Apple should provide a good API to other car manufacturers so that their CarPlay can be successfully navigated both via touch and buttons. And car manufacturers should make a good physical UI that can be hooked into CarPlay. Problem solved.
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.
GM Says It's Nixing CarPlay to Make Drivers Safer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is more something for like 15-year-old plus cars, and there are much better options for that. And even when there are cars with screens in it already, you can use systems like naviplus that can reuse the inbuilt screens and add wireless CarPlay or Android Auto. Looks nice, doesn't need additional mounts, wires etc.
My opinion is my opinion. I would never use Google assistant. I think it is worse. Maybe it is more responsive, maybe it has better recognition, but it is objectively worse on the privacy front so I would NEVER use it. But I was referring to the voice assistant in current GM vehicles like my chevy volt. It is awful. As for google, they are evil and I don't use their products. Any company whose motto is "don't be evil" has got to be evil. If you have to tell yourself not to be evil, you are probably evil. As for this boneheaded decision... I get a family discount on GM vehicles, and I won't buy one without CarPlay. That's how much I rely on it.
I think I understand ... other methods if the auto company doesn't support CarPlay or AndroidAuto. I was just thinking if all I care about are the apps on my iPad ... is there a way to get the CarPlay look without the need to plug into the car functions. The icons on my iPad seem too small ... maybe I am missing something in Accessibility to enlarge everything?
Ofcourse your opinion is your opinion, nobody is arguing against that. But also be honest that you are changing the goal posts, what I replied to had to do with voice recognition and how bad it is in GM cars. Now in the context of this article whilst not wrong for current models, it is irrelevant because what this article is providing context off is that it has Google Assistant for that. And you can say a lot of things against Google Assistant, but bad voice recognition isn't one of them.
LOL It comes across more as some sort of anti-google rant now, nothing like what you were actually saying, and what I replied to.
There is no 'carplay' mode on an iOS device, that is purely for connecting to carplay receivers. Plenty of choice of them on the market, from simple screens to boxes to integrate with existing screens. But no existing iPad.
They do this already.
My Volt has physical play/pause and skip forward and backward and those are mapped to those functions in the media player in CarPlay.
BMW and Mazda use a jog wheel to move a selector around on the screen. Pressing the while will “click” on that element. This works in CarPlay as well as the built-in OS.
CarPlay also has APIs that can give it the vehicle’s battery charge and related data to help plan routes including chargers. Only a couple of manufacturers have made use of that, so far.
Well it is both an anti-google rant and an indictment of how bad gm infotainment has been in the past. I haven’t used the aaos system personally, but if it is made by Google, it should be avoided. Their business model is evil. The iOS interface is much preferred by most people here and everyone I know who uses is loves it and can’t do without it. GM removing it from their cars is a boneheaded move which is probably all about forcing a subscription model on its customers. They already charge for map updates and onstar is outrageously priced and its tiers are set up in such a way as to make it mostly worthless to get anything but the most expensive package. CarPlay sidesteps the map update charges and most of the reasons to get onstar. So this is probably about money, not driver safety. Anyway, you can keep your android 💩, I’ll never use it if I can help it.
You just don’t get it, do you ?
I am not discounting the tech. I am discounting the products from a corporation that wants to limit my choice of the interface that I want to use in a car that I am paying for. If they offered that *and* supported CarPlay, it would be perfectly fine. I’d probably still stick with CarPlay for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but I’d consider their product. Since they want to force me into using their interface so that they could squeeze extra profit out of me, I am not going to even consider their products. It’s just that simple.
I'm team Dials, Button, Knobs, and Switches... I prefer no "Infotainment" at all.
Seriously. I'm driving a car. I don't need touch UI/UX. Put everything important on clearly labeled buttons/switches on the steering wheel (or somewhat equally close position/reach) and leave me the frak alone.. I don't want the added weight, initial cost, or repair cost of a big honking touchscreen in my car.
Of course, if that's not an option, having the option of CarPlay is my requirement from any car...
GM is making this too complicated for no good reason. Well, they want our data and subscription fees, but really aren't in a position to demand them from us.
They can't on anything 2015 or older, the older cars don't have supported cell equipment. Yay for obsolescence!
I may just hang on to my 2008 coupe and convert to hydrogen ICE or hydrogen fuel cell when the time comes.
One thing was that if it used the older 2G and 3G networks those are no longer functioning. I don't know when they started using 4G modems, but that could limit their abilities on older cars.
The funny thing is that, in general, GM cars are pretty terrible. Granted, the Corvette is incredible, but that's their FLAGSHIP car, and it's only great if you're single, or it's just you and one other person. If you have kids, pets, etc., it's not very practical. Also, if you live in the Motor City like me, it's ironically pretty awful at least 3-4 months out of the year when the roads are covered in snow and ice.
For an SUV or sedan, I prefer the Japanese cars, which is why my wife and I have driven Hondas and Toyotas for the past 15 years (since I sold my Corvette) and we've been perfectly happy. Also, we both have wireless CarPlay in our vehicles right now (Lexus RX-350 and Honda CR-V) and the only way I'd even consider trading for a GM would be if it were much cheaper, had much better mileage, or had the new-generation CarPlay which is supposed to be even better.
But to be stuck with a GM vehicle with no CarPlay at all? That sounds TERRIBLE. What a bunch of bozos!
For an SUV or sedan, I prefer the Japanese cars, which is why my wife and I have driven Hondas and Toyotas for the past 15 years (since I sold my Corvette) and we've been perfectly happy. Also, we both have wireless CarPlay in our vehicles right now (Lexus RX-350 and Honda CR-V) and the only way I'd even consider trading for a GM would be if it were much cheaper, had much better mileage, or had the new-generation CarPlay which is supposed to be even better.
But to be stuck with a GM vehicle with no CarPlay at all? That sounds TERRIBLE. What a bunch of bozos!
And you believe that? And if that were the case - WHY is it eliminate only for EVs and not all of their vehicles??
Yep. This coming from GM shows that they are still, to this day, even 15 years after the bankruptcy, failing to realize that they are not a highly desirable brand anymore. Either that, or they want to jack up stock prices short term by laying out all these grand plans for monetizing their customer data, while - perhaps - realizing that this could result in further loss of marketshare. A lot of what GM has been doing lately seems designed to manipulate the stock price. But, I am not a financial analyst...
The whole idea of a phone interface for your car is to make using the essential phone functionality easy and safe without having to use the phone itself (which is unsafe and illegal). And this means having a common, instantly recognizable interface in any car you drive, which is the entire idea of CarPlay. Voice commands or steering wheel controls have limited use. (I suspect people who believe that everything can be done via voice command don't have any kids...)
It's all a BS argument anyway. "Safety" is just the latest excuse GM came up with, it's all about monetizing the customers as much as they can.
GM ditching Apple CarPlay is about money, not safety
General Motors leadership continues to poorly justify why Apple CarPlay has been abandoned, with driver safety being the latest excuse, rather than just admitting it's harvesting and monetizing user data.
I clearly don't get it, I've asked many a times, read the article several times, where are they squeezing more profit out of you, or subscriptions, or charge for maps by using AAOS?
I get it that you, and a few other prefer Apple CarPlay over a product you've got no experience with, nor used. I get it. I don't understand such mentality towards something new, but I do get it.
Because 1) it allows them to hide stuff behind paywall. If I am using CarPlay - essentially just a car interface to my phone - they can’t charge me for using apps and services on my phone that are supported by CarPlay. They don’t control my use. If the customers are forced to use the interface that the OEMs control, they can charge subscription for pretty much anything, or be driven towards affiliated services. “Sorry we don’t at the moment support Spotify, but have you thought about SiriusXM ?”
2) it provides them with the ability to serve ads. Again, they can’t serve ads through CarPlay because they don’t control it.
3) Data mining. Any data entered in CarPlay (map searches, phone contacts, phone calls and messages, subscription preferences) is hidden from the vehicle OEM. Any data entered into the interface that they control is collected and can be monetized in a variety of ways. When your product is used by tens of millions of families to get places they frequent, you are sitting on a marketing goldmine. Especially when you combine it with financial information (which they obtain as part of vehicle sale). They can use it themselves and sell to Google or anyone interested.
I want to use the interface that I prefer, it’s that simple. I don’t want to be *forced* into AAOS. I don’t mind having an option to choose it, but don’t take my preferred choice away under a bunch of ever changing bs excuses.
And it’s not “me and a few others”, it’s the overwhelming majority of people on this and other forums, anywhere this topic is brought up. Even on GM’s own subreddit the majority of posts are extremely critical of this move.
As I said earlier… GM holds 17% of the market. iPhone holds 51% of the same market. There are multiple competitors to GM products. There’s only one competitor to iPhone. And as you look at the younger customers, at least in the US, the GM vehicle ownership goes down and the iPhone ownership goes to 60% and above. With this move, they are only going to alienate these young customers who already don’t really like their cars. GM is essentially shutting the door on their own future.
Ok, I'll ask again. Name me 1, just 1 example where AAOS does or allows that?
Interesting, slight rewrite here in the use of 'ability'. Yes, that cannot be denied that ability is there. Although it isn't for GM to control, but Google could do that with AAOS. But please do provide an example or API where it is doing that?
And why wouldn't Apple have the ability to do the same with CarPlay? Ofcourse Apple has that ability.
That is simply not true, perhaps look into how AAOS works in relation to the Vehicle Manufacturers before making stuff up.
Fine, fair enough, your choice that you choose to prefer something without having sampled the alternatives. But why the need to make up stuff that is simply not true?
And if they notice that is the case then it would be incredibly easy to enable and push CarPlay as it is a ready made part of the platform they are planning to use. I have no skin in the game, I'm not the target audience for GM vehicles. I'm just someone who actually uses both platforms regurlarly.
Another day where the Android/Google/GM folks have infiltrated the Apple forums to try and convince you to use their product...
"WhErE dOeS iT sAy ThAt GM wiLL uSe YoUr DaTa blah blah blah..."
-Dude. Please. They've entered into an exclusive contract with GM where GM will only use their system (Android Automotive OS), and Google has ALWAYS used the data it collects from the Google Maps app and Google Search to throw ads at you for whatever it is you just searched for. That's their business. It's literally what they do. Do you think GM is going to throw that out there for everyone to write about, in addition to this bad PR?
You're also discounting the fact that there will no longer be an Apple Music app to use anymore. What's that? "Have you tried Spotify or SirriusXM?" is EXACTLY what everyone will here.
"WhErE dOeS iT sAy ThAt GM wiLL uSe YoUr DaTa blah blah blah..."
-Dude. Please. They've entered into an exclusive contract with GM where GM will only use their system (Android Automotive OS), and Google has ALWAYS used the data it collects from the Google Maps app and Google Search to throw ads at you for whatever it is you just searched for. That's their business. It's literally what they do. Do you think GM is going to throw that out there for everyone to write about, in addition to this bad PR?
You're also discounting the fact that there will no longer be an Apple Music app to use anymore. What's that? "Have you tried Spotify or SirriusXM?" is EXACTLY what everyone will here.
AAOS in this case is just a building kit for GM to make their own OS. It will allow whatever they decide to do. They are not using an off-the-shelf Android Auto.
Are you saying that AAOS based customized OS doesn’t allow OEMs to hide access to certain apps behind subscriptions or disallow it altogether (e.g. Apple Music) ? Because it’s simply not true.
GM is disallowing on-the-phone Android Auto as well, from what I read. They want to push the customers to the custom OS that they will design based on AAOS. And the primary reason is the potential to monetize it. Seriously, just visit r/GeneralMotors and see some honest discussions by GM own employees. They are openly saying that it’s all about finding different ways to monetize the product.
And no, I am not going to spend $40k on a mediocre product that locks me into using their onboard OS just to see that, yep, I was right and I don’t like it. Far easier to buy a product that does support CarPlay, and it they have AAOS based infotainment in that product and I try it and actually do think that it’s an overall superior experience, I may consider using it. But I will nor willingly lock myself into a GM trap.
Some analysis from people who may know a thing or two about market decisions.
“GM is looking to monetize more software and services within its vehicles and is taking a page out of Tesla’s playbook," Dan Ives, managing director and senior equity research analyst at Wedbush Securities, told the Free Press.”
“GM's push for subscription-based monetization through its proprietary software Ultifi may be the bigger play here.”
“Ultifi will enable GM to offer fee-based cloud services in its vehicles, which will include various in-vehicle subscriptions services, along with online shopping tools and more.”
(Can’t force users into Ultifi if they are happily using CarPlay though, can they ?)
“GM is joining Tesla and Rivian in not including Apple CarPlay in vehicles. Automakers hope to build a new revenue stream by selling subscriptions through the infotainment center.”
www.autonews.com
“GM is looking to monetize more software and services within its vehicles and is taking a page out of Tesla’s playbook," Dan Ives, managing director and senior equity research analyst at Wedbush Securities, told the Free Press.”
‘A huge blunder’: GM’s decision to ditch Apple CarPlay, Android Auto sparks backlash
GM defends its move to drop Apple CarPlay and Android Auto despite consumer backlash. Ford vows to keep it. Here's the story behind each decision.
www.usatoday.com
“GM's push for subscription-based monetization through its proprietary software Ultifi may be the bigger play here.”
GM believes removing Android Auto and CarPlay support makes its cars safer
The push for a custom solution may open up more monetization opportunities through subscriptions
www.msn.com
“Ultifi will enable GM to offer fee-based cloud services in its vehicles, which will include various in-vehicle subscriptions services, along with online shopping tools and more.”
(Can’t force users into Ultifi if they are happily using CarPlay though, can they ?)
“GM is joining Tesla and Rivian in not including Apple CarPlay in vehicles. Automakers hope to build a new revenue stream by selling subscriptions through the infotainment center.”
GM axing CarPlay is part of larger automaker battle over control, revenue
GM is joining Tesla and Rivian in not including Apple CarPlay in vehicles. Automakers hope to build a new revenue stream by selling subscriptions through the infotainment centre.