Do you need a touch screen to control the radio or climate?I need a touch screen to open the trunk?!?
Do you need a touch screen to control the radio or climate?I need a touch screen to open the trunk?!?
But you seemly support Apple absolute policy that "You will use Apple products APPLE'S WAY or not at all".I'm really tired of the industry trend of "You will use our products OUR WAY or not at all."
I think that in some Tesla models, you open the glove compartment by using two levels of menus in the touch screen.I need a touch screen to open the trunk?!?
Well, that’s the only power most of us have, right? The power to vote with our dollar and NOT buy. For some people, a lack of CarPlay is no big deal; for others, it’s a deal breaker. Manufacturers will change their position if people stop buying their cars, but enough people need to speak up to move the needle in any meaningful manner.Here we go. Cue the…”nope, no car play no buy” comments.
Which is why they need to go back to physical buttons (not to mention how much safer having physical buttons versus all touch screen are). @arthography not sure why you would be mad about making cars more safe, but I guess you prefer distracted driving with touchscreens...even worse is that on my EQS, now it happened to me twice when its very cold that the touch screen not to work until the car is warm enough !! its like old days when the iphone display didnt worked or shuts down under 0C !!
And you don't have to pay the $75 fee to update (in our case Toyota InTune.)His comment really misses a huge portion of what makes Carplay what it is. Yes, it's nice to improve the interface of a crappy infotainment system and yes, it can actually make a great interface look worse. But the real utility is that you are taking your driving preferences with you everywhere you go. You don't need to pay subscriptions outside of what you already have. You don't need to upgrade the modem in the car when 4G or 5G are deprecated. You don't need the manufacturer to constantly develop and improve apps that already exist on other platforms. You aren't limited by the apps the manufacturer thinks you should want. You aren't limited by apps the publisher/service allows the manufacturer to develop. And if that manufacturer should go out of business, you don't have to worry about losing support for all of those apps.
Rivian is really going to dig themselves into a corner with this decision, and they should be looking at Lucid instead of Tesla for direction.
I guess this would depend on the size of your infotainment screen. Mine is about 8", and probably only half of that allows for Carplay, and it's still a better experience than my phone screen. For one, all of the text is blown up to be read at a distance. Interfaces are simplified. There are less distractions...mostly.I might be a little different, but I prefer having my iPhone mounted in my car and use that for maps and calls go over bluetooth. I don't use car play in my car because I feel restricted. Its like having two monitors on your computer instead of one. Plus, CarPlay doesn't allow certain things to work.
They are doing this so THEY CAN CHARGE for it. If they actually cared about the user experience they wouldn't put their garbage in the cars. They want your data + money so they can double charge after selling you the vehicle.His comment really misses a huge portion of what makes Carplay what it is. Yes, it's nice to improve the interface of a crappy infotainment system and yes, it can actually make a great interface look worse. But the real utility is that you are taking your driving preferences with you everywhere you go. You don't need to pay subscriptions outside of what you already have. You don't need to upgrade the modem in the car when 4G or 5G are deprecated. You don't need the manufacturer to constantly develop and improve apps that already exist on other platforms. You aren't limited by the apps the manufacturer thinks you should want. You aren't limited by apps the publisher/service allows the manufacturer to develop. And if that manufacturer should go out of business, you don't have to worry about losing support for all of those apps.
Rivian is really going to dig themselves into a corner with this decision, and they should be looking at Lucid instead of Tesla for direction.
He never said he supports that. But there's quite a difference here, a car is hardly a hardware platform.But you seemly support Apple absolute policy that "You will use Apple products APPLE'S WAY or not at all".
The electrics are on another level. They dont need CarPlay. They update their software often (my Tesla has gained several new features in just the past 3 months). The legacies need CarPlay because they never update and their interfaces suck.Scaringe's argument is sound. I drive a Tesla and even though I'm a big Apple fan, I don't mind not having Apple Car Play. The key is offering software good enough not to miss it. Tesla has done it, maybe Rivian can too. From what I understand, GM isn't even close.
2016 Volvos and later employed an infrared touch layer in addition to the capacitive touch for exactly this reason.even worse is that on my EQS, now it happened to me twice when its very cold that the touch screen not to work until the car is warm enough !! its like old days when the iphone display didnt worked or shuts down under 0C !!
Have you driven one? Experienced their excellent interface? The reasoning is sound. Most car makers have a terrible interface but Rivian’s is top notch and doesn’t need CarPlay to be well-engineered and useful. The UI is beautiful but it’s not the Apple design aesthetic and as such, CarPlay would cut some corners and look dated/ugly. Most car infotainment systems can’t claim all that and look like a windows vista UII'm really tired of the industry trend of "You will use our products OUR WAY or not at all."
-didn’t read the articleCan't let the users have something for free they can charge a fee for (and collect your data).
But the article says that the car maker wants to make it a hardware platform, so it is exactly the same.He never said he supports that. But there's quite a difference here, a car is hardly a hardware platform.
In GM's case, that's definitely what they want. I don't know if or what Rivian is charging, so I'm not jumping to that conclusion. Instead, I think they're looking too closely at copying Tesla.They are doing this so THEY CAN CHARGE for it. If they actually cared about the user experience they wouldn't put their garbage in the cars. They want your data + money so they can double charge after selling you the vehicle.
And that totally misses the value of Carplay. It's not just about having an updated and nice interface - it's about consistency from car to car, taking with you what you carry with you all day.The electrics are on another level. They dont need CarPlay. They update their software often (my Tesla has gained several new features in just the past 3 months). The legacies need CarPlay because they never update and their interfaces suck.
I keep seeing this. No. No they don’t but thanks for playingThey are doing this so THEY CAN CHARGE for it. If they actually cared about the user experience they wouldn't put their garbage in the cars. They want your data + money so they can double charge after selling you the vehicle.
Scaringe's argument is sound. I drive a Tesla and even though I'm a big Apple fan, I don't mind not having Apple Car Play. The key is offering software good enough not to miss it. Tesla has done it, maybe Rivian can too. From what I understand, GM isn't even close.