Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I’m sure in the EU, GM would be required to open their software up for developers…

I’m in the market for a new car, and I have not/will not bother looking at GM or any other manufacturer that does not support CarPlay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EBone12355
When idiots meet: let's see how this gross injustice of "no choice" flies in the EU.
 
I only purchase vehicles with CarPlay. I don’t buy cars just so the manufacturer can attempt to get more money from me through subscriptions and other pathetic attempts to monetize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EBone12355
"Conviction" is the same as "Courage", just corporate BS to justify their short-sighted actions.
I think the word they're looking for is "hubris". They have an Underpants Gnome-like plan of "we throw together our own system", "????", "Profit!". They think they can out-design Apple, and do it so well that people will happily give up the ecosystem(s) they've already chosen, to use GM's system.

It's like they're thinking, "you know, it sure was great to be a wireless provider back before smartphones took away our market lock-in (back in the bad old days of buying $2 ringtones from Verizon/Sprint/etc.), let's build a system that we totally control like that."

Nobody, outside of their boardroom, actively wants that system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EBone12355


American automaker General Motors (GM) last year announced it would be phasing out support for CarPlay and Android Auto in its new electric vehicles, in favor of its own software platform called Ultifi. The decision has been very controversial, as many drivers consider CarPlay to be a must-have feature in a new vehicle. In 2022, for example, Apple said 79% of U.S. buyers would only consider a vehicle that works with CarPlay.

carplay-widescreen-dashboard.jpg

To make matters worse, GM's rollout of Ultifi went rather poorly, with some early reviewers of the Chevrolet Blazer EV last year experiencing technical issues with the platform. Some of those problems have since been resolved, but it is clear that the automaker might not be as effective at developing software as a tech company like Apple.

In a statement shared with MacRumors last year, GM said its software strategy is "driven by the benefits of having a system that allows for greater integration with the larger GM ecosystem and vehicles." In other words, the automaker wants to control the entire in-vehicle experience, which is both a reasonable and a risky decision.

In a recent interview with The Verge's Nilay Patel, GM's senior vice president of software Baris Cetinok further attempted to defend the automaker's decision to phase out CarPlay. Cetinok worked at Apple between 2012 and 2021, helping to spearhead the launch of Apple Pay, Find My, iCloud Drive, and more, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Cetinok joined GM months after it announced its decision to phase out CarPlay and Android Auto, but unsurprisingly he stands by the automaker's decision. He told Patel that GM believes with "strong conviction" that creating its entire in-vehicle experience provides "a better customer experience" with "end-to-end magic."


2024-Chevrolet-Blazer-EV-Ultifi.jpg


2024 Chevrolet Blazer EV with GM's Ultifi software platform

"But we have a strong conviction that effort pays off in a better customer experience," said Cetinok, speaking on the Decoder podcast. "You get the most out of your vehicle because now we're the company that builds the vehicle and is also creating the infotainment experience, the cluster experience, the app, and everything. We're going to build that one day and maybe a voice assistant on top of it. The only way you can create that end-to-end magic is to have a strong conviction that you want to own all of these."

He said GM wants to offer a seamless experience that does not require having to switch in and out of phone mirroring systems like CarPlay and Android Auto.

"When you want to create something so seamless, it's hard to think about getting into a car and going, 'Okay, so I'm doing highway trailering, but let me flip to a totally different user interface to pick my podcast,'" said Cetinok. "By the way, it's a single app-obsessed interface — it's still hard to believe. So I pick my podcast, flip back to trailering. Oh, now I can also do Super Cruise trailering. Let me manage that. Then, wait, we're now getting into potentially Level 3, Level 4 autonomy levels that should be deeply integrated with talking to the map where the lanes lie. But wait a minute, the map that I'm using doesn't really talk to my car."

The full transcript of the interview with more CarPlay commentary is available on The Verge.

Article Link: GM Again Attempts to Explain Its Decision to Drop CarPlay in New EVs
I think what they don't understand is they think they can make a better instance of something like Apple CarPlay but you know we're so attached to our phones if a car doesn't have Apple CarPlay I want nothing to do with it. I don't want their internal system I'm not used to them. I don't care for them. They're all very horrible including Tesla to name a few so if a provider doesn't give you CarPlay, you're just wasting your time with that vehicle, you shouldn't buy it.
 
but it is clear that the automaker might not be as effective at developing software as a tech company like Apple.
About as good as Apple is at making cars. Lol.

All poking fun aside, GM hasn’t been on my radar in years. This decision just means I won’t even entertain them as a rental.
 
But what incentive do they have to add car systems to CarPlay? Would they also need to do the same for the Android side of the market?

The way I see it, there are a lot of variations in vehicle equipment and safety/driver aid systems, even among models offered by a single manufacturer. For example, amount of possible settings for vehicle systems available in my car (BMW) alone is quite large. Duplicating all that in CarPlay, or any other phone-based layer benefits no one because the consistency iPhone users like about CarPlay can only realistically extend to the things the iPhone is good at: Navigation, phone, messages, entertainment apps. The things folks would probably also use when not in the car.

Allowing us to, for example, set cabin lighting colors or preferences for a custom “sport” driving mode, or custom lane keeping sensitivity in CarPlay is useless if you get into a vehicle that lacks such things, or offers the most basic versions of each. This is what the quote in the article that referenced “trailering” is about.

I just don’t see a financial incentive for auto manufacturers to invest in extending CarPlay (or any other phone-based layer) beyond what it already is, and I don’t see a benefit to the consumer in doing it because there can’t be consistency between vehicle models or brands for the more sophisticated systems in modern cars anyway.
It helps splitting your interaction with the car's infotainment system into two buckets: 1) Static settings, preferences, vehicle-specific features and emergency functions, and 2) Dynamic media playback, apps, streaming and high-turnover/temporary functions.

I personally like how BMW has handled these two "buckets" if you will. CarPlay seems to be there for the most dynamic, media-based features. But the infotainment makes it fairly easy to switch into the car's native settings.

If you're a car manufacturer, you can just focus on the first bucket, where you have reliable menus and easy to find items. Anything that constantly changes and requires lots of updates, leave that to Apple / Google's OS to handle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr_Ed
Yeah....I would have left Android Auto/CarPlay support in place until I felt that my "Ultifi" solution was as good if not better before yanking out what everyone expects a car to have in 2024...Because I tell you what, there is NOTHING more reassuring than when I arrive in a new city for a business trip and I get in my rental car that has wireless CarPlay and my interface pops up on the screen. I'm usually sitting there looking at a sh*t show of buttons and trying to figure out how to get everything to work...
That's a great point!
 
I’d be fine with it if they made a great interface that worked seamlessly with people’s phones and I could easily play any audio on my phone, listen to my texts, and use my GPS app. Of course, car play and android auto already do that, so I have to assume they want something different.
 
I just wish CarPlay would receive some updates. It’s had the same layout and colors since 2018, and it’s the most outdated product I’ve seen to date. Even with wallpapers, we don’t have the freedom to add new stuff, and we can’t even pinch to zoom on maps (or Waze, or any other app).
That might be part of why car makers are considering doing it themselves. They control the updates.
 
I think we should co-opt Ultifi into a generic term.

ultifi(1): ******tification via data mining of already paying customers and/or forcing customers into unwanted subscriptions to proprietary versions of services they already have access to elsewhere.

ultifi(2): To refuse to interoperate with a globally accepted standard solely for personal gain, rather than advancement of the state of the art.

Use in a sentence: GM ultified their new cars... I wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole.
 
It helps splitting your interaction with the car's infotainment system into two buckets: 1) Static settings, preferences, vehicle-specific features and emergency functions, and 2) Dynamic media playback, apps, streaming and high-turnover/temporary functions.

I personally like how BMW has handled these two "buckets" if you will. CarPlay seems to be there for the most dynamic, media-based features. But the infotainment makes it fairly easy to switch into the car's native settings.

If you're a car manufacturer, you can just focus on the first bucket, where you have reliable menus and easy to find items. Anything that constantly changes and requires lots of updates, leave that to Apple / Google's OS to handle.
I completely agree the separation is needed. Of course, that negates the wishes of some here who insist manufacturers should add the car systems to CarPlay. That separation also means the perceived “consistency” of CarPlay across vehicles is essentially limited to things you use the iPhone for. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I think realistically it should stop there.

I also really like what BMW has done. A lot of what I often listen to is not on the phone and the car essentially treats CarPlay as just another source
 
Have you guys actually used Carplay? It's not very good. More often than not I end up on my phone anyways because Siri can't understand me when connected to my car.

If GM, Rivian, Tesla, whoever else can build a better system, be my guest.
Wait until you’re stuck with GM’s $15 month service that never gets updated and is ugly and slow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnowCrocodile
Use it 3 days a week for 8 hours a day navigating the tricky areas of Cornwall UK for work and for the last year or so it has been as good as Google Maps - never have any issue with Siri understanding me for music or map directions and I am mostly driving a 4 year Mercedes van. YMMV

I want that interface for everything I drive so bad news for anyone not supporting it !
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnowCrocodile
Let’s be clear what this is all really about. They want you to not be able to connect your iPhone correctly, so that they can hook up your vehicle to the internet and make apps work for you. Because they want to make you subscribe through them. That way they can make money off of you. CarPlay and your iPhone is better to be directly connected. For example on the GM system you can’t have Apple Music. You can’t have hi resolution audio. It all has to happen over Bluetooth, instead of using WiFi like Apple does.
 
But what incentive do they have to add car systems to CarPlay? Would they also need to do the same for the Android side of the market?

The way I see it, there are a lot of variations in vehicle equipment and safety/driver aid systems, even among models offered by a single manufacturer. For example, amount of possible settings for vehicle systems available in my car (BMW) alone is quite large. Duplicating all that in CarPlay, or any other phone-based layer benefits no one because the consistency iPhone users like about CarPlay can only realistically extend to the things the iPhone is good at: Navigation, phone, messages, entertainment apps. The things folks would probably also use when not in the car.

Allowing us to, for example, set cabin lighting colors or preferences for a custom “sport” driving mode, or custom lane keeping sensitivity in CarPlay is useless if you get into a vehicle that lacks such things, or offers the most basic versions of each. This is what the quote in the article that referenced “trailering” is about.

I just don’t see a financial incentive for auto manufacturers to invest in extending CarPlay (or any other phone-based layer) beyond what it already is, and I don’t see a benefit to the consumer in doing it because there can’t be consistency between vehicle models or brands for the more sophisticated systems in modern cars anyway.
Well here’s one very tiny incentive in the financial department: I won’t even consider a GM product so long as it doesn’t have CarPlay.
Not deeply integrating it into the car’s functions is one thing. But taking it away entirely is a bad move.
 


American automaker General Motors (GM) last year announced it would be phasing out support for CarPlay and Android Auto in its new electric vehicles, in favor of its own software platform called Ultifi. The decision has been very controversial, as many drivers consider CarPlay to be a must-have feature in a new vehicle. In 2022, for example, Apple said 79% of U.S. buyers would only consider a vehicle that works with CarPlay.

carplay-widescreen-dashboard.jpg

To make matters worse, GM's rollout of Ultifi went rather poorly, with some early reviewers of the Chevrolet Blazer EV last year experiencing technical issues with the platform. Some of those problems have since been resolved, but it is clear that the automaker might not be as effective at developing software as a tech company like Apple.

In a statement shared with MacRumors last year, GM said its software strategy is "driven by the benefits of having a system that allows for greater integration with the larger GM ecosystem and vehicles." In other words, the automaker wants to control the entire in-vehicle experience, which is both a reasonable and a risky decision.

In a recent interview with The Verge's Nilay Patel, GM's senior vice president of software Baris Cetinok further attempted to defend the automaker's decision to phase out CarPlay. Cetinok worked at Apple between 2012 and 2021, helping to spearhead the launch of Apple Pay, Find My, iCloud Drive, and more, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Cetinok joined GM months after it announced its decision to phase out CarPlay and Android Auto, but unsurprisingly he stands by the automaker's decision. He told Patel that GM believes with "strong conviction" that creating its entire in-vehicle experience provides "a better customer experience" with "end-to-end magic."


2024-Chevrolet-Blazer-EV-Ultifi.jpg


2024 Chevrolet Blazer EV with GM's Ultifi software platform

"But we have a strong conviction that effort pays off in a better customer experience," said Cetinok, speaking on the Decoder podcast. "You get the most out of your vehicle because now we're the company that builds the vehicle and is also creating the infotainment experience, the cluster experience, the app, and everything. We're going to build that one day and maybe a voice assistant on top of it. The only way you can create that end-to-end magic is to have a strong conviction that you want to own all of these."

He said GM wants to offer a seamless experience that does not require having to switch in and out of phone mirroring systems like CarPlay and Android Auto.

"When you want to create something so seamless, it's hard to think about getting into a car and going, 'Okay, so I'm doing highway trailering, but let me flip to a totally different user interface to pick my podcast,'" said Cetinok. "By the way, it's a single app-obsessed interface — it's still hard to believe. So I pick my podcast, flip back to trailering. Oh, now I can also do Super Cruise trailering. Let me manage that. Then, wait, we're now getting into potentially Level 3, Level 4 autonomy levels that should be deeply integrated with talking to the map where the lanes lie. But wait a minute, the map that I'm using doesn't really talk to my car."

The full transcript of the interview with more CarPlay commentary is available on The Verge.

Article Link: GM Again Attempts to Explain Its Decision to Drop CarPlay in New EVs
Those air vent designs are a disgrace in the 21st century.
 
GM's decision was made when the Apple Car was still looming on the horizon. It almost makes sense to for them to decide against continuing to hand over an expanding part of their cars' dashboards to a company that was about to make a competing car itself. That's akin to Apple's decision to launch Apple Maps when it realized location services were going to be a core function of smartphones, and didn't want to hand that over to the company making Android phones. It was a rough transition, but a sound decision on Apple's part to bite the bullet and deal with their competitive reality.

GM's problem now is that Apple dropped its car project, and a company that makes iPhones but not a car is absolutely better positioned to handle music and satnav and other features that depend on a shorter replacement timeline for the hardware running it. The exact same customers who will gladly replace a three-year old iPhone to get the latest features, will be very unhappy about needing to replace a three-year old car to get those same features on their dashboard.

The problem for the car industry is that their business model has always been to sell you a car and be done with it. They're glad to have you at the dealer for maintenance, and they'll handle recalls as necessary, but they've never followed the business model introduced with iPhone, where you buy the hardware and get several years of software upgrades -including the addition of entirely new features- at no additional charge.

For any carmaker to compete in-house on the advancement of software features you get via a phone's more rapid replacement cycle, the carmaker will have to start selling computer module upgrade replacements for existing cars. If they don't, their customers will start getting cranky that their three or four year-old $40,000 car simply doesn't have the hardware capacity to run software that corresponds to whatever advancements smartphones have brought in that time period.

So GM's original decision here was probably sound when they made it. Now that the Apple Car is no longer in the pipeline, GM's kind of stuck. Do they keep going with their in-house plans, or do they punt and go back to CarPlay? It's not an enviable position to be in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wnissen
Wait until you’re stuck with GM’s $15 month service that never gets updated and is ugly and slow.

The difference is that I wouldn't buy a GM car, just like I wouldn't buy an HP computer. One should consider the whole package - the hardware, the underlying software, and the experience the sum of those deliver - when shopping for a car just like one would when shopping for a computer.

Where are the hoards of complaints from Rivian and Tesla owners? Surely, if a carmaker could not make good software that excludes CarPlay, we would hear more noise from the owners of those vehicles about it?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.