Hands-On With Volvo's Dual-Screen Apple Maps CarPlay Experience

[Bug-Creator]

No, sales of gas cars is banned by 2035 in EU

So
10 < 12 < 20
Your point?
And don't be surprised if these get implemented with various exceptions to protect local manufactures (just like it happens today everywhere).

Switching factories/engineering to mass market EV takes more than 15 years to be profitable (see Tesla's history).

Starting mass car production with new technology from scratch may have taken that long but everyone else does have a lot of experience, an established distribution and service network and the factories that need retooling every 10 to 20 years anyways.
So what they did is change smaller plants that were up for a retool anyways, spend big $/€/¥ on adding the EV stuff and are now selling them at similarly good/bad margins (with or without subsidies).

 

[anakin44011]

Lol. Well said. Personally I'm not buying into the current EV delusion. Look at how many times one or more (US) power grid has failed, or almost failed, due to weather events in the past few years. So there isn't even enough power to keep the heat on for some people, but we're all going to charge our cars? I'm waiting for someone to explain how that is going to work short of building nuclear power plants everywhere, in record time.

Energy prices have been rising steadily. It will cost huge amounts of money to update our power grids and build the necessary energy generating infrastructure to accommodate the switch to EVs and if there's one thing the US does especially poorly, it's infrastructure. I'm not pro-gas, but I don't think EVs are the answer. Beyond our woefully inadequate energy generating capacity, there are a lot of issues with batteries, from rare Earth mineral issues to recycling and disposal (all of which I think are much more solvable than the energy capacity issue).

Agreed.

How many wars have been fought over oil? And that's a relatively simple technology.

Now multiply that problem by the number and amounts of rare minerals needed for electrification (and the diversity of countries who need to cooperate / allow for the mining and free trade). Just watch a single video on the cobalt trade and it will break your heart. Then watch a video on how much other stuff is located in China/Russia/Ukraine and it will make you dampen your enthusiasm for technological solutions in the near term.

I'm all for moving in this direction and I genuinely applaud the innovation...but the scale that's required is massive. I think the timelines are delusional.

 

[tripsync]

So
10 < 12 < 20
Your point?

"may or may not be banned"

It's not "may not". Law has been passed. That's the point.

Starting mass car production with new technology from scratch may have taken that long but everyone else does have a lot of experience

Nope. Building EVs and gas cars are two completely different things

Ask how GM did with their Bolt.

GM plans to build a million EVs by 2025 which Tesla already did last year. Tesla is on track to do two million this year.

 

[Bug-Creator]

Nope. Building EVs and gas cars are two completely different things

Everything that isn't part of the drivetrain is pretty much identical.
Even possible to build a decent EV on the same platform as ICE if it was planned that way.

GM plans to build a million EVs by 2025 which Tesla already did last year. Tesla is on track to do two million this year.

So? They plan to build 1 million because they just can't do more, or they plan to build 1 million because they expect sales to be 10% of all their vehicles in 2025?

It's not "may not". Law has been passed. That's the point.

The law has been passed and will be watered down if need to be. Thats how it always was and thats how it will always be.

 

[JamesHolden]

Actually, I think that Apple was relatively late to this game, but they've been able to make up lost time so quickly due to the established user base of IOS.

...

Investors love this model because the providers don't really NEED to improve their product as long as they maintain the product.

I totally agree with you about enterprise subscriptions, but when we're talking Apple, we're talking the consumer market. Apple took the enterprise subscription model, brought it to the consumer market, and poured gasoline on the fire. They made it easy for small developers to adopt the subscription model without having to build all of the necessary infrastructure and technologies around it.

Investors love the subscription model, but so do a lot of developers and users. Subscriptions allow developers to generate recurring revenue, which is a much better model for keeping the lights on than the old feast or famine model of a new release followed by a huge drop in sales after everyone upgrades.

As I've said before in other threads, I don't mind subscriptions at all. I think developers and users both win out. Developers get consistent revenue and, therefore, apps get consistent attention which benefits the user. The problem with subscriptions, in my opinion, is when developers overcharge for their apps. Too many developers do this unfortunately, which ruins the subscription model for everyone.

Getting back to GM...I read that they expect as much as $25 billion by 2030. This is a big deal in an industry to doesn't reward margin or profitability for a single transaction they way they used to. Considering that the average car now lasts nearly 12 years...GM is banking on subsidizing lower sticker prices with ongoing subscription fees that buyers don't calculate at the time of purchase. If they lower their up-front margins by 5% and get an additional 10%+ over the life of the car, then Wall Street will reward them handsomely.

Yes, I saw that $25B by 2030 number as well. Next year they hope to bring in around $2-3B. Apple brought in roughly $80B last year. Where will they be in 2030?... I agree with your assessment. Lowering sticker prices and making up the difference (and then some) via subscriptions makes a lot of sense. It will also benefit the buyer who doesn't want any subscription services. It's unlikely, for example, that GM will prevent pairing one's phone with the built-in stereo, so you won't need a subscription unless you want all of the built-in services. You'll still be able to play music via Bluetooth and use navigation on your phone.

If GM wins with this strategy, then everyone will HAVE TO do it.

Apple has already won this strategy. GM is just following their lead. GM isn't doing anything different from what Apple does with their i-devices. If you buy an iPhone, you need to go through Apple for apps and services. If you buy a GM vehicle, you need to go through GM for services. Apple doesn't want third party app stores on their platform. GM doesn't want third party vehicle control/infotainment systems in their vehicles.

And...

If/when Apple ever feels long-term downward pressure on iPhone sales...they could easily adopt a similar strategy with Apple One+

I don't follow what you mean here. GM is following Apple's current strategy. What strategy would Apple be adopting?

 

[JamesHolden]

Agreed.

How many wars have been fought over oil? And that's a relatively simple technology.

Now multiply that problem by the number and amounts of rare minerals needed for electrification (and the diversity of countries who need to cooperate / allow for the mining and free trade). Just watch a single video on the cobalt trade and it will break your heart. Then watch a video on how much other stuff is located in China/Russia/Ukraine and it will make you dampen your enthusiasm for technological solutions in the near term.

I'm all for moving in this direction and I genuinely applaud the innovation...but the scale that's required is massive. I think the timelines are delusional.

It's totally delusional. The rare earth mineral issue is currently huge. There are plenty of people working on different kinds of battery technologies, however, so I do believe that, eventually, we'll solve the mineral issue.

The much harder problem is the capacity problem. A tiny percentage of vehicles are EVs today, yet our power grids are routinely pushed to their limits. How do we replace literally hundreds of millions of gas-powered vehicles with EVs unless we increase our energy generating capabilities in a MASSIVE way? The only way that has a chance of happening is nuclear and that seems very unlikely for many reasons.

 

[tripsync]

Everything that isn't part of the drivetrain is pretty much identical.

Disagree.

Even possible to build a decent EV on the same platform as ICE if it was planned that way.

Even if true, decent isn't enough to compete against Tesla.

So? They plan to build 1 million because they just can't do more, or they plan to build 1 million because they expect sales to be 10% of all their vehicles in 2025?

They can't do more production as batteries seem to be a constraint: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/business/general-motors-electric-vehicles-profits.html.

And 1 million in sales would be a best case scenario. Look at the product line-up and how much they expect to make in profits from each car. Example: Chevy Blazer EV is set to launch at $56,715 while a Model Y Long Range is at $50,490 before credits. Model Y Performance is $54,490 which is still cheaper, faster, comparable range, access to Supercharger network *today*, etc...And it doesn't look like GM will make a profit off of the $56k car for a while.

 

[tripsync]

Just watch a single video on the cobalt trade and it will break your heart.

You do know that Tesla makes cars with cobalt free batteries, right?

 

[anakin44011]

I don't follow what you mean here. GM is following Apple's current strategy. What strategy would Apple be adopting?

They could easily double down and make hardware renewals part of an elevated level of Apple One...thus further moving a recurring revenue model rather than a transactional model.

This becomes even more pertinent if
1. Future models' feature improvements become smaller (meaning less of an improvement, which is likely)
2. Future models become more expensive (again, likely, with the more expensive chips and the need to diversify manufacturing outside China...and the fact that China's labor costs are also rising very quickly)

...the hardware may need to be subsidized in order to keep the volume high (and prevent more users from holding their phones for longer). If customers have to "think" and recalculate every year, more and more will wait another year. Apple could counter that with yet another subscription.

I'm going way off topic here...but it wasn't that long ago that the average car lasted only 5-6 years. Now they last twice as long. If the same happens with phones, think about what that does to Apple (or Samsung, etc). Every time my IT manager tells me that he wants to put our PC hardware on a "replacement cycle", I object. Older hardware runs our corporate software just fine...the only impetus for upgrading now is when Microsoft stops supporting Windows 10 and it becomes a security issue.

As much as I love my M2 Max MBP, I must admit that my kids' M1 MacBook Airs are damn fast.

As much as I love my iPhone 14 Pro, my kids' iPhone 12's are damn nice and require a lot of pixel-peeping to tell the difference in photo quality.

 

[anakin44011]

You do know that Tesla makes cars with cobalt free batteries, right?

In the lower end of range and performance, yes. Again, I applaud the innovation.

Overall, there's still quite a few other minerals that are of concern.

...not to mention the mathematics of living in Ohio (electricity via fossil fuels). From what I've read, I would have to drive a Tesla 53,000 miles before I'd be doing the overall environment a favor by owning it over an ICE vehicle. That number drops to 35,000 in areas with renewables.

Finally...I'm totally in favor of more electric vehicles being sold (and even subsidized) in areas that run on solar or wind. I just try to remove the political grandstanding from the scientific realities whenever I can.

 

[tripsync]

...not to mention the mathematics of living in Ohio (electricity via fossil fuels). From what I've read, I would have to drive a Tesla 53,000 miles before I'd be doing the overall environment a favor by owning it over an ICE vehicle. That number drops to 35,000 in areas with renewables.

Assuming 53,000 miles is true, I'm also assuming you're including manufacturing. So that's from a battery that was newly sourced from raw materials.

Batteries are *extremely* recyclable. Over 95% of materials is recoverable (and the number is growing). It's virtually infinitely recyclable so after the first EV is decommissioned, the benefits roll into the next EV using recycled materials. Emissions from the next EV using recycled battery materials is lower during manufacturing.

At some point, Tesla will stop sourcing materials and pretty much transition to a closed loop manufacturing. That's far better than ICE vehicles.

From Tesla's impact report: average across the country, you'd only need to drive on average for 2 years to have EV's lifetime emissions be lower than ICE. And this is assuming no improvement to grid emissions.

For the entire life cycle, gas cars emit 3.4x more including grid and manufacturing.

Also, entire Supercharger network is 100% renewable including the ones in Ohio ("achieved through a combination of onsite resources and annual renewable matching").

 

[Hazmat401]

It's totally delusional. The rare earth mineral issue is currently huge. There are plenty of people working on different kinds of battery technologies, however, so I do believe that, eventually, we'll solve the mineral issue.

The much harder problem is the capacity problem. A tiny percentage of vehicles are EVs today, yet our power grids are routinely pushed to their limits. How do we replace literally hundreds of millions of gas-powered vehicles with EVs unless we increase our energy generating capabilities in a MASSIVE way? The only way that has a chance of happening is nuclear and that seems very unlikely for many reasons.

The answer is clean nuclear power... and then even cleaner nuclear Fusion power

But....

There's a certain class of people that say no to that too... I'll leave it at that

 

[4k78]

The answer is clean nuclear power... and then even cleaner nuclear Fusion power

But....

There's a certain class of people that say no to that too... I'll leave it at that

They call themselves environmentalists. 🤣

 

[Optheduim]

Love my polestar and this feature. However, the one downside with CarPlay is that it doesn’t estimate the battery. Further, when you want to navigate to a charging stop CarPlay/Maps does not invoke battery preconditioning.

 

[markosb]

Volvo has been making really great, comfortable and safe cars for so long and I’m glad that Volvo is taking the right approach that GM chose not to take and sticking with CarPlay because it’s definitely the best car infotainment system by far

Having used both Android and CarPlay, you're not wrong. Most cars that go the “we’ll make our own” are often out of touch. I only have a CarPlay radio, but I replaced the factory cause it was just a horrible experience.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Love my polestar and this feature. However, the one downside with CarPlay is that it doesn’t estimate the battery. Further, when you want to navigate to a charging stop CarPlay/Maps does not invoke battery preconditioning.

Yes, the inbuilt system is much better. But to be honest, unless one drives specifically to a charging stop, say about 20 minutes away from one's current location, the lack of satnav induced battery preconditioning really does not make a material difference.

If you are on a journey doing motorway speeds, and you take the battery from say 80% to 20% when you look for a charge, it is ready to take it, preconditioning or not, you'll get the fastest speeds possible.

The state of charge has way more effect; just look at it in the case where you have to wait as there is a queue. So you've preconditioned with a 15-minute drive. But then you have a 10-minute wait at a very busy station. If your SOC is around 20% you still get the maximum speeds.

In my opinion, people put far too much importance to preconditioning and overthink it; just drive it and it will be fine.

 

[Mauser]

I think the Polestar 2 might be the best looking electric sedan on the market.

You haven't seen the BMW i4? 😅

 

[Mauser]

BMW has dual screen CarPlay in iDrive 8 for almost 2 years and they also have turn based CarPlay navigation in the head-up display.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

You haven't seen the BMW i4? 😅

Only the i4 M50 looks great. The others are a bit under specified and ordinary. But then again so is a Polestar without the packs. Except it’s a heck of a lot cheaper.

 

[JamesHolden]

They could easily double down and make hardware renewals part of an elevated level of Apple One...thus further moving a recurring revenue model rather than a transactional model.

This becomes even more pertinent if
1. Future models' feature improvements become smaller (meaning less of an improvement, which is likely)
2. Future models become more expensive (again, likely, with the more expensive chips and the need to diversify manufacturing outside China...and the fact that China's labor costs are also rising very quickly)

...the hardware may need to be subsidized in order to keep the volume high (and prevent more users from holding their phones for longer). If customers have to "think" and recalculate every year, more and more will wait another year. Apple could counter that with yet another subscription.

What you suggest is certainly possible. I've often wondered in recent years if we're heading towards all iPhones being subscription (maybe all Apple devices one day). I also feel that, if Apple goes this direction, it signals that they've completely lost their innovative edge and that the public isn't interested in whatever new products/technologies (ie: Vision Pro) they're pitching.

I'm going way off topic here...but it wasn't that long ago that the average car lasted only 5-6 years.

Not in my experience. My 2008 Chevy Tahoe lasted 12 years and nearly 300K miles. I'm still driving my 25 year old Jeep Wrangler too. I don't think it's that cars only lasted 5-6 years. It's more about people always needing/wanting something shiny and new. The same desire fuels the annual iPhone upgrade cycle. Objectively, there's absolutely no good reason to upgrade one's smart phone every year. It's incredibly wasteful and unnecessary, yet millions of people do it because of their addiction to having the latest shiny bauble.

Now they last twice as long. If the same happens with phones, think about what that does to Apple (or Samsung, etc). Every time my IT manager tells me that he wants to put our PC hardware on a "replacement cycle", I object. Older hardware runs our corporate software just fine...the only impetus for upgrading now is when Microsoft stops supporting Windows 10 and it becomes a security issue.

In my opinion, as a 40+ year Apple customer, I think Apple's hardware has generally lasted a long time. What has changed in recent years (across the industry) is that performance gains, even if they're significant, aren't really noticeable to the average user. I'm still on my iPhone 11. I had a 7 before that and only upgraded to the 11 because I shattered the screen on my 7. I probably would have held on to my 7 for at least another cycle or two had that not happened. At this point, I don't see why I should upgrade my 11. It's good enough.

So yes, if customers don't upgrade as often, smartphone makers will have to come up with additional revenue streams. One option is locking the customer in with a subscription model. Another option is being innovative and coming up with other products that your customer wants to buy. I'm betting on Apple taking the latter approach, despite their love of subscriptions.

As much as I love my M2 Max MBP, I must admit that my kids' M1 MacBook Airs are damn fast.

Yup. I replaced my nearly 10 year old Intel MacBook with an M1 MBP and I doubt I'll upgrade for many years. For what I do these days, this machine's performance is more than adequate.

As much as I love my iPhone 14 Pro, my kids' iPhone 12's are damn nice and require a lot of pixel-peeping to tell the difference in photo quality.

Agreed. That's why I'm still holding on to my 11. Sure, the 14's camera is better, the speakers are a bit louder, the screen is a bit nicer...but there's no "killer feature" that makes me want to upgrade.

 

[NightFox]

Incorrect. In one of the more recent updates this year, CarPlay now supports displaying an Apple Maps route on the driver dash. Interestingly enough, CarPlay still does not support Google Maps being shown on the driver dash, but that's kind of redundant from using the native Android Auto Google Maps

It's not incorrect. The HUD is not the driver's dashboard display though. It's an additional display projected on to the windscreen.

 

[SilverWalker]

How are you

That's 100% why I canceled my deposit on a V90 earlier this year and went with an Audi A6 Allroad.

How are you finding the Audi?

 

[SigurTom]

How are you

How are you finding the Audi?

Love it. A couple wonky things with the MMI that hopefully a software update will fix down the road, but everything is well thought out, great ride, the capacity of a crossover with the handling of a sporty sedan. I'm heavily anti-SUV FWIW.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

I think the Polestar 2 might be the best looking electric sedan on the market.

I'll take the Lucid Air over that every day of the week.

 

[nottorp]

There is a strip of hardware controls below the main screen with buttons for the defrosters, hazard lights

Not bad, but it's missing the a/c recirculate button. For when you're stuck in traffic or have to stay behind a truck on a mountain road.