You don't know me. Everyone who does would be laughing at how ridiculous this assertion is. I very strongly embrace new technology (and the tech we're talking about here isn't actually all that new) and I'm very familiar with it. I even develop some of it. My house, my car, and even what I carry with me is riddled with high tech stuff. I am the opposite of a luddite.
You're making a whole lot of incorrect assumptions about me here. And it's odd that you do, because it would be so easy to talk to me about what I'm actually saying rather than building a straw man representing me in your mind so you can attack it.
No it's not that. It's that I believe they will be profit seeking with that data unless forced to be otherwise.
The last decade has worn out my optimism and tolerance about privacy concerns. If a company wants my trust, they have to proactively earn it by excessive transparency, at least GDPR level, on their part.
If they can do that, I’ll consider it; otherwise, no thank you.
The last decade has worn out my optimism and tolerance about privacy concerns. If a company wants my trust, they have to proactively earn it by excessive transparency, at least GDPR level, on their part.
If they can do that, I’ll consider it; otherwise, no thank you.
Why is profiting from data collection considered de jure bad? Why does collecting data cost your trust, and why does not collecting data earn your trust?
I’m guessing it's the -tainmnet aspect of it. If we're purely weather, traffic, maps it'd be fine but the entire focus is on how they automakers can make more money, now longer about providing objectively valuable services.
Same :(
If they allow CarPlay or AA, they are essentially passing on a subscription service that could bring in additional revenue post sale. It's greedy and dumb.
I have seen quite a few add on modules for Tesla's that enhance the head unit functionality for minimal cost/effort. Eg. Wired and wireless "boxes" for Tesla's that allow CarPlay and Android Auto on aliexpress for $70.
I have seen quite a few add on modules for Tesla's that enhance the head unit functionality for minimal cost/effort. Eg. Wired and wireless "boxes" for Tesla's that allow CarPlay and Android Auto on aliexpress for $70.
It should have no screen at all and high-quality pushers and displays... or Carplay/Auto because there is no way an old car company like GM can build software properly.
The screen is essentially required by law thanks to backup cameras. I agree that I don't trust any auto manufacturer to make quality software and keep it updated.
It's a battle of control of what information the consumer sees and the stream of what private information is pilfered back. Apple/Google have a deathgrip on smart phones by disallowing root, and automakers have taken note of the playbook.
I used to say "in the future your car is unlikely to start start without wifi", but now that promise has come true, I'll just say "your fridge is unlikely to make ice without wifi".
I used to say "in the future your car is unlikely to start start without wifi", but now that promise has come true, I'll just say "your fridge is unlikely to make ice without wifi".
There is precedent of not being able to use some main oven features without wifi: https://www.consumerreports.org/appliances/do-you-need-wifi-...
> "in the future your car is unlikely to start start without wifi", but now that promise has come true
Source?
Source?
Me
I won't be happy until I can stream my driving experience on Twitch, with the option to occasionally hand over control of my vehicle to chat.
You laugh, but I've always thought that would have been a good intermediate step towards full self-driving. Provide the option to delegate it to humans in a building 1000 miles away, similar to how the US military conducts drone warfare.
Latency makes it totally impossible to do that securely. Reaction times in case of a problem is the difference between life and dead and you cannot "outsource" that to someone 1000 miles away: network latency, monitor latency, input method latency (I send an "emergency braking order", network latency a second time.
Impossible within our current understanding of physics: I mean... You could do it, but the added delay for reaction times would literally have many people killed.
Guiding a drone / missile is kiddie stuff compared to remotely driving a car in trafic.
Impossible within our current understanding of physics: I mean... You could do it, but the added delay for reaction times would literally have many people killed.
Guiding a drone / missile is kiddie stuff compared to remotely driving a car in trafic.
There are workarounds for that -- think satellite service augmented by local pseudolites -- at least until the customer drives into a tunnel without said pseudolites. At that point you'd fall back to a limited self-driving model like what many cars have today.
Agreed that it isn't something you could do solely over the public Internet.
Agreed that it isn't something you could do solely over the public Internet.
Yeah I wasn't expecting real time control, but rather high-level objectives and alterations to the self-driving module. E.g. "hit the next pedestrian lol" or "swerve into oncoming traffic lmao". Chat wouldn't actually execute these directives.
This sounds like someone is trying to empire build at GM to create their own version of carplay so they can be promoted.
Imagine the pleasure in 3-4 years when your 130k car plays an advert on the main screen whenever you start your car, a "feature" that can only be disabled if you pay for the 20$/month premium GM+ package that includes GPS map updates and unlocks the sunroof.
How long until Waze-like "ads-when-stopped" show on your heads up display?
Or "I see you're navigating to McDonalds, would you rather go to Burger King and get half off your Whopper meal?"
Or "I see you're navigating to McDonalds, would you rather go to Burger King and get half off your Whopper meal?"
[deleted]
This is more about having and being able to use the data collected from cars. Some auto execs have talked about being able to know your location and the music you're listening to there. Being able to bundle that data and use it is a way to make money.
The allure of money made via stalking and influence is hard to resist.
The allure of money made via stalking and influence is hard to resist.
It is even worse than that - the CEO has this pipe dream that they are going to build a Netflix sized subscription business:
https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/06/gm-aims-to-build-netflix-s...
https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/06/gm-aims-to-build-netflix-s...
> “Our research indicates that with the right mix of compelling offerings, customers are willing to spend $135 per month on average for products and services,” said Wexler.
Assuming this is not a maintenance contract, who in their right mind will spend 135$ per month on "products and services" for their car?
Assuming this is not a maintenance contract, who in their right mind will spend 135$ per month on "products and services" for their car?
Nobody
I think the CEO's gambit here is that she can keep the reality distortion field up long enough to land $100-150M in compensation by waving hands and saying the word AI.
I think the CEO's gambit here is that she can keep the reality distortion field up long enough to land $100-150M in compensation by waving hands and saying the word AI.
This is the cross industry playbook, and I'm really tired of it.
Tesla FSD is $100/month, OnStar is $30-$50.
The phrase "people with more money than sense" comes to mind.
The same people willing to spend $130k on a SUV?
OnStar's been around so long, and people value it enough, that it's unreasonable to sneer about pipedreams.
Once you throw in Tesla-like subs for automation, etc., it's reasonable to make that a goal for 2030.
Once you throw in Tesla-like subs for automation, etc., it's reasonable to make that a goal for 2030.
Does OnStar have that many paying subscribers? I know the cars come with X years of free service but are they really getting that many takers for years X+1 and beyond?
Feels like a quicker way to get fired tbh.
I know some people at GM who work on in car interfaces. I remember asking one a few years ago why people would prefer an in-house solution over Carplay/Android Auto, and the answer I got was that there's a solid chance people won't. Guess we're about to find out.
The big downside to me with CarPlay/Auto is that it doesn't leverage screen real estate properly. At least not yet. I end up with CarPlay/Auto on the main entertainment screen but with the manufacturer's system on the HUD and main cockpit screen - which I'd rather look at.
CarPlay should be fixing that in next gen (so a year or two from now) releases. Apple showed a Carplay screen that went from the drivers instrument cluster to the center of the dash where it usually lives now.
It’s interesting to see how a lot of new gas cars have Apple CarPlay / Android Auto but all of the new EV cars are going towards custom OS which essentially leads to worse user experiences for manufacturers who aren’t well versed in software.
It's honestly insane.
CarPlay does everything I want and the best part is it just works. A large part of that "it just works" is the fact that it's all based directly on my phone.
* That restaurant we just decided to go to. Already in navigation. AND! the maps are all current with road closures/traffic issues.
* The music that I was playing, it just keeps going
* The garage door opener/lock/etc that I just added to HomeKit - automatically pops us.
CarPlay does everything I want and the best part is it just works. A large part of that "it just works" is the fact that it's all based directly on my phone.
* That restaurant we just decided to go to. Already in navigation. AND! the maps are all current with road closures/traffic issues.
* The music that I was playing, it just keeps going
* The garage door opener/lock/etc that I just added to HomeKit - automatically pops us.
The best part is I do not have to worry about a third party vendor getting access to my smartphone’s data.
For better or worse, the smartphone is a vault of almost everything about a person, including the ability to impersonate them.
Obviously, Apple and Google already have access to all of this, but I see no reason to let yet another entity have it.
For better or worse, the smartphone is a vault of almost everything about a person, including the ability to impersonate them.
Obviously, Apple and Google already have access to all of this, but I see no reason to let yet another entity have it.
CarPlay is essentially a form of AirPlay, so the car is receiving a video stream from your phone, not data. (Of course, they could try to extract data from the video stream, but I doubt they have the technical skills to do that in the near future.)
Exactly. This is one of those terrible decisions that GM will have to retract. The only question is when.
There is no way they are going to be able to compete with Apple or Google. Literally the worst software engineer at either of those companies is better than anyone GM has.
Will make an interesting Harvard MBA case study.
There is no way they are going to be able to compete with Apple or Google. Literally the worst software engineer at either of those companies is better than anyone GM has.
Will make an interesting Harvard MBA case study.
> It's honestly insane. CarPlay does everything I want and the best part is it just works. A large part of that "it just works" is the fact that it's all based directly on my phone.
The insanity goes both ways: I refuse to use a cellphone, so I will not buy a car that has Android or Apple stuff.
Hopefully I'll have other options than this $130k Cadillac, but it's good to know some automakers cater to my preferences too.
> That restaurant we just decided to go to. Already in navigation. AND! the maps are all current with road closures/traffic issues
Funny enough, getting a GPS without auto updates and offering a full offline experience is now a premium, but I'm happy to pay for the exact opposite of what you want: a GPS without auto navigation / user tracking / not being happy to work with old maps if I decide it should (customer is king, except for apps!)
The insanity goes both ways: I refuse to use a cellphone, so I will not buy a car that has Android or Apple stuff.
Hopefully I'll have other options than this $130k Cadillac, but it's good to know some automakers cater to my preferences too.
> That restaurant we just decided to go to. Already in navigation. AND! the maps are all current with road closures/traffic issues
Funny enough, getting a GPS without auto updates and offering a full offline experience is now a premium, but I'm happy to pay for the exact opposite of what you want: a GPS without auto navigation / user tracking / not being happy to work with old maps if I decide it should (customer is king, except for apps!)
> The insanity goes both ways: I refuse to use a cellphone, so I will not buy a car that has Android or Apple stuff.
I think you are firmly in the minority here and probably not the market they are building for. I bet much less than 1% of people who will buy a car in the next year refuse to use a cell phone.
I think you are firmly in the minority here and probably not the market they are building for. I bet much less than 1% of people who will buy a car in the next year refuse to use a cell phone.
> The insanity goes both ways: I refuse to use a cellphone, so I will not buy a car that has Android or Apple stuff.
FYI, a car that supports CarPlay/Android Auto and a car that does not is indistinguishable to the person who does not connect a phone to the car. It is just an interface that allows your phone to use the touchscreen, but if you do not connect a phone, it continues to work.
FYI, a car that supports CarPlay/Android Auto and a car that does not is indistinguishable to the person who does not connect a phone to the car. It is just an interface that allows your phone to use the touchscreen, but if you do not connect a phone, it continues to work.
> I refuse to use a cellphone, so I will not buy a car that has Android or Apple stuff.
Then, you're also not buying an EV it sounds like... All of these fancy headunits require a cell phone modem....
-----
CarPlay is entirely optional. Your headunit will have all of the basic still built in.
Then, you're also not buying an EV it sounds like... All of these fancy headunits require a cell phone modem....
-----
CarPlay is entirely optional. Your headunit will have all of the basic still built in.
> Then, you're also not buying an EV it sounds like
Then I won't?
Instead, for a fraction of the price I may get a nice second hand muscle car, with no feature I don't want to be present. It may even have an old school CD player, I like retro :)
Then I won't?
Instead, for a fraction of the price I may get a nice second hand muscle car, with no feature I don't want to be present. It may even have an old school CD player, I like retro :)
That's great, but this thread is about something else entirely. No one at GM (or anywhere else, apparently) can make recurring revenue from you, so your needs and interests will be even less relevant to automakers than those of the rest of us.
Sucks, but that's how things are shaping up. Too late for the proverbial pebbles to vote.
Sucks, but that's how things are shaping up. Too late for the proverbial pebbles to vote.
> your needs and interests will be even less relevant to automakers than those of the rest of us
It's more of a want than a need. Otherwise, I agree, but not being able to buy an EV was presented as a bad thing?
There are fewer alternatives than I'd like, but there're still plenty to get the basic "car" need satisfied with my special "no phone use required" preference.
It's more of a want than a need. Otherwise, I agree, but not being able to buy an EV was presented as a bad thing?
There are fewer alternatives than I'd like, but there're still plenty to get the basic "car" need satisfied with my special "no phone use required" preference.
> I refuse to use a cellphone
Like at all? That immediately puts you in a pretty niche category.
Like at all? That immediately puts you in a pretty niche category.
> Like at all? That immediately puts you in a pretty niche category.
Like at all I guess? Or at least least 99% of the time?
I'm not opposed to the idea owning a cellphone: I can have one, if it's without a cellphone plan and spends most of the time powered off inside a drawer.
Then, as long as I'm not forced to interact with it say more than once a month, it's fine.
I guess this technically doesn't qualify for the "not at all" since I sometimes use a cellphone to run magisk to root my android ebook
Like at all I guess? Or at least least 99% of the time?
I'm not opposed to the idea owning a cellphone: I can have one, if it's without a cellphone plan and spends most of the time powered off inside a drawer.
Then, as long as I'm not forced to interact with it say more than once a month, it's fine.
I guess this technically doesn't qualify for the "not at all" since I sometimes use a cellphone to run magisk to root my android ebook
They want a shorter revenue cycle via recurring services.
What they're missing is that I don't stream my music from GMTunes, I don't store my photos on GMPhotos, I don't have my files on GMCloud, and I don't have easy access to all of this from my GMPhone, GMPad, GMBook, and GMWatch.
They either fundamentally don't understand why people want Carplay or Android Auto, or have delusions that they can become a bigger ecosystem than Apple, Google, or Microsoft.
If they are unsatisfied with the recurring revenue they currently get via selling car, parts, and electric charging partnerships, maybe they should start pivoting towards public transit.
What they're missing is that I don't stream my music from GMTunes, I don't store my photos on GMPhotos, I don't have my files on GMCloud, and I don't have easy access to all of this from my GMPhone, GMPad, GMBook, and GMWatch.
They either fundamentally don't understand why people want Carplay or Android Auto, or have delusions that they can become a bigger ecosystem than Apple, Google, or Microsoft.
If they are unsatisfied with the recurring revenue they currently get via selling car, parts, and electric charging partnerships, maybe they should start pivoting towards public transit.
This isn't really true except for Rivian and Tesla, which as start ups, wrote their own stack and want to fully control it.
GM is moving to Google Automotive and doesn't want to enable Carplay or Android Auto, but Google is already in there deep. No other legacy manufacturers have announced plans to take away Carplay/Android Auto. Quite a few are basing their systems on Android Automotive, though (BMW, Volvo/Polestar, GM as mentioned, off the top of my head), so even if you don't use a Google phone, Google is going to have your data.
There is no difference here between ICE vehiclws and BEVs, other than the two startups I mentioned.
GM is moving to Google Automotive and doesn't want to enable Carplay or Android Auto, but Google is already in there deep. No other legacy manufacturers have announced plans to take away Carplay/Android Auto. Quite a few are basing their systems on Android Automotive, though (BMW, Volvo/Polestar, GM as mentioned, off the top of my head), so even if you don't use a Google phone, Google is going to have your data.
There is no difference here between ICE vehiclws and BEVs, other than the two startups I mentioned.
If a car with Google Automotive has CarPlay, how would Google get data from the iPhone? Is CarPlay not just an interface so your phone can display things on a bigger touchscreen?
Even if the car is using CarPlay it can still report everything it knows about your location to Google. That translates to where you go at what times, etc.
At a minimum, it will pull location and anything the drivetrain knows about.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if it also somehow ended up MITM'ing / screen scraping / OCR'ing apple services.
The only solution at this point is legislation.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if it also somehow ended up MITM'ing / screen scraping / OCR'ing apple services.
The only solution at this point is legislation.
Wow. Gotta feel bad for the engineers and other developers who put a lot of sweat and tears into this car, only to have its market prospects fucked beyond all belief by rent-seeking bean counters at the head office.
[deleted]
To me it feels like GM realizes that Apple is commoditizing them. Making the car essentially a dumb-terminal for the Apple experience (as they want to do for other cars we well). GM now has a choice: (1) allow apple to make the GM car experience just like every manufacturer or (2) try to preserve some GM-ness in the experience.
GM's actions seem logical to me. But there's no way in hell I'm ever buying a GM if they stop me from using CarPlay. It's well demonstrated that they can't make good software.
GM's actions seem logical to me. But there's no way in hell I'm ever buying a GM if they stop me from using CarPlay. It's well demonstrated that they can't make good software.
The GM "interior experience" has always been poor, tough place to be in. Either commoditize that experience or double down on your own and hope you can pull off what the company has never been able to pull off.
This seriously took GM off the list for me. Only two things I absolutely have to have in my next commuter car:
1. It's electric. 2. It has CarPlay.
So no Chevy Bolt now. I guess it is a Ford Mach-E then.
1. It's electric. 2. It has CarPlay.
So no Chevy Bolt now. I guess it is a Ford Mach-E then.
Instead of Android Auto, Apple CarPlay, or some “custom OS”, all I want is a standard video input that will be displayed on a screen.
To make this even better, route the touch input of the screen back to the device, in some simple way (for example, as a mouse position, not sure of any touch protocols).
Any software has a pretty good chance of getting deprecated or irrelevant during the lifetime of a car. Just think of what is still actively supported in the mobile world from 10 years ago. My 2013 car doesn’t have Android Auto or CarPlay, but has built-in “apps” for Stitcher and Pandora, which I never used. The bluetooth connection still works, but is really flaky with newer iPhone (a 2013 Android worked exceptionally well, however).
To make this even better, route the touch input of the screen back to the device, in some simple way (for example, as a mouse position, not sure of any touch protocols).
Any software has a pretty good chance of getting deprecated or irrelevant during the lifetime of a car. Just think of what is still actively supported in the mobile world from 10 years ago. My 2013 car doesn’t have Android Auto or CarPlay, but has built-in “apps” for Stitcher and Pandora, which I never used. The bluetooth connection still works, but is really flaky with newer iPhone (a 2013 Android worked exceptionally well, however).
I just got a Rivian R1S and lack of CarPlay is by far the worst thing about the car. The built in Spotify app is janky, podcasts and music can’t continue where it left off, built in map seems to only direct me to busy roads. It’s so annoying I’m thinking of selling (for a profit).
Why is this happening? Car executives aren’t stupid, and must realize software is not core to their business. Unless they plan to start selling phones down the line they can never ‘win’ this battle. It’s clearly a huge waste of internal effort.
Does Apple try and take a % of the car sale as a license fee? Even if the fee were $2000 per car… that could be passed on to the car buyer. I would pay $2000 today to get CarPlay into my Rivian.
Why is this happening? Car executives aren’t stupid, and must realize software is not core to their business. Unless they plan to start selling phones down the line they can never ‘win’ this battle. It’s clearly a huge waste of internal effort.
Does Apple try and take a % of the car sale as a license fee? Even if the fee were $2000 per car… that could be passed on to the car buyer. I would pay $2000 today to get CarPlay into my Rivian.
From what I have read, Apple does not charge carmakers anything to support CarPlay functionality.
Good! Hopefully it will have no touchscreen either, only tactile buttons.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news...
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24841937/I...
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24841937/I...
Is that a concept or a real shipping vehicle?
Oh god. It's the Cadillac from the article.
Oh god. It's the Cadillac from the article.
A more awful UX for a multi-ton driving machine, I cannot imagine.
Brutal. Operating these controls seems equivalent/worse for eyes-on-the-road than texting while driving.
That is obscene and should be illegal for car manufacturers to build and sell that in the US (or World).
Instead of just reading the headline and writing a one sentence response, you could have taken one second to click the article and you would have seen the massive touch screen it has.
I was being facetious, I of course read the "article" before commenting. Only the first paragraph was actually about this particular vehicle model, the others went on random tangents about GM/Tesla business direction and Apple sales data.
The large pillar-to-pillar screen is pretty cool but the text doesn't specify whether it's touch or not. Squinting at the image a bit, pretty obvious that it is. Same for the center console.
I suppose it's a given that all screens have to be touchable now. Such a drag, input challenge is dangerous when hurtling down the highway. Prefer to have physical controls I can grab onto.
The large pillar-to-pillar screen is pretty cool but the text doesn't specify whether it's touch or not. Squinting at the image a bit, pretty obvious that it is. Same for the center console.
I suppose it's a given that all screens have to be touchable now. Such a drag, input challenge is dangerous when hurtling down the highway. Prefer to have physical controls I can grab onto.
Nope. Quite the opposite. Touchscreens aren't going anywhere.
Hope you don't have to enter your Spotify account/password on the car screen to just listen music. I already have in my phone all my service and account, I don't want to relogin on everything on TV or car screen. I don't care about smart TV since a have a Chromecast.
I hate that it is becoming normalized to pay rent to use features on a car you bought.
I'm sure data is being sold, too.
I'm sure data is being sold, too.
Any car without CarPlay is dead to me.
CarPlay is a must have for me. I have zero interest in whatever monstrosity Google has concocted here.
Google. Snort. There’s zero chance this ends well. Maps will be fine, but Spotify, Tidal, MLB apps need to be available or your losing customers.
And no one is paying an extra subscription on their car for entertainment.
And no one is paying an extra subscription on their car for entertainment.
I'm not going to buy a car that is going to charge me a subscription for internet service to use the apps I can already use through Android Auto. Will never happen.
There is so much misinformation and just completely baseless speculation in this thread. Come on people, at least read the article before commenting. This is sad.
It's called Android Automotive OS (not to be confused with Android Auto). Many OEMs are now using Android Automotive for infotainment, but also support CarPlay/AA. This is a terrible move, but GM is just trying to copy Tesla by controlling the entire UX and putting it some of it behind a subscription (like Tesla's Premium Connectivity).