Apple Music With Spatial Audio Now Available in Rivian Vehicles

[Obioban]

Oh I want to discuss things, yeah… but it’s unproductive to speak with people who have no experience on the very thing they’re discussing.

There’s a reason Rivian is rated number 1 in customer satisfaction. The driving experience, the range, the battery, and that includes the infotainment experience. People saying they wouldn’t buy a Rivian because it doesn’t have CarPlay or Apple Music sound… well, I have to be polite here so I’ll just say that they’re speaking from a place of no experience. The $15/mo is justified, I’ll just leave it at that. Not sure why so many little kids are getting their panties in a bunch about something they won’t be driving, anyway.

First of all, it's $15 for now. It's clearly going to go up. Heck, some of the functionality locked behind that $15 was free a couple of month ago. We know all these companies start out cheap and then turn up the dial. Remember when Disney+ was $6.99/month for ad free tier? It was only 4 years ago.

Secondly, it's $15/month per car. Have 5 cars? With carplay, they all use your existing (therefore free) iPhone data plan.

Fast forward this a couple of years, when you're looking at $29.99/month/car, have 5 cars, you're looking at $150/month.

Nope. I'm not doing it. Current 5 car fleet has carplay and costs me $0 per month.
(not to mention all the things that are better because of carplay-- e.g. I primarily/almost entirely listen to podcasts, through overcast. With carplay, whatever car I'm in, the podcast resumes where I left in the previous car).

Also, CarPlay future proofs the car. E.g. I had a BMW i3 (2018). It had CarPlay. It had whatever BMW calls their iDrive garbage. AT&T stopped supporting 3G. The car stopped having internet connectivity. CarPlay? Still working. Still will be working 10 years from now, with whatever new apps I'm using then, running faster on my newer/faster phone. The car will remain disconnected from the internet, with whatever processor they put into it the day the car was made, and discontinued software support from the auto maker at at some point.

So, as I said-- not buying any cars without CarPlay.

 

[dasmb]

Sometimes (I know, shocking!) I want to go somewhere without a phone at all. Imagine that.

It is a somewhat silly luxury to pay $150 a year just so you can drive without a phone. Most people who drive in 2024 will be doing so with a phone and for them this second network is redundant.

As such, it's baffling that you would support a design that forces this luxury on carbuyers.

Surely even if you get a kick of pleasure to journey phone-free, you can see the advantage in having your phone's apps accessible on every other trip.

 

[Velli]

I get what you and many are saying, but for companies that actually make good software, I completely understand they just don't want to hand over the complete ownership of the software development to a giant tech company and be totally depedant on them delivering what suits their car. Also another small point they loose in a race to be unique.

Agree. All I am saying is that this is not a customer driven policy. The way I see it is, they don't want to hand over the responsibility of the in-car experience to the smartphone. I, on the other hand, don't want to hand it over to the car. I want me and my smartphone to be in control, not the car. I totally understand why that's not great from a car manufacturer business perspective, but that's not my problem.

If their software is so much better, surely people who are open to using proprietary software would use it instead of Carplay, even if Carplay was an option? So what do they lose by adding the not insignificant customer group who prefers to use Carplay?

I am 100% on board with the notion that it is possible to create a better experience than Carplay, and I don't want to stop anyone from trying to do that. I even created a post myself where I am calling out one limitation of Carplay (no Atmos support). But, I prefer Carplay, and I will not buy a car without it, no matter how good the alternative is. If random people on the internet can't handle that, I don't care. There are many things in my life where my preferred choice is not necessarily the objectively "best" solution, but just happens to fit my habits, or taste. Rivian (and Tesla) owners are just going to have to deal with the fact that I'm not buying their favourite car.

 

[Velli]

Of course I find it ok. It's a different connection, to a different network, from a different device.

I don't necessarily want everything going through my mobile phone. Sometimes I like it completely separate from my car.

Sometimes (I know, shocking!) I want to go somewhere without a phone at all. Imagine that.

What does you or Rivian lose by allowing people who want to use Carplay to use Carplay? It's still possible for you to drive without your phone, and use your Rivian connected services, even though the car also supports Carplay. You won't even see it, aside from one menu topic hidden deep down in some settings menu. This is how every single car with Carplay support works - it's 100% optional. Adding Carplay takes zero away from you, but not having Carplay takes a lot away from me. The only one winning from this policy is Rivian, not Rivian customers.

 

[Nekronos]

I am not a Rivian customer now but I would be a prospect for the R3 when it comes out. It has a lot of what I am looking for in an EV but I was very disappointed in Rivian’s policy to not support CarPlay and I disagree with their reasoning for why that is a good thing.

You feel that Rivian provides a good experience. That may be but it can not provide everything nor should it try. What it should do is allow a simple CarPlay connection to allow us to fill in the gaps. I am not even bothered by Rivian wanting a subscription for the car. I assume that is going to be part of it. Fine. Charge me but also give me what I need, not what you need.

You act like it's the end of the world if you can't resume podcasts in exactly the same app you regularly use but while in your vehicle.

There are numerous apps you can play podcasts on in a Rivian. It's not that hard to adapt a little - if it's a vehicle you really like, you'll do exactly that - carplay shouldn't be such a make or break deal it is for some of y'all - certainly not in carplay's current design state, one day maybe but not today.

 

[diamond.g]

What does you or Rivian lose by allowing people who want to use Carplay to use Carplay? It's still possible for you to drive without your phone, and use your Rivian connected services, even though the car also supports Carplay. You won't even see it, aside from one menu topic hidden deep down in some settings menu. This is how every single car with Carplay support works - it's 100% optional. Adding Carplay takes zero away from you, but not having Carplay takes a lot away from me. The only one winning from this policy is Rivian, not Rivian customers.

I don't think folks that are wanting CP on Rivian (and don't have one already) were ever going to buy the vehicle even if it had CP.

The F150 and the EV9 are alternatives if you want CP (and functionally no different than the R1S/R1T).

 

[Velli]

You act like it's the end of the world if you can't resume podcasts in exactly the same app you regularly use but while in your vehicle.

It's just one point out of several.

Lots of people have pet peeves that dictate big decisions. My wife just based the buying decision of an 80.000 dollar car on the size of the roof window (there were two viable options).

 

[Velli]

I don't think folks that are wanting CP on Rivian (and don't have one already) were ever going to buy the vehicle even if it had CP.

Believe what you want. I'm personally shopping a different style of car, so no I wouldn't personally have bought a Rivian. But I will, and have, most certainly put cars that don't have Carplay on the no-go list, and even more so has my wife.

Edit: I have allowed myself to be distracted from my original argument: I'm not trying to say that Rivian would earn more money by adding Carplay. I am arguing that the decision is not based on a customer driven company policy, and they aren't even trying to argue that it is. Which I am actually perfectly okay with, it's their company, they can do whatever they want. Lots of companies have made lots of money by not being customer driven.

 

[BuffaloTF]

In other words, mostly stuff you would already have with CarPlay. Yeesh.

In other words, no. You have 1 feature in CarPlay that these things in a Tesla and Rivian provide. Notably, smart route planning. Go a distance that requires charging, it will tell you where to stop. It will tell you if there’s availability. It will tell you how many cars are en route to that same stop. It will tell you if that charger is down. It will pre-condition your battery so it’s at optimal temperature when you arrive so you actually charge at an appropriate speed.

You know those stories about cars taking forever to charge from Chicago this past winter? That’s because they didn’t route to the charger and it was ice cold. Just this past weekend I had a 5 hour round trip that required crossing the border twice, once out, once back. I could’ve made it with no charging, arriving home at 12%. However, not knowing what to expect in the almost 2 hours it would take to get to the border I decided to charge. The supercharger was 2 blocks away from where I started, and my battery wasn’t pre-conditioned. Middle of summer, already warm… what should’ve been 10 minutes max took 25 and I still stopped early.

Giving your car the intelligence to perform better is worth more than CarPlay. CarPlay and Android Auto were band aids over bad infotainment systems in this overall transition from FM and CD players and GPS devices suction-cupped to the windshield to on demand music and GPS. It served its function as a bridge, and it has now been lapped in function, design, and ease of use by the likes of Tesla and Rivian… and even Android Automotive.

 

[Nekronos]

It's just one point out of several.

Lots of people have pet peeves that dictate big decisions. My wife just based the buying decision of an 80.000 dollar car on the size of the roof window (there were two viable options).

That's true and part of my point - how reasonable is that? People have lost sight and purpose, becoming so obsessed with trying to have everything exactly as they wish, often feeling entitled. Society has been moving into an unstainable, unhealthy direction in this consumer focused, instant gratification, love/hate, polarizing world we now live in.

Believe what you want. I'm personally shopping a different style of car, so no I wouldn't personally have bought a Rivian. But I will, and have, most certainly put cars that don't have Carplay on the no-go list, and even more so has my wife.

Edit: I have allowed myself to be distracted from my original argument: I'm not trying to say that Rivian would earn more money by adding Carplay. I am arguing that the decision is not based on a customer driven company policy, and they aren't even trying to argue that it is. Which I am actually perfectly okay with, it's their company, they can do whatever they want. Lots of companies have made lots of money by not being customer driven.

I think your argument of not being customer driven falls flat - customer driven doesn't mean just doing whatever customers are in a frenzy about. Haven't you heard of the concept of the customer doesn't always know what they want? Apple certainly has been following that mantra that Steve Jobs infused in the company long ago.

Also, surveys show customer sentiment at the extreme of not having carplay being a deal-breaker is in the 20-35% range, it needs to be much higher to make your argument have teeth. And you know, it would be one thing if Rivian's setup sucked, then carplay would be more desirable - that's just not the case though.

 

[kingtj1971]

If they truly cared about their customers’ user experience and believe that they’re offering is better, than they would not piggy back off their customer’s currently paid music subscription to charge their own subscription. This is now just a money grab.

Yeah, except the subscription fee you pay Rivian sounds more like Tesla's "premium connectivity" monthly fee that's primarily paid to keep the 4G LTE "hotspot" built into the vehicle active with unlimited streaming through it. They'd charge the same with or without the Apple Music functionality added to it.

 

[lcs101]

I don't think folks that are wanting CP on Rivian (and don't have one already) were ever going to buy the vehicle even if it had CP.

The F150 and the EV9 are alternatives if you want CP (and functionally no different than the R1S/R1T).

I would 100% consider Rivian for my next vehicle if I had full access to Apple Music through its infotainment (CarPlay or otherwise) without having to pay extra every month. So there goes that hypothesis...

 

[Velli]

That's true and part of my point - how reasonable is that? People have lost sight and purpose, becoming so obsessed with trying to have everything exactly as they wish, often feeling entitled. Society has been moving into an unstainable, unhealthy direction in this consumer focused, instant gratification, love/hate, polarizing world we now live in.


I think your argument of not being customer driven falls flat - customer driven doesn't mean just doing whatever customers are in a frenzy about. Haven't you heard of the concept of the customer doesn't always know what they want? Apple certainly has been following that mantra that Steve Jobs infused in the company long ago.

Also, surveys show customer sentiment at the extreme of not having carplay being a deal-breaker is in the 20-35% range, it needs to be much higher to make your argument have teeth. And you know, it would be one thing if Rivian's setup sucked, then carplay would be more desirable - that's just not the case though.

Then tell me what the downside (for users) to supporting the option is. Rivian is outright telling you that they are doing it for the benefit of the company, not for the users. I’m not making it up. Using Steve Jobs as an excuse to not have the customer in mind is misguided. Steve Jobs would 100% make decisions that would benefit the user more than the company. This is the opposite.

If they had said that they believe the customer is better served by the car maker delivering the ICE, and they are skipping CarPlay to push the market towards that direction, this would be a completely different discussion. But that’s not what they said. They touted the benefit for them, not the benefit for the user.

 

[Nekronos]

Then tell me what the downside (for users) to supporting the option is. Rivian is outright telling you that they are doing it for the benefit of the company, not for the users. I’m not making it up. Using Steve Jobs as an excuse to not have the customer in mind is misguided. Steve Jobs would 100% make decisions that would benefit the user more than the company. This is the opposite.

If they had said that they believe the customer is better served by the car maker delivering the ICE, and they are skipping CarPlay to push the market towards that direction, this would be a completely different discussion. But that’s not what they said. They touted the benefit for them, not the benefit for the user.

Where is Rivian telling people it's for the benefit of the company? That's an interesting take and the opposite of what I've seen.

My Apple/Steve Jobs comparison isn't an excuse nor misguided at all, it's very apt.

I've already explained the downside for supporting carplay more than once, others have mentioned it and the CEO of Rivian stated it pretty clearly.

 

[Obioban]

Where is Rivian telling people it's for the benefit of the company? That's an interesting take and the opposite of what I've seen.

My Apple/Steve Jobs comparison isn't an excuse nor misguided at all, it's very apt.

I've already explained the downside for supporting carplay more than once, others have mentioned it and the CEO of Rivian stated it pretty clearly.

Has the CEO of Rivian justified it beyond, "we don't want to waste resources on supporting it"? Because that's a made up, BS excuse-- takes functionally zero effort to deploy, and actually zero to support after the fact.

The only actual reason to not support it is because you think it'll cause less people to use your paid for, subscription service. Can't lose if you don't have to compete.

Generally, I think lack of CarPlay will last as long as there isn't real competition in the space. Only Tesla and Rivian actually make bespoke EVs (everyone else shares gas car platforms), putting them a large step ahead of the rest of the market. Presumably, at some point that situation will end. LOTS of people care about CarPlay/AA, and subscription fatigue is real-- once competitive cars exist, it will become a larger decision driver.

 

[deathcab]

All the arguing over this is funny. It's pretty simple, Rivian's CEO has been clear that CP/AA is not coming to Rivian at any point. Period. Full stop.

Some folks feel CarPlay is a 100% essential, must have option and Rivian is not (and will never be) an option for that crowd. That's perfectly fine and there are many other vehicles out there that offer CarPlay so it's not like anyone is without options.

For the rest of us who prioritize other things like driving experience, convenience features, battery range (on EVs), etc., you just have to go into it knowing that CP is not and will not ever be an option and weigh that against what you value most in a vehicle. That's how I approached my last vehicle purchase and couldn't be happier with the Quad-Motor Rivian R1S that I ultimately went with.

Yes, I will have to start paying $12.50/month for unlimited LTE / hotspot access in the vehicle starting in mid-October (instead of using the 100% free option that Rivian offers which is to use my iPhone data connection instead - similar to how cars with CarPlay rely on the phone's data plan), and I'm going to lose exactly 0 hours of sleep over that fee which, again, is 100% voluntary and can be avoided by anyone who would prefer to just tether to their iPhone.

 

[Tagbert]

You act like it's the end of the world if you can't resume podcasts in exactly the same app you regularly use but while in your vehicle.

There are numerous apps you can play podcasts on in a Rivian. It's not that hard to adapt a little - if it's a vehicle you really like, you'll do exactly that - carplay shouldn't be such a make or break deal it is for some of y'all - certainly not in carplay's current design state, one day maybe but not today.

… and you act like it’s the end of the world to allow CarPlay in a Rivian. What is the downside? Why should I have to completely change how I listen to podcasts just to not offend Rivian’s aesthetics? I’ve even said that I’m willing to pay a subscription for connectivity for the built-in functions. Why should I also give up how I use my phone?

 

[Tagbert]

No. No Carplay for you. Get over it.

Thank you for your empathy. I guess the answer to those that don’t toe the line is to just comply or get lost? Why are you carrying so much water for Rivian and Tesla in this issue?

 

[kittonian]

While this discussion is already quite extensive, I will say this;

The companies that keep trying to do their own thing will fail. Just like all the companies that said "We're going to have our own payment system through our app" when Apple Pay came out.

No one cares. People have an iPhone and they use Apple Pay. You don't accept it? Fine, but they're not going to download your crappy app and use your custom payment solution instead. All that happens (and it did numerous times from numerous companies) is that they spend tons of development time and money creating something no one wants and then it eventually goes away in favor of what they should have done in the first place. How many companies now accept Apple Pay that initially refused to do so? Tons.

This is the same scenario with CarPlay. I don't care how good your infotainment system might be "now", I want to use CarPlay. It works perfectly for me (BMW M340i) every time. The only issues are with BMW's software where sometimes I have to hard reboot their system or reconnect my iPhone. Otherwise, flawless. In fact, it's hilarious how BMW continually tries to market to me to purchase their navigation updates, or extra software features. I don't care. I use CarPlay. In fact, take all the BMW garbage out as far as I'm concerned. I don't need. I won't use it. Every time I pickup a new leased vehicle the BMW Genius tries to start explaining all the new BMW features to me and every time I say, "Who is using this? Everyone uses CarPlay." They agree and the discussion stops.

This is the whole problem with Rivian. They are still losing money on every vehicle they sell, but have a CEO that doesn't seem to get it. Everyone asked for the universal super charger port. Took them forever to make that happen. Now they have it. Everyone is telling him to stop with their custom infotainment solution and just use CarPlay. He refuses. Someday he'll get it but apparently not anytime soon because he's so stubborn.

My lease is coming due next year and I was really hoping to buy a Rivian. But... as others have said... no CarPlay? No purchase.

 

[diamond.g]

I would 100% consider Rivian for my next vehicle if I had full access to Apple Music through its infotainment (CarPlay or otherwise) without having to pay extra every month. So there goes that hypothesis...

Why would you choose the Rivian over the F150?

 

[vjl323]

I'd say one of the most important things is going to be navigation - vehicles with adaptive suspension and auto-pilot type functions utilize navigation input, also with EVs it helps manage the battery - assuming you use a different navigation system via carplay this will hinder those features. And aside from those points, a number of vehicle functions will cause a less than seamless jumping in and out of carplay mode depending on what you are using (i.e. vehicle's navigation/climate control/etc but having calls/texts/other apps via carplay that can interrupt vehicular apps and vice versa)

My nearly 11 year old Mazda has GPS and offline maps on the infotainment area, and I would think modern vehicles would have this as well. Yes, now my phone has offline Apple Maps [and a dedicated offline map app I have used for years], but I think it is unusual for a car company to believe that they would have to have cell service to improve the active suspension. Most of the places I drive, there is no cell service, and the provider I use has the best coverage of the cell companies in the US. So if the Rivan requires a cell connection for suspension and auto-pilot, then perhaps they should come with the cell service free, and have a backup for when a person takes their vehicle in an area not covered by any cell provider.

 

[xDKP]

Agree. All I am saying is that this is not a customer driven policy. The way I see it is, they don't want to hand over the responsibility of the in-car experience to the smartphone. I, on the other hand, don't want to hand it over to the car. I want me and my smartphone to be in control, not the car. I totally understand why that's not great from a car manufacturer business perspective, but that's not my problem.

If their software is so much better, surely people who are open to using proprietary software would use it instead of Carplay, even if Carplay was an option? So what do they lose by adding the not insignificant customer group who prefers to use Carplay?

I am 100% on board with the notion that it is possible to create a better experience than Carplay, and I don't want to stop anyone from trying to do that. I even created a post myself where I am calling out one limitation of Carplay (no Atmos support). But, I prefer Carplay, and I will not buy a car without it, no matter how good the alternative is. If random people on the internet can't handle that, I don't care. There are many things in my life where my preferred choice is not necessarily the objectively "best" solution, but just happens to fit my habits, or taste. Rivian (and Tesla) owners are just going to have to deal with the fact that I'm not buying their favourite car.

Agree they don't want to hand it over - and I can totally understand that they don't want to hand over the keys to a pretty crucial part of their cars to one of the most closed-walled-garden companies like Apple or someone like Google.

And speaking about customer driven actions - we’re on a Apple forum. They have a TON of actions that quite often benefit themselves and not the customer directly

Believe what you want. I'm personally shopping a different style of car, so no I wouldn't personally have bought a Rivian. But I will, and have, most certainly put cars that don't have Carplay on the no-go list, and even more so has my wife.

Edit: I have allowed myself to be distracted from my original argument: I'm not trying to say that Rivian would earn more money by adding Carplay. I am arguing that the decision is not based on a customer driven company policy, and they aren't even trying to argue that it is. Which I am actually perfectly okay with, it's their company, they can do whatever they want. Lots of companies have made lots of money by not being customer driven.

All companies act on what they think will be the best for their company moving forward. Luckily it’s often the same as the customers interest - they might lose customers and not good for business.

We’re not really getting anywhere in this discussion but as an actual Apple user and owner of my second Tesla I can honestly say I have never missed CarPlay in my car. On many cars the display and system is secondary and feels very secondary so I would like CarPlay there as well. But in our Tesla (and suppose Rivian) it’s basically the other way around where the display is the main hub - would really not want Apple, Google or anyone else interfering with that

 

[Nekronos]

My nearly 11 year old Mazda has GPS and offline maps on the infotainment area, and I would think modern vehicles would have this as well. Yes, now my phone has offline Apple Maps [and a dedicated offline map app I have used for years], but I think it is unusual for a car company to believe that they would have to have cell service to improve the active suspension. Most of the places I drive, there is no cell service, and the provider I use has the best coverage of the cell companies in the US. So if the Rivan requires a cell connection for suspension and auto-pilot, then perhaps they should come with the cell service free, and have a backup for when a person takes their vehicle in an area not covered by any cell provider.

I never said anything about a cell connection, I'm talking about native apps that have deep vehicle integration vs carplay that lacks that. Cell connection obviously enhances everything with things like traffic, streaming, etc but wasn't a talking point of mine in regards to what you replied to.

 

[Nekronos]

Has the CEO of Rivian justified it beyond, "we don't want to waste resources on supporting it"? Because that's a made up, BS excuse-- takes functionally zero effort to deploy, and actually zero to support after the fact.

The only actual reason to not support it is because you think it'll cause less people to use your paid for, subscription service. Can't lose if you don't have to compete.

Generally, I think lack of CarPlay will last as long as there isn't real competition in the space. Only Tesla and Rivian actually make bespoke EVs (everyone else shares gas car platforms), putting them a large step ahead of the rest of the market. Presumably, at some point that situation will end. LOTS of people care about CarPlay/AA, and subscription fatigue is real-- once competitive cars exist, it will become a larger decision driver.

I don't know what you're on about it but I haven't seen any such rhetoric. I'd suggest you actually read Rivian's messaging and what RJ has said about it.

Your "only" reason is certainly not the only reason.

Also, Tesla and Rivian are not the only ones who make bespoke EVs.

 

[Nekronos]

… and you act like it’s the end of the world to allow CarPlay in a Rivian. What is the downside? Why should I have to completely change how I listen to podcasts just to not offend Rivian’s aesthetics? I’ve even said that I’m willing to pay a subscription for connectivity for the built-in functions. Why should I also give up how I use my phone?

LOL, I certainly do not and trying to turn that around me is laughable, I could careless what vehicles have carplay. The downsides have already been stated several times and it has nothing to do with aesthetics.