Neither am I but it seems to be the current approach.
I just choose not to buy products or services from companies that don’t make what I want.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Said Next-Generation CarPlay Would 'Arrive' in 2024… It Didn't
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just choose not to buy products or services from companies that don’t make what I want.
a. It is much less proprietary than you think. A lot of those modules are reused across brands and models, and have open communication. b. Google AAOS is running in my cars already with multiple screen integration and that integration with car modules. So yes auto makers are willing to do this.
Google AAOS is definitely a force to be reckoned with. I've used it for nearly 3 years in our Polestar 2, and I've got to admit it is pretty good, and integration with an iPhone has always been better than with an Android phone.
However, Google being Google, they don't make it easy.
Android Auto - Basically like Apple CarPlay, it requires your phone and either wireless or plugged in. And weirdly Google AAOS doesn't support Android Auto out of the box. There is a lot of work to be done for the car manufacturers to enable that via the onboard systems.
Android Automotive - Basically a version of Android, a full blown operating system build into the vehicle. Meaning your phone isn't required, and not involved. You can still run a bluetooth connection from your phone, and there can be Apple CarPlay and Android Auto as an app on top of it.
And then there is Google Automotive Services (GAS), a bit harder to distinguish but it is like a base package with typical Google Services integrated into it, like deep integration of google maps, assistant, play store, etc. GAS runs on top of AAOS.
BMW didn't actually take GAS, so it will be interesting to see what they actually do intend to use, and how that contributes to a user experience.
I think a lot of people get confused between Android Auto and Android Automotive Operating System (AAOS).
I would buy a car that has Android Auto.
I would not buy a car that has AAOS.
BMWs OS9 is already using Android automotive - the AOSP version without GAS.
There were rumors that BMW was in talks with with Apple - but no company wants to work with Apple. MFI was and still is and everyone knows it is a pain in the a**.
Can you explain how they have open communication? I’m trying to understand what you mean. From what I understand, the modules may be "modular" but when they are bound to a specific firmware and software set, surely they become effectively proprietary to that o.s.
The problem is the data. BMW wants the user data to sell. Apple won’t let them have it so BMW goes with the company that does.
The flip side is the actual car owner doesn’t want anyone to have the data, but they aren’t given that choice.
Why not AAOS? I've had it for 3 years now, driven across 9 different countries. It is one of the best incar systems I've used compared to BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Land Rover, and Porsche native systems. On all of those, I immediately reached for Apple CarPlay, never had that urge with AAOS.
infotainment systems are likely developed by external parties, so it costs money for the car manufacturers. now we also should not forget the fact that the car must remain operational even if the driver's phone breaks or the battery goes flat. in order to CarPlay 2.0 to function, the car must have a more open "IT" ecosystem, which also puts extra burden on the manufacturer (which is then outsourced to the 3rd party, who charges big money too).
most carmakers tend to bundle CarPlay capability with their highest tier of infotainment (big touchscreen, higher end speaker system, bundled navigation and media player (that people who use CarPlay or android auto would never touch)), so they do make substantial amount on infotainment.
but keep one thing in mind: if anything goes wrong because of CarPlay 2.0, most people will complain to the service or to the dealership. so even if i put corporate greed aside, it is pretty logical that they protect their butts. this integration will be nothing like we've seen before, these endpoints were never exposed to independent 3rd parties, so there is really a substantial risk in this for the manufacturer.
Sure, various modules/unit have to be coded in a vehicle such that they can be addressed and integrated. And manufactures then have other modules. These are often split into a domain or zone architecture, with a one or more network types. There are multiple architectures. But the way these things communicate with each other is mostly standardised. Configuration may be specific to a vehicle, but the modules are just made by the usual suspects and giants in the industry. So attempt to protect it, but if you are handy you can tap into those systems, change the configuration files and adapt how it behaves. Heck security is often not even that strong
Do you have nothing of Google? Absolutely nothing? And you do know you can set your privacy settings if that is your concern. The maps are pretty good
Nope. I don’t do Google. Too anticompetitive for me to support or use (and the proliferation of AAOS just cements that anticompetitiveness even further!).Do you have nothing of Google? Absolutely nothing? And you do know you can set your privacy settings if that is your concern. The maps are pretty good
Yes they are, perhaps you should look into the settings of such systems. The defaults are more than enough to comply with the strongest privacy laws.
Nope - not as fas as I know. BMW wants the userdata for themselves, otherwise it wants nothing else than Apple wants. To train modern AI systems you need data - Tesla is a huge data harvester to train their systems.
Otherwise user are protected here by DSGVO and DMA - Apple knows what I‘m talking about.
After talking with some of people in the industry (can’t tell the sources, they wanted to stay anonymous) new CarPlay is coming, but it’s pushed back to 2025.
Reason: Apple Intelligence
Car manufacturers want Apple Intelligence to be the center focus on new CarPlay in addition to the new UI. Apple is working on that closely with car manufacturers and they want to get it right.
Exactly, BMW wants that data for themselves giving BMW users no choice.
This is where I’d simply not buy the product but many would call on regulation to force BMW to offer that choice to consumers.
Last edited:
6 or 7 years ago most car UIs were dreadful. Slow, non-standard.
Back then, an IT solution from outside seemed a better idea.
Jump ahead and now most car manufacturers have a much better idea and teams to build in inhouse.
There's not much more I would do with our Tesla interface.
Maybe touch the CHILL text to allow easy access to STANDARD mode...
And maybe a way to take up some of the bottom screen area with a reverse view.
The Model Y, like many new cars, has dreadful rear view.
Apart from that, the layout and info works pretty well.
For the first week I missed all the old style dials in front of the wheel.
After that, I realised I probably spent too much time looking at them rather than the traffic.
Back then, an IT solution from outside seemed a better idea.
Jump ahead and now most car manufacturers have a much better idea and teams to build in inhouse.
There's not much more I would do with our Tesla interface.
Maybe touch the CHILL text to allow easy access to STANDARD mode...
And maybe a way to take up some of the bottom screen area with a reverse view.
The Model Y, like many new cars, has dreadful rear view.
Apart from that, the layout and info works pretty well.
For the first week I missed all the old style dials in front of the wheel.
After that, I realised I probably spent too much time looking at them rather than the traffic.
Or perhaps if there's no money in it, ditch it?
The research work on these projects often feeds into other devices so it's hardly a total loss.
Moving outside "their lane" is still a valuable and legit dev toolkit.
That makes sense. I’ve been involved where data stored on a vehicles system, has been downloaded from all sorts of vehicles. The equipment used was the same and it was just the software that was able to access the device. Can’t say much more than that. That’s why I support a system that uses a protected device (like the iPhone) to control and hold that info and not the vehicle.Sure, various modules/unit have to be coded in a vehicle such that they can be addressed and integrated. And manufactures then have other modules. These are often split into a domain or zone architecture, with a one or more network types. There are multiple architectures. But the way these things communicate with each other is mostly standardised. Configuration may be specific to a vehicle, but the modules are just made by the usual suspects and giants in the industry. So attempt to protect it, but if you are handy you can tap into those systems, change the configuration files and adapt how it behaves. Heck security is often not even that strong
Apple's marketing team made all this up, at a time when they had nothing new. So even if they did have the intention of releasing this, we're never going to see it.
Make up your mind. Either they made it up or they intended to release it. Source or a reason to make such a ridiculous comment?
I'm surprised there's any Car Company Manufacturers interested in Apple's CarPlay at all, considering their stance on privacy and not allowing certain information to pass through for advertising. Why would any company take this on when they can just use Android Automotive and siphon out all of that sweet sweet data for ad revenue?
There is something to say about that. Then again, I'd like to plug in my tools so I can see that "that BMW up for sale with 60K miles had a misfire at 215K miles..." as an example. And not rely on fragmented history and logging of the vehicle. In-car UI, fine, although to me that would take away quite a bit of the character of the car. Whilst I like Google's AAOS, and whilst different manufacturers can skin the UI to fit with their brand, I instantly recognise they are using the same system. There is nothing new or surprising about it anymore. But I could be wrong.
Entertainment and navigation are great, but what is driving this, is the benefits of deeper integration of that navigation with the vehicle. Not just how it is displayed with multiple screens and head up displays, but also with how it routes based on the state of the car.