GM Says It's Nixing CarPlay to Make Drivers Safer

[SnowCrocodile]

To add: we have a GM car in the family as well, just a few years old. The infotainment is super glitchy. Took it to the dealership, was told that they would gladly replace the head unit under warranty, but the new unit will run the same exact firmware.

The problems range from constantly losing the ability to connect to a previously paired phone via Bluetooth, to sporadically losing playback volume until the car is stopped and restarted, to rear park assist lines not showing up in reverse mode until the car is switched to D and back to R.

We also have a couple Ford / Lincoln cars, a Jeep, and a Hyundai. All of their infotainment systems suck to some degree, but that GM one has the worst reliability. The other ones are just ugly and poorly designed but at least they work. I know that Ford had a big problem with their Sync system, but they’ve fixed it.

 

[Chuckeee]

So if you read the article you'd know this is not a bestoke GM system, it is Google AAOS. It is already on many cars and and it is actually really good.

But actually AAOS is super impressive and so well integrated with not only iOS but also the car that it is easily forgotten.

Some suit at a board of directors table said GM wasn't making enough money, so they're partnering with Google to try

Android Automotive is a really good OS for a car. Remember there is a lot more than just the phone part thst has to be access

For me the issue is NOT the quality of Google AAOS. Google AAOS could be wonderful, intuitive, incredibly useful system. The issues are:

1. The fear that GM will make it a subscription service after an initial free period

2. After some period of time, updating will be a maintenance function that must be paid for, and the fear that the system will lose functionality without such updates

3. Privacy concerns based on current and previous Google data harvesting practices.

 

[Treq]

Anyone who has used the voice control in a gm vehicle knows that saying CarPlay is less safe is BS. Siri isn’t perfect by any means, but compared gm’s voice prompts, it ***** Jarvis. Or do they want everyone to use on-star and wait for a person to answer so they can charge $40 per month?

 

[Sgtkeebler]

Well, I won’t be buying a GM unless it has apple play

 

[Tagbert]

…Use, buy what you want, nobody cares whether you do or don't. Personally, I think it is silly to discount a car for not having CarPlay when the alternative can be perfect if given some recognition that it is different. The way a car drives, looks, feels, and integrates with the screens is to me much more different but we are all different.

I’m sure that AAOS will be good as the basis for GM’s interfaces. What puts me off is GM’s disregard of what its customers want and that it seems to be purely for GM’s benefit and not for the customer‘s.

A large part of my day to day life is invested in my phone and I want to bring that with me when I’m driving the car. My phone is very personalized to my needs and in ways that GM cannot replicate. I don’t want to give that up just to make GM a little richer. It’s not just about navigation.

One example: i listen to a lot of podcasts on Overcast, every time I am driving. I have a lot of subscriptions and I often am listening to a podcast before I get into the car and with CarPlay, I can easily pick and continue listening at the same spot. How is GM going to maintain that? I am not willing to switch to a different podcast app that GM may or may not provide. Using Bluetooth would be a regression as it does not provide access to chapters and playlists and album art the way that CarPlay does. What can GM offer?

If the Maps that GM provides are good enough I may use maps on AAOS instead of on CarPlay, at least on the rare occasion when I care about routing to a charger. Other times, I might use Apple Maps because it started from a web search that I was doing on my phone. That should be my choice, not Mary Barra’s.

If GM was the only choice out there, I would probably give in and suffer through the loss of my personalized experience, but it would make the choice less desirable. Tesla’s also have some desirable characteristics but they have downsides and lack of CarPlay is one factor that has also ruled them out. As it is there are other vehicles that do have CarPlay. Other companies like Ford and Volvo have made it clear that they support custom choice in the software and they intend to continue to support CarPlay and Android Auto. CarPlay is not the only factor, but it does make it easy to rule out an option when there are other roughly equivalent options.

 

[Tagbert]

He's absolutely right on that one. And of course it's even illegal in Germany to play with your phone while driving. Everything that keeps your eyes from looking at the street is a huge safety issue at 250 km/h.

I have no interest in driving on the street at 250 km/h nor on the highway, but the point of CarPlay and Android Auto is for you to not need to use your phone while driving. While this GM executive is asserting that there is some widespread problem inherent in CarPlay and Android auto making them unreliable, that is absolutely not true in my experience and in the experience of others that I have spoken with. This sounds more like an excuse to justify their decision rather than a true reason for not using phone streaming. If there are connection problems it is more likley to be in the vehicle software stack than in the phone’s.

By blocking phone streaming, GM is ensuring that more people will try to sue their phones, not fewer.

 

[Tagbert]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

One advertiser may be able to listen in on you -- if you have an Android phone

Worried that your smart phone is listening to you? A digital marketing group associated with one of the US's biggest cable companies claims to be doing exactly that.

appleinsider.com

I am suspicious of this claim and the source did not provide any evidence that their claim is true. Phones have access controls that determine if third party software can access features like the microphone. It would be a huge security breach if third-party software could just listen to the microphone unless the user gave them permission.

 

[xacwhite]

GM is getting rid of CarPlay so that they can have something that easier to track the user with.

 

[JinxVi]

While this GM executive is asserting that there is some widespread problem inherent in CarPlay and Android auto making them unreliable, that is absolutely not true in my experience and in the experience of others that I have spoken with.

All touchscreen interfaces are inherently unsafe to use while driving, because you have to look at your fingers. Most people have no idea about operational safety and so it's very easy to speak with thousands of people, who don't see a problem. You can go to any bar and even find people who swear, they can still drive after three beer. Right when cellphones became widely popular car accident investigators found still running phones on the floors of crashed cars. People underestimate how far a car will go and deviate in just a few seconds of distraction. When they look at their phone and think about how to operate it, they are literally in another world and die in this one.

This sounds more like an excuse to justify their decision rather than a true reason for not using phone streaming. If there are connection problems it is more likely to be in the vehicle software stack than in the phone’s.

All wireless connections are bound to have connection problems, but even without it's still a killer application. The only safe in-car entertainment is a radio with buttons you can operate blindly without taking your hands from the steering wheel. And even then it can't be too loud to drown out the traffic sound.

By blocking phone streaming, GM is ensuring that more people will try to use their phones, not fewer.

And they are all going to lose their driver's licence in every civilized country.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

All touchscreen interfaces are inherently unsafe to use while driving, because you have to look at your fingers. Most people have no idea about operational safety and so it's very easy to speak with thousands of people, who don't see a problem. You can go to any bar and even find people who swear, they can still drive after three beer. Right when cellphones became widely popular car accident investigators found still running phones on the floors of crashed cars. People underestimate how far a car will go and deviate in just a few seconds of distraction. When they look at their phone and think about how to operate it, they are literally in another world and die in this one.

All wireless connections are bound to have connection problems, but even without it's still a killer application. The only safe in-car entertainment is a radio with buttons you can operate blindly without taking your hands from the steering wheel. And even then it can't be too loud to drown out the traffic sound.

And they are all going to lose their driver's licence in every civilized country.

GM is not offering any inherently safer solutions, just a different screen to interact with.

That’s all BS, the real reason they do it is to sell subscriptions, sell access to customers’ eyeballs to 3rd parties, and gain access to customers’ data. They are looking for ways to monetize access to the customers like the big tech does. Any other explanation is just marketing to hide the true reason.

Their biggest mistake is that they are still stuck in the 1980s mindset of “We are the General Motors, where else would they go?”. They are failing to truly grasp that for the majority of customers, they are an irrelevant brand, one of many brands in a commodity market. They just made their commodity products less of a value offering. This will inevitably bite them in the ass.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

GM is getting rid of CarPlay so that they can have something that easier to track the user with.

That’s one reason (data mining). Although they are already tracking the location.

The second reason is subscription. They will likely provide it for free for long enough to cover a typical lease term, then it’s $xx per month if you want to keep using navigation or podcasts or advanced climate controls or even the ability to text by voice. (Which would still impact the original lease price because of the impact on the used car price).

The third reason is that if they control the screen that the customers are looking at, they can sell access to that screen to 3rd parties. So if you’re planning a route to a grocery store, you may all of a sudden get ads for a certain brand of food - either in your email or even straight there on your car screen (why not, you’re already a captive customer, bound with your car payments).

Of course for this to work, in the market where their completion is offering CarPlay, the GM management must believe that their customers see GM as a highly desirable brand and will make it their primary choice. Personally, I think they live in a bubble.

 

[Kastellen]

Liars.

 

[1129846]

I hate, HATE cars where climate controls are only accessible via a stupid touchscreen display. I know that I’m hardly unique in this.

The rest is already being done behind the scenes without having to tinker with user interface.

I want navigation, entertainment, ability to call or text, and that’s it. If there’s a maintenance or service message, I should be able to get it via CarPlay. In my Lincoln, I get a CarPlay notification when my tank gets empty, along with a suggestion to get directions to a gas station.
I’m sure this can be easily expanded for any other service messages.

Anything else should be kept away and not be interfering with my driving.

The reason GM wants to kill CarPlay is first and foremost data mining.

Climate control being touch screen or physical buttons is not OS related and more of a design choice. I fully agree I don't like touch screens for climate control. I don't like how my Mach e climate is touch screen. At least larger adjustments I have a physical knob with clicks.

On a car with auto climate that is OS related.
I am talking about driver profiles which is going to include your own climate settings, memory seats, setting it to say a set of keys.

You are locked on to basically the radio and nav side only but there is a lot more to access than just that.

Car play as a dev SDK is very limited and a pain to us. The tools honestly suck and super limited at what is fed to and from the car and flacky. The OS supports car play.

Just people like you confuse Android Automotive vs CarPlay/ Android Auto.

When things like GM refer to car play that includes Android Auto and Apple car play.

Just don't go in bashing Android Automotive over it as for a car OS it is a lot nicer than almost every thing else ok the market.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

Climate control being touch screen or physical buttons is not OS related and more of a design choice. I fully agree I don't like touch screens for climate control. I don't like how my Mach e climate is touch screen. At least larger adjustments I have a physical knob with clicks.

On a car with auto climate that is OS related.
I am talking about driver profiles which is going to include your own climate settings, memory seats, setting it to say a set of keys.

You are locked on to basically the radio and nav side only but there is a lot more to access than just that.

Car play as a dev SDK is very limited and a pain to us. The tools honestly suck and super limited at what is fed to and from the car and flacky. The OS supports car play.

Just people like you confuse Android Automotive vs CarPlay/ Android Auto.

When things like GM refer to car play that includes Android Auto and Apple car play.

Just don't go in bashing Android Automotive over it as for a car OS it is a lot nicer than almost every thing else ok the market.

I am not bashing Android Automotive. I just want to use CarPlay. None of the things you listed outweigh the inconvenience of having to use a different interface in one of the cars. Especially if this means subscriptions or ads. GM can try all they want, I will not even consider one of their cars unless it has CarPlay, it's literally that simple.

 

[Treq]

Climate control being touch screen or physical buttons is not OS related and more of a design choice. I fully agree I don't like touch screens for climate control. I don't like how my Mach e climate is touch screen. At least larger adjustments I have a physical knob with clicks.

On a car with auto climate that is OS related.
I am talking about driver profiles which is going to include your own climate settings, memory seats, setting it to say a set of keys.

You are locked on to basically the radio and nav side only but there is a lot more to access than just that.

Car play as a dev SDK is very limited and a pain to us. The tools honestly suck and super limited at what is fed to and from the car and flacky. The OS supports car play.

Just people like you confuse Android Automotive vs CarPlay/ Android Auto.

When things like GM refer to car play that includes Android Auto and Apple car play.

Just don't go in bashing Android Automotive over it as for a car OS it is a lot nicer than almost every thing else ok the market.

Well, it is Android, and I avoid all google products whenever possible, because they bake in data mining to pretty much everything. I don't even use google to search. If it is the os in the car and I have to drive that car, I guess I'm stuck, but if I can buy something that doesn't have it, I will endeavor to do so. As for having android auto or CarPlay as a feature, I will not buy a car without CarPlay. I have a 2019 chevy volt and the infotainment system is pretty bad. I bought a wireless CarPlay dongle and use that exclusively now. So much smoother and enjoyable to use. The gm infotainment constantly wants me to log in with my password and the "apps" it has kinda suck. I deleted all it would let me and set it to go to CarPlay right when I turn on the car. When I go to a rental, it's the same interface. I can set up my rout before I even get in the car, which is common for me as I work in the film business and have to travel to any different locations every week. GM removing CarPlay from their offerings is going to make me consider a different company for my next car, and I have a GM executive in the family who has gotten me a discount on my last 3 cars. Thats how much I prefer having CarPlay over the stock infotainment system. The volt will last me another 6 years (hopefully) and then we'll see what kind of electric cars are on offer at companies who offer CarPlay.

 

[TheBigChief]

I own a GMC pickup that has CarPlay and I use it every time I drive it. I love it. I mainly listen to "Today's Country BBQ" It's an extra channel on SXM and the only way I can listen to it in my pickup is by using CarPlay. If GM stops producing vehicles with CP I'm done with them.

How stupid can they be?

 

[SnowCrocodile]

…

How stupid can they be?

You’d be surprised…

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I own a GMC pickup that has CarPlay and I use it every time I drive it. I love it. I mainly listen to "Today's Country BBQ" It's an extra channel on SXM and the only way I can listen to it in my pickup is by using CarPlay. If GM stops producing vehicles with CP I'm done with them.

How stupid can they be?

And AAOS has an SXM app as I understand from USA based Polestar owners so you’ll be fine 👍

 

[cyb3rdud3]

That’s one reason (data mining). Although they are already tracking the location.

The second reason is subscription. They will likely provide it for free for long enough to cover a typical lease term, then it’s $xx per month if you want to keep using navigation or podcasts or advanced climate controls or even the ability to text by voice. (Which would still impact the original lease price because of the impact on the used car price).

The third reason is that if they control the screen that the customers are looking at, they can sell access to that screen to 3rd parties. So if you’re planning a route to a grocery store, you may all of a sudden get ads for a certain brand of food - either in your email or even straight there on your car screen (why not, you’re already a captive customer, bound with your car payments).

Of course for this to work, in the market where their completion is offering CarPlay, the GM management must believe that their customers see GM as a highly desirable brand and will make it their primary choice. Personally, I think they live in a bubble.

Blimey you worry about a lot of things that aren’t happening today. Lobby your reperesentatives to ensure you car manufacturers won’t be allowed to do that kind of rubbish if you are worries about it. I must admit living in Europe and moving into the EU that is never a concern comes into my mind.

Yes further updates are important, but I don’t mind paying for that. I used to get satnav updates in the past. Besides the Google maps updates are separate from the car updates. And they just come as long as the car has data. A data eSIM is cheap but if you prefer you could connect it via a WiFi hotspot on your phone as well. We just get international roaming esims with unlimited data.

 

[gank41]

looks like the GM/AAOS folks have infiltrated the forums here to try and make everything seem ok!

 

[cyb3rdud3]

For me the issue is NOT the quality of Google AAOS. Google AAOS could be wonderful, intuitive, incredibly useful system. The issues are:

1. The fear that GM will make it a subscription service after an initial free period

2. After some period of time, updating will be a maintenance function that must be paid for, and the fear that the system will lose functionality without such updates

3. Privacy concerns based on current and previous Google data harvesting practices.

1. What in the announcement, or other use/capabilities of AAOS, give you fear that it is a subscription service after the initial free period that that is the issue?
2. Agreed, it will. And to be honest, the likelihood that the old technology will be able to support the newer version of AAOS is very low. However, that is no different from existing cars, nor existing cars that supported CarPlay. They don't get automagically updated to support wireless CarPlay, or multiple screens CarPlay etc. The way AAOS works is that the apps are layered on top, and they are just Play Store apps. For example, for Google Maps to update, or Spotify, or SXM you won't need the GM, Audi, BMW whoever. They will still update.
3. Fair point, the settings in AAOS are pretty granular in that area. The default settings in European cars have everything disabled, not sure how that is for the America market, so much so that some people complain that it can't do simple things like send a message to the wife. Each setting you are comfortable with needs to be enabled to make the most of it. But if you don't want to do that, then it remains dumb, and you won't get a great experience, as you'll be in a deadlock that it needs the data to be smart.

Anyone who has used the voice control in a gm vehicle knows that saying CarPlay is less safe is BS. Siri isn’t perfect by any means, but compared gm’s voice prompts, it ***** Jarvis. Or do they want everyone to use on-star and wait for a person to answer so they can charge $40 per month?

So if you read the article and a bit of context you'd know that isn't wholly correct. You'd be using Google Assistant, now you can have many opinions about it, but that it is worse than Siri isn't one of them.

looks like the GM/AAOS folks have infiltrated the forums here to try and make everything seem ok!

I've never bought a GM car in my life, ok I bought a Saab three times when they existed and one was under ownership of GM, and I've got an ACDelco torque wrench. They don't sell those cars in my market. So that is definitely not the case.

AAOS came installed with my wife's Polestar 2, there was no choice for an alternative unless importing from a none Google market like China. I was apprehensive at first, tried three times going to an Android-based phone and didn't like it. At work and at home, we all use Apple products, and in cars we've been accustomed to using Apple CarPlay. The maps in the UK are super good, the safety camera notifications are awesome. We love Apple CarPlay.

But having done over 30K miles across 9 different countries with Google AAOS it is very good, and the deep integration with the car is awesome. Do I wish that Apple did that, you bet I do. However, there is so much uninformed information in this thread by people who clearly haven't used the product, are even referring to the wrong product, or even a totally different manufacture. And Apple CarPlay just doesn't provide that deep integration in the car, so in the BMW M2C we had previously, or my daily driver a Range Rover, we have to go out of one interface and into the other to adapt/setup car settings or even sound settings.

And then there is the integration with modern EV needs for cars. To be fair I'm hearing the API's are opened up and Apple CarPlay may get this capability as well. But it's pretty damn useful to have one integrated system including where my next optimized charging point is.

There is no 'infiltration', that is just ridiculous, there are just genuine people sharing their real-world experiences of actually using it over a prolonged period of time. And it even supports CarPlay, even though GM says it doesn't Sure we don't use apps like Overcast, and I'm sure there will be more individual apps, but for anyone just using their navigation, imessage, spotify, youtube, calendar, contacts, etc which all all pretty mainstream products there is nothing to fear about this.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

Blimey you worry about a lot of things that aren’t happening today. Lobby your reperesentatives to ensure you car manufacturers won’t be allowed to do that kind of rubbish if you are worries about it. I must admit living in Europe and moving into the EU that is never a concern comes into my mind.

And yet, it was a European car company that first introduced a subscription service for what some would consider basic features (heated seats, among other things). And you may want to read about the Dieselgate…

The EU’s more robust rules regarding how in-car data can be collected and used don’t preclude pushing features behind subscription paywalls, or serving ads. They just set standards on how the data collection and use can be done and require obtaining customer consent for using the data. Which can be easily tied to “add-in” convenience features. No consent, no features. At any rate, even without data collection they can still force subscriptions and serve ads.

Yes further updates are important, but I don’t mind paying for that. I used to get satnav updates in the past. Besides the Google maps updates are separate from the car updates. And they just come as long as the car has data. A data eSIM is cheap but if you prefer you could connect it via a WiFi hotspot on your phone as well. We just get international roaming esims with unlimited data.

I do mind paying for the features that I already get with my phone, just because the car manufacturer decided to block my ability to easily use them.

And even the biggest issue is that I don’t want to deal with separate interfaces and commands in every vehicle I use.

Roaming and eSims are irrelevant in this. I am not paying for GM subscriptions, and I am not being forced into abandoning the use of an important to me feature just because GM wants to squeeze some additional revenue out of me.

You, of course, have every right to do whatever you want.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

looks like the GM/AAOS folks have infiltrated the forums here to try and make everything seem ok!

If so, they may want to read about Streisand effect…

 

[WC7]

I just wish Apple would allow a CarPlay interface with their iPad mini or any iPad. I am not opposed to have the auto manufacturers keeping their car functions to themselves (no matter how painful their designs look). Just want to slap my iPad into the car and have that beautiful CarPlay look. Or can we do this already?

 

[cyb3rdud3]

And yet, it was a European car company that first introduced a subscription service for what some would consider basic features (heated seats, among other things). And you may want to read about the Dieselgate…

Sure, but where in this article does it talk about subscription based features? And which car using AAOS actually have a subscription based feature enablement function? I also don't like subscriptions for feature, I rather just pay outright and upfront instead of renting.

The EU’s more robust rules regarding how in-car data can be collected and used don’t preclude pushing features behind subscription paywalls, or serving ads. They just set standards on how the data collection and use can be done and require obtaining customer consent for using the data. Which can be easily tied to “add-in” convenience features. No consent, no features. At any rate, even without data collection they can still force subscriptions and serve ads.

As above, yes it can, but please do give me one example in the article that does give cause? Or just one car based on this operating system that does that?

I do mind paying for the features that I already get with my phone, just because the car manufacturer decided to block my ability to easily use them.

Actually you don't get the features with your phone You get some of the features, and you keep those features they can't block your phone usage. As explained many a time, AAOS can provide Apple CarPlay if you really want. I can use it today. If GM truly actively blocks that, there be aftermarket plugins very quickly to enable it as ultimately it is just part of AAOS. Polestar didn't make the CarPlay app available immediately because they wanted to do it right and integrate support for multiple displays as well. And yes it works well, but to my own surprise I actually prefer using AAOS.

And even the biggest issue is that I don’t want to deal with separate interfaces and commands in every vehicle I use.

Sure, but that is audio/navigation only, CarPlay doesn't do any of the other settings. But hey, keep using CarPlay if you prefer, all I'm saying is don't discount AAOS without actually using it, it may surprise you. Or may not, entirely your choice. I just think discounting options without trying is a bit silly.

Roaming and eSims are irrelevant in this. I am not paying for GM subscriptions, and I am not being forced into abandoning the use of an important to me feature just because GM wants to squeeze some additional revenue out of me.

??? Why do you keep going on about that? Where in the article is it saying it does that? And you clearly mis-understand as roaming and eSims are very relevant with current day vehicles...

You, of course, have every right to do whatever you want.

And vice-versa, just do yourself a favour and don't discount something without even having tried it.