Apple Music With Spatial Audio Now Available in Rivian Vehicles

[Obioban]

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.

Lucid also makes a a bespoke EV, and it's what I'd get were I in the market for a sedan. Other than that... Kia and the Mach E? Can't think of anyone else. Certainly BMW hasn't since they discontinued the i3. VAG does, they're all shared gas platforms. Overwhelmingly companies try to platform share with ICEVs.

Would you care to quote or link to the RJ comment you're referring to?

 

[ProbablyDylan]

… 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?

The same reason Apple doesn't let you put MacOS on an iPad. Rivian believes their software experience is better than the alternative.

 

[Nekronos]

Lucid also makes a a bespoke EV, and it's what I'd get were I in the market for a sedan. Other than that... Kia and the Mach E? Can't think of anyone else. Certainly BMW hasn't since they discontinued the i3. VAG does, they're all shared gas platforms. Overwhelmingly companies try to platform share with ICEVs.

Would you care to quote or link to the RJ comment you're referring to?

BMW makes bespoke EVs (iX and it's nextgen bespoke lineup is coming out in 2025). In addition to Kia and Ford, there is also Hyundai ionic 5/6, GM with its ultium platform (think Cadillac Lyriq), VW (id3 and more), Toyota (bz4x) Mercedes, Polestar 3, Genesis GV60, the now defunct Fisker. I mean there's a long list of bespoke platforms, many have only a model or two out but with many more on the way in 2025.

RJ has made a number of comments and and you find many video interviews where he says the same (which among others you can find here or elsewhere: https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/22/24203609/rivian-apple-carplay-support-rj-scaringe-decoder)

“We’ve taken the view of the digital experience in the vehicle wants to feel consistent and holistically harmonious across every touch point. In order to do that, the idea of having customers jump in or out of an application for which we don’t control and for which doesn’t have deep capabilities to leverage other parts of the vehicle experience. For example, if you’re in CarPlay and wanna open the front trunk, you have to leave the application and go to another interface.​

​

It’s not consistent with how we think about really creating a pure product experience.”“In order to deliver the features that are desired within CarPlay, we’re starting to do that, but on an a la carte basis. So we’re just launching Apple Music in the vehicle. We have a great relationship with the Apple team. It’s in partnership with Dolby Atmos.”​

“I think the biggest complaint today around the lack of CarPlay is the improvements we need to make in mapping, which are coming. But again, even in mapping, we want to be able to separately select routing, separately select base maps, separately select points of interest, overlay that with charging routing, which is really important and is highly specific to the vehicle itself and highly specific to the networks and the ratings on those networks, which we bought a route planning company to support that. We just believe that it’s such an important piece of real estate, the digital ecosystem, that it was something we want to retain.​

​

And we recognize that it’ll take us time to fully capture every feature that’s in CarPlay. And hopefully customers are seeing that. And I think it gets often more noise than it deserves.​

​

The other thing beyond mapping that’s coming is better integration with texting. And we know that needs to come. And it’s something that teams are actively working on.”​

​

“We have a great relationship with Apple. I think the absolute world of their products. If I put myself in Apple shoes, imagine Apple is developing a Mac, and there was someone that had a software application, let’s maybe call it Windows.​

​

And they said, ‘we have a turnkey platform that everyone knows how to use.’ Would they have put that in their car? Would they have developed their own iOS?​

​

We know how that played out. So as much as I love their products, there’s a reason that ironically is very consistent with Apple ethos for us to want to control the ecosystem.”​

 

[Tagbert]

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

There are no actual downsides of allowing CarPlay as an option. The only functional objection seem to be that
Rivian maps makes it easier to find chargers and do preconditioning. Great. Let people use that when they are looking for a charger. How about when we are doing other things that CarPlay does and Rivian does not not provide. RJ used some distorted version of how CarPlay works to justify not included it. I lost some respect for him with that misreprentation.

 

[Nekronos]

There are no actual downsides of allowing CarPlay as an option. The only functional objection seem to be that
Rivian maps makes it easier to find chargers and do preconditioning. Great. Let people use that when they are looking for a charger. How about when we are doing other things that CarPlay does and Rivian does not not provide. RJ used some distorted version of how CarPlay works to justify not included it. I lost some respect for him with that misreprentation.

Curious, what's distorted about what RJ said with regards to how carplay works? Seemed pretty fair to me.

There are actual downsides to carplay, you can try to dismiss, trivialize and oversimply them all you want but they are very clear and present. I find it hilarious how many people miss the irony of criticizing Rivian and Tesla for not wanting to include carplay and yet happily use products by Apple who uses exactly the same kind of approach.

 

[Tagbert]

Curious, what's distorted about what RJ said with regards to how carplay works? Seemed pretty fair to me.

There are actual downsides to carplay, you can try to dismiss, trivialize and oversimply them all you want but they are very clear and present. I find it hilarious how many people miss the irony of criticizing Rivian and Tesla for not wanting to include carplay and yet happily use products by Apple who uses exactly the same kind of approach.

RJ used a scenario where you are in CarPlay and need to open the frunk. He said that you had to exit CarPlay, then use the native UI to open the frunk. Then restart CarPlay and navigate back to where you were.

The actual scenario would be you are using CarPlay and need to open the frunk. You press a button/icon to task switch to the native UI, hit the frunk button, then press the icon for CarPlay and task switch back to CarPlay. Meanwhile CarPlay has been running in the background. If you were listening to something in CarPlay it continued to play the whole time. CarPlay doesn’t have to take over the whole screen. The car maker can decide where to place what is essentially a streaming video panel.

RJ’s way of describing the process is like those TV advertisement that made a simple task seem hopelessly complicated so they could sell you their special device to do that same task.

I don’t know what you mean about downsides to CarPlay as an optional interface. If you think that CarPlay should take over all functions of the car, then it does have some shortcoming there but I’m not asking for that and I don’t think you are either.

As to what Apple is doing vs Rivian Apple’s behavior, which I don’t really agree with either is entirely irrelevant to what is happening in a Rivian. That is just whataboutism.

 

[OneTraveler]

Tesla's, you really wont understand how not needed CarPlay is. Not having it doesn't diminishes the capacity of the vehicle.

Respectfully disagree. Tesla's version drives me insane. CarPlay NEEDED? No, but I've yet to see a system as convenient. Will I buy a car that doesn't support it? Most likely not.

 

[OneTraveler]

Lucids statement on not liking the experience of going back and forth between UI'

See, I don't buy that argument. The screens in these machines are plenty large to have CarPlay in a "window" on the display and allow for important/needed access still easily accessible. It's about a)wanting access to user data, or b) money (of course there is also c- both).

You want my money? Fine. Charge me for it, let me decide if its worth it.
You want my data? Forget you.

 

[lcs101]

Why would you choose the Rivian over the F150?

When did I say anything about an F150??

 

[diamond.g]

When did I say anything about an F150??

I was curious to know why you would choose the Rivian over the F150 (replace the F150 for EV9 if looking at the SUV instead of truck). More the point being there are alternatives, and those alternatives offer the feature you are claiming is preventing you from buying the vehicle that doesn't offer said feature.

If Rivian has the data showing they are losing a significant number of sales because of CarPlay, they would probably add CarPlay. Same with any manufacturer that is opting to not include CarPlay on vehicles in their fleet.



Has anyone with a Rivian gave this spatial audio feature a try? Wonder why CarPlay doesn't support spatial audio.

 

[Nekronos]

RJ used a scenario where you are in CarPlay and need to open the frunk. He said that you had to exit CarPlay, then use the native UI to open the frunk. Then restart CarPlay and navigate back to where you were.

The actual scenario would be you are using CarPlay and need to open the frunk. You press a button/icon to task switch to the native UI, hit the frunk button, then press the icon for CarPlay and task switch back to CarPlay. Meanwhile CarPlay has been running in the background. If you were listening to something in CarPlay it continued to play the whole time. CarPlay doesn’t have to take over the whole screen. The car maker can decide where to place what is essentially a streaming video panel.

RJ’s way of describing the process is like those TV advertisement that made a simple task seem hopelessly complicated so they could sell you their special device to do that same task.

I don’t know what you mean about downsides to CarPlay as an optional interface. If you think that CarPlay should take over all functions of the car, then it does have some shortcoming there but I’m not asking for that and I don’t think you are either.

As to what Apple is doing vs Rivian Apple’s behavior, which I don’t really agree with either is entirely irrelevant to what is happening in a Rivian. That is just whataboutism.

I think you miss-interpreted and mischaracterized what RJ said - you do have to "leave carplay" he's not wrong. He didn't say anything about completely killing the application - it obviously runs in the background.

How do you know what carplay does and doesn't have to do in terms of implementation or what the car maker can do in regards to it? Do you think Apple doesn't also have some level of control of how carplay is implemented?

I think RJ fairly described what happens and it was just a single example. I do not think he made it sound "hopelessly complicated" again, really mischaracterizing.

Yes for carplay to have a seemless experience and shore up other shortcomings, it needs deep level integration where it can control vehicular functions as well as communicate/share what's happening in either mode.

It's not irrelevant or whataboutism at all, in fact it's just again ironic that's your line of thinking.

 

[vjl323]

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.

You did state, "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"

In my mind, navigation requiring a cell connection [which is the entire point of this - having to spend more money for another device with cell service, when we already have a phone] is just a super bad idea. Cell networks in the US are very unreliable for this kind of function. Having offline navigation and having a car be able to use that to calculate suspension and auto-pilot, should be a requirement. The latency with a cell connection, even a strong one, is not good enough for critical systems to rely on.

 

[Obioban]

RJ has made a number of comments and and you find many video interviews where he says the same (which among others you can find here or elsewhere: https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/22/24203609/rivian-apple-carplay-support-rj-scaringe-decoder)

“We’ve taken the view of the digital experience in the vehicle wants to feel consistent and holistically harmonious across every touch point. In order to do that, the idea of having customers jump in or out of an application for which we don’t control and for which doesn’t have deep capabilities to leverage other parts of the vehicle experience. For example, if you’re in CarPlay and wanna open the front trunk, you have to leave the application and go to another interface.​

​

It’s not consistent with how we think about really creating a pure product experience.”“In order to deliver the features that are desired within CarPlay, we’re starting to do that, but on an a la carte basis. So we’re just launching Apple Music in the vehicle. We have a great relationship with the Apple team. It’s in partnership with Dolby Atmos.”​

“I think the biggest complaint today around the lack of CarPlay is the improvements we need to make in mapping, which are coming. But again, even in mapping, we want to be able to separately select routing, separately select base maps, separately select points of interest, overlay that with charging routing, which is really important and is highly specific to the vehicle itself and highly specific to the networks and the ratings on those networks, which we bought a route planning company to support that. We just believe that it’s such an important piece of real estate, the digital ecosystem, that it was something we want to retain.​

​

And we recognize that it’ll take us time to fully capture every feature that’s in CarPlay. And hopefully customers are seeing that. And I think it gets often more noise than it deserves.​

​

The other thing beyond mapping that’s coming is better integration with texting. And we know that needs to come. And it’s something that teams are actively working on.”​

​

“We have a great relationship with Apple. I think the absolute world of their products. If I put myself in Apple shoes, imagine Apple is developing a Mac, and there was someone that had a software application, let’s maybe call it Windows.​

​

And they said, ‘we have a turnkey platform that everyone knows how to use.’ Would they have put that in their car? Would they have developed their own iOS?​

​

We know how that played out. So as much as I love their products, there’s a reason that ironically is very consistent with Apple ethos for us to want to control the ecosystem.”​

First of all-- clearly trunk release should be a hardware button. Cheaping out on buttons seems to, happily, be a trend that is reversing.

Secondly-- it's a BS excuse anyway. As in, CarPlay should clearly just live within the white box portion of the screen below:

At which point it's no harder to get to the should be hardware buttons from CarPlay than from the Music app they're touting. That said, in a better car, that entire row of buttons below the white box/app would be hardware buttons. But, gotta save money somewhere when you're spinning up a new car company.

He's right that Maps is the area that is most sorely lacking with non CarPlay/AA systems. You know what my nav system is actually used for, 99% of the time? Telling me police speed trap locations. No car brand specific setup will ever be able to remotely compete with that, because it's customer generated data-- and they'll never have the volume.

As for would Apple do it themselves? Seems like yes, since they're adding the ability to run projected display iPhone apps in MacOS this year .

 

[Nekronos]

You did state, "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"

In my mind, navigation requiring a cell connection [which is the entire point of this - having to spend more money for another device with cell service, when we already have a phone] is just a super bad idea. Cell networks in the US are very unreliable for this kind of function. Having offline navigation and having a car be able to use that to calculate suspension and auto-pilot, should be a requirement. The latency with a cell connection, even a strong one, is not good enough for critical systems to rely on.

Navigation does not require cellular, it requires GPS, Rivian doesn't require you to pay for their connected services in order to use navigation, no automaker does that. You are conflating what I said.

 

[Nekronos]

First of all-- clearly trunk release should be a hardware button. Cheaping out on buttons seems to, happily, be a trend that is reversing.

Secondly-- it's a BS excuse anyway. As in, CarPlay should clearly just live within the white box portion of the screen below:

At which point it's no harder to get to the should be hardware buttons from CarPlay than from the Music app they're touting. That said, in a better car, that entire row of buttons below the white box/app would be hardware buttons. But, gotta save money somewhere when you're spinning up a new car company.

He's right that Maps is the area that is most sorely lacking with non CarPlay/AA systems. You know what my nav system is actually used for, 99% of the time? Telling me police speed trap locations. No car brand specific setup will ever be able to remotely compete with that, because it's customer generated data-- and they'll never have the volume.

As for would Apple do it themselves? Seems like yes, since they're adding the ability to run projected display iPhone apps in MacOS this year .

The loss of buttons isn't just a cost thing, it's part of the popular minimalist design, in addition to improved aesthetics and cost savings, it simplifies manufacturing - pros/cons like anything. Personally I prefer less buttons but want a few for things i use the most (I think BMW did this best with their 1-8 programmable button configuration). I personally don't care either way whether there is a physical trunk release in the car, as there are multiple ways to open it.

I don't know what you are calling a "BS excuse" but I think the reasons provided are valid and reasonable. And what you've stated in your rebuttal if you can call it that, don't refute those reasons. Does anyone actually know how carplay is implemented or how it's required to be implemented? I've said this before but I suspect Apple requires carplay implemented in a certain way, there could be limitations due to either carplay itself in how it is designed or limitations in how it interacts with vehicles themselves. It's clear to anyone who isn't acting like a total fanboy to realize carplay is limited and I'll say it again, the potential is there but it's clearly lacking in its current state for a myriad of reasons.

My BMW nav works perfectly fine, it gets over the air updates, it shows traffic, police speed traps and traffic cameras. I use BMW's native nav the vast majority of the time, it will automatically suggest destinations based on my calendar and my driving habits just like apple maps. I have confidence Rivian will improve its navigation along with other native features.

 

[frostbit3]

Navigation does not require cellular, it requires GPS, Rivian doesn't require you to pay for their connected services in order to use navigation, no automaker does that. You are conflating what I said.

Actually GM does require it, see the comments in https://www.reddit.com/r/CadillacLyriq/s/TfWmBtV7A1
Navigation is tied to their $20/month data plan. No data plan, no navigation.

 

[Nekronos]

Actually GM does require it, see the comments in https://www.reddit.com/r/CadillacLyriq/s/TfWmBtV7A1
Navigation is tied to their $20/month data plan. No data plan, no navigation.

Looks like you are right about new Lyriqs (though I believe carplay/android auto is still available depending on the model year) but that's not true for all GM vehicles. From what I've read, most GM vehicles get some level of onstar for free at least for a few years and GM heavily pushes onstar, but it is generally not required for navigation as I've seen from other testimonial threads including a 2023 Bolt and Corvette.

As for the Lyric, it uses google built in the system like the Polestar and it requires data for that, so it will not work without at least a basic onstar plan. https://www.cadillac.com/technology/google-built-in

As a result of dropping carplay/android auto, GM will be providing 8 years of onstar going forward. https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/1...ou-lose-when-your-onstar-subscription-lapses/

This is a pretty tangential point and doesn't refute 99% of what I said, so I don't know what your point is given this thread is about Rivian.