Very shortsighted IMHO. By keeping both they will be broadening the appeal of their cars to a larger segment of the market. All in favor of a subscription model??
"Buyers of GM EVs with the new systems will get access to Google Maps and Google Assistant, a voice command system, at no extra cost for eight years, GM said. GM said the future infotainment systems will offer applications such as Spotify's music service, Audible and other services that many drivers now access via smartphones"
I think they would argue the shortsighted plan would be to stick with CarPlay and Android Auto because they are here now and work. The long term plan is to control in-car hardware/software and find ways to generate revenue from it.
Maybe the real money is in services?
It's possible they may sell fewer cars, but make more money overall. The article says they think they can generate $20-$25 billion of subscription revenue by 2030. That's the revenue from about 400,000 vehicles. If their vehicle sales drop by less than 17%, they win.
This is the kind of user-hostile, maximum-profit-at-all-costs thinking that is absolutely ruining various aspects of our society, economy, etc. Just like streaming services, where it's absolutely clear that people are happy to pay a reasonable monthly subscription for on-demand access to all the shows they like (see: Netflix several years ago), but the content owners are just horrified at the thought that they don't get both every drop of revenue they can possibly squeeze out of every customer, and absolute iron-clad control of the experience from beginning to end.
I don't care if it's "rational" behavior for the business; it's disgusting and shouldn't be allowed. The good of society should always come before increasing profits even higher for already-massive, already-highly-profitable companies.
I don’t think I would buy a car that didn’t have CarPlay. I’m an iPhone user and have no interest in changing my phone.
People reject cars all the time for even more trivial things (oh — this one doesn’t have wireless charging? Next.), so I can’t imagine this being a smart idea for GM.
I said my next car would have to have CarPlay but the Tesla software in my Y is good enough to live without it. I rent a lot of cars with CarPlay, and like it, but now that the Tesla software supports both Apple Music and Spotify, I’m good. That said, I wouldn’t buy a car that supported Google Carwhatever but not Apple CarPlay.
As far as i know the tesla car has its own spotify account. So this only works, if you’re the only one driving your car. In my family up to five people drive a car - I don’t think i want one spotify-account used by five people.
This was only the case in Europe. US cars instead come with a Slacker account, and you need to associate your Spotify account to access it, same with Apple Music.
Not sure if the associations are per-user or per-car, though. I believe there was work to move them along with some other settings to your "user profile" and would go with you across cars.
That was the case a few years ago—now you just associate your personal Spotify account with your Tesla driver profile. It auto-switches to the right one based on the driver, which works great!
I have a Model 3 right now and like it well enough I guess, but I think next time I get a car my ideal is to get a non-Tesla EV that has CarPlay. My hope was that Tesla has pushed the industry enough to start making competitive EVs so that I don't have to get another Tesla. And I think I would prefer using CarPlay. I've used it a couple times in rental cars and really liked it. The screens are smaller and less nice than Tesla's, but the navigation on Tesla kind of sucks compared to Apple and Google and I think that's more valuable to me.
Tesla is the gold standard for in car infotainment. I wouldn’t trust GM or even google to be as good at software as Tesla without them establishing a track record first.
Agreed, but I have my gripes with the system. We waited a long time for Apple Music to come to the infotainment - and even then it's slow, you cannot adjust to a higher music quality, you can't download playlists to local storage, I need to login every month, etc.
Additionally, my 2019 Model 3's infotainment is noticeably slower than a 2023's. I'd hate to be limited by compute in a car that I'll probably replace in 8 years. If it's my phone, the replacement time is much shorter (and much more affordable!).
It would not stop me from buying another Tesla. The infotainment is generally fantastic (as is the rest of the car). But CarPlay would make the music and podcast experience so much better.
Tesla started shipping the new AMD based MCU3 at the end of 2021. MCU2 in previously Model 3s is an Intel Atom architecture.
Previously Tesla offered MCU1 to MCU2 paid upgrades for Model S/X owners. It seems unlikely that Tesla will offer anything similar for MCU2 to MCU3 but not impossible that it could be done as a 3rd party retrofit. The connectors and physical dimensions are different so it’s not trivial.
It _is_ excellent, but it is annoyingly ignorant of integrating with phones. If you have an Android phone you can send and receive texts, but no other notifications come in and nothing else is projected there either. If you have an iPhone, it works _sometimes_ but I am rarely able to reply to messages using voice successfully. I wish it better extended into my phone, but it's largely because of Apple's rules, which I guess aren't Tesla's fault—but are a side-effect of not using carplay.
While annoying, my real gripe is what this says about their development process. If you can’t get these things right, how can I trust that you will get the safety critical software right?
Yeah… I honestly think that altho the Tesla infotainment system isn’t perfect, if we’re gonna judge the safety competency of car companies based on how good their in-house infotainment is, Tesla’s would be far and above the best (until the Apple car comes out or something…).
No, but other manufacturers are much more conservative about how they market their software (e.g., naming it ‘driver assist’ vs ‘autopilot’). It’s an obvious and explicit declaration that their software should not be relied on to be the main mitigation in safety-critical scenarios.
Model 3's system is better than other cars I've owned, but not as good as what I think CarPlay can be. The only advantage of my Model 3 vs the rental cars I've used with CarPlay was that Model 3's screen is bigger and nicer and so the maps look nicer and I can have music info/controls on screen at the same time as maps. But both Apple and Google navigation is a lot better than Tesla's navigation. I also use Apple Music and was initially excited about getting integration into Tesla, but I continue to just use it through my phone instead so it ended up not mattering. The one thing I hate about Tesla's system is the semi-frequent UI changes. A moving car with a touch screen is not the place where I want to have to re-learn some aspect of a UI after I get a system update.
The UI updates essentially once a year to keep up the with massive influx of features that are being added, and keep those features accessible and organized on the available screen real estate.
Basically with Tesla you get the latest model year car software on an ongoing basis, and it’s revolutionary from an owner’s perspective.
The alternative is needing to trade in/buy a whole new model year car to get to enjoy whatever new feature, which is how it always used to work, and is so scammy.
If you don’t want the latest software, you can always choose not the install it, but you would be seriously limiting the performance, comfort, safety and entertainment value of your car.
Most cars don’t get faster, safer, and cheaper to operate after you buy them, but Tesla’s do. The obvious trade-off to getting the latest model year’s software and features is getting the latest model year’s UI as well.
Not only that but wireless CarPlay. I recently picked up a '23 RAV4 and I didn't think it would matter but the difference is noticeable. At least in this model it's connected before I'm even out of my garage.
As far as I understand it, it still uses Bluetooth to establish the connection, but the rest is done over Wifi (someone can feel free to correct me if not).
As others have said, it uses WiFi (set up via Bluetooth).
Bluetooth doesn't support the data rates necessary to deliver the data for CarPlay. As for the "maybe with slightly less functionality" would you take no display? You're basically talking about Siri Eyes Free where you'd have a button to activate Siri on your steering wheel, but wouldn't get much functionality. But I'm guessing you want the navigation to be displayed on your screen, not just a bluetooth audio connection with a Siri button.
Basically, the 1-2Mbps of Bluetooth really isn't enough to drive a display with any decent resolution and I'm guessing that real-world data rates are a bit less than spec with so much stuff in the 2.4GHz band. Microsoft notes that you need 1.5Mbps for 1024x768 and I'm guessing most car displays are better than that today (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/remote/remo...).
Maybe you'd argue that you'd take 5 FPS and semi-reliability, but I just don't think they want to implement something that's just kinda crappy. Apple doesn't want you going around saying, "wireless CarPlay is garbage." Yes, you might understand a retrofit to a car that doesn't really have the capability, but 99% of people won't. It's not that it's impossible as much as something likely to be way more pain than it's worth. Even if you want it and would be ok with the trade-off, that's not always how products work. Heck, if they did implement it and it didn't work, would you end up using tech support for it? That costs money. Would you post online where your problem-solving becomes interpreted as "Apple sucks" even if you don't mean it that way?
Worse, car manufactures might (and car dealers definitely would) start promising these models as supporting wireless CarPlay. Maybe Apple could deal with official marketing materials, but dealers will say almost anything to sell a car. People would be duped into buying these cars and then complain to Apple that their product sucks. People would be asking online "is this real wireless CarPlay or the fake kind?" The absolute headache!
You can buy an adapter that will plug into the USB port if you want wireless CarPlay: https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/27/carplay-wireless-carplay-adap.... Basically, the information goes from your phone to the adapter (via Bluetooth-setup-WiFi) and then the adapter just sends it over USB. That's way less headache for Apple and probably a better experience since it actually supports the right data rates. I haven't used one of these so you should read up if you want to buy one (or try it out and return it if it doesn't work for you), but this seems like a much better alternative than trying to jam CarPlay over Bluetooth (without WiFi).
I use one of the wireless CarPlay adapters. Works fine. Only real downside is like I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the audio does have a bit of a delay similarly to Bluetooth audio playback (as in, if I skip to next song or pause using either the screen or my steering wheel controls, it takes maybe a half second or one second longer than when I just have it plugged in for wired CarPlay).
Not to mention, isn’t CarPlay just an interface for the phone to be able to connect to so the screen can display the software operating on the phone?
Near zero cost to GM, tons of convenience for GM’s customers. I can only imagine GM wants customers’ data or subscription fees, and Apple will not allow that. And this is a business that got bailed out by US taxpayers, and is explicitly too big to fail.
problem is (from GM's perspective), with CarPlay, Apple takes over the UX of the car...the Apple logo is the first and last thing people see when driving
GM doesn't want Apple or Google taking over the UX of the car, because then GM is eventually just another FoxConn
and sure, there's a money thing...they want revshare from Spotify and every other app they can position in the UI
CarPlay and Android Auto will be gone as fast as car makers can make it happen
> the Apple logo is the first and last thing people see when driving
This isn’t how it works in my Dodge. There is a Dodge logo / startup screen first, then a “don’t use screen while driving sign that I am forced to accept every time” and then it shows me CarPlay.
As cars move away from traditional DIN stuff and more towards multiple screens with no physical “radio” on the dash in the classic sense… is that still an option?
The head units are so integrated and specific to vehicles now that I doubt that a third party unit would work and provide all that you need from it. The most you might get is a secondary screen that displayed CarPlay/AndroidAuto but then connected to the car via Bluetooth which is a serious downgrade.
Yes, in older designs with the smaller screens it does need to take over. EVs are moving to larger screens where there is room to place CarPlay into one section of the screen and keep other areas “native”.
Typically, you see the logo before you get into the actual car. I would say you can tell by the shape, but some brands share too much in the looks department (cough Kia/Hyundai).
Nowadays Kia and Hyundai target different segments, but quality is about the same. Kia also does more region-specific models, like the Ceed in Europe and the Telluride in US, while Hyundai seems to have a more global strategy where they choose what to sell from a portfolio of global models.
> This will also be an opportunity for other car manufacturers to differentiate themselves: “We still support CarPlay”
but I doubt CarPlay will even end up as the lowest-common-denominator...one of GM or Mercedes or whoever will try to get their system good enough that they can license it to other car companies...so CarOS or whatever will be the default if your car brand doesn't have a bespoke experience
I like Android Auto and use it all the time, but I can't fault GM for not wanting to be treated as just another OEM...FoxConn does all the hard work for Apple on the hardware side and isn't even allowed to put their name on the product...the ultimate replaceable cog
Apple might have been received better by car makers if it hadn't threatened to be developing their own vehicle...now all the car makers see them as a competitive threat
I don’t think it’ll work anyway. BMW has been stubborn on CarPay integration by not supporting it or asking a hefty price for “CarPlay preparation” (which is, as far as I’m concerned, mostly installing a WiFi antenna on the head unit), all because it would have cannibalized their revenue from map updates and other remote services (e.g. real-time traffic information). But in the end, BMW gave up and CarPlay is included in all models by default starting 2022 or 2023, don’t remember exactly.
Back in 2017, I didnt buy a toyota for the first time because they didn't offer carplay. I refuse to be stuck with a subpar experience for the 10 years I normally keep a vehicle. Absolutely ridiculous to not support both CarPlay and Android Auto.
That's where I'm at. Our 2016 Toyota has their horrible Entune system, and however much I like everything else about it, that thing irritates me every time I look at it.
Well they got about 4 years before I need another car, unfortunately for them my new minimum requirements are going to also include EV. VW id.4 is my current leader.
The last time I replaced a unit was in 2012, but I think what you would be looking for is a head unit that accepts camera input , a wiring harness for the head unit to the car's wiring, a reverse camera adapter if the car doesn't use the standard yellow RCA-esque connector (apparently toyota uses several different connectors), and a interface adapter if you want to retain the use of the steering wheel controls which in total would probably be <$500 depending on parts. I remember Crutchfield's "will it fit" tools and advisors being pretty helpful.
Looking around a bit, apparently there's also a neat though slightly more expensive product called the datalink maestro rr or rr2 that does the camera and head unit interfacing part while retaining additional features.
They probably see how well Tesla/Rivian sell and they do not have carplay. I guess you are limited to what you can do with a carplay/andriod auto implementation. However, I prefer carplay vs any other (including tesla's) implementation. I'm sure there is an aspect to increased complexity as well.
The reactions in this thread are interesting, because they seem to imply that this is the final straw that has convinced us to not buy Chevrolets and Buicks, as opposed to the last 30+ years of of their products being generally terrible.
Personally, I LOVE my (2019) Volt. FWIW, it also has AA/Car Play.
First they kill the Volt -- IMHO the best PHEV on the market when I bought it -- now they kill a vastly superior interface to anything I've ever used in a car.
Sorry GM, you might just have lost a (stockholding, for now, at least) customer.
It's been hard to predict the quality of electric vehicles based on the same brand's ICE/hybrid vehicles.
For example, Toyota is head and shoulders better than the competition at ICE and hybrids, but they're arguably last in EVs. In fact, Consumer Reports says the Chevy Bolt is currently the best EV[1].
Sort of. I know Tesla owners who've bought Bolts as secondary cars but would not otherwise be caught dead in a GM car. There are people who buy Corvettes who wouldn't consider another GM car. I avoid American cars at all costs but was still considering a Bolt before this news.
If I needed a full-size truck, I'd consider a GM (alongside Toyota and Ford). Without CarPlay, I'll buy one of the other brands.
If I wanted a near-supercar, I'd consider a Corvette. Without CarPlay, I'll buy a Cayman S or something else instead. The Corvette might be measurably better in most performance metrics, but if I can't use the apps I'm accustomed to using, I won't buy it.
The rest of the GM line-up? Yeah, pretty uninspiring.
My household has 3 EV Chevy cars - Volt, Bolt, Spark. Buying another Chevy EV at some point was certainly a possibility.
I even use Android, and don't personally care that much about Apple support, and I'm still unhappy about this and it's making me less interested in Chevy for the next car.
It's not mentioned in the headline, but GM also intends to phase out Android Auto, so this is not specific to iPhones.
>General Motors plans to phase out widely-used Apple CarPlay and Android Auto technologies that allow drivers to bypass a vehicle's infotainment systems, shifting instead to built-in infotainment systems developed with Google for future electric vehicles.
Exactly. I’ve long joked that buying a Buick in the modern era is a sign of severe brain trauma. Even the economic argument doesn’t make sense when you consider the reliability.
I don't want my car to team up with anyone, please. I don't want an already-outdated LCD screen and proprietary operating system in there becoming obsolete even faster than the battery wears out. I wish there were better options for that.
Yea agree so much with this. I just want a car with physical knobs and buttons bluetooth to connect to my phone's audio. Have to buy ~10 year old cars to get this.
Yea some do have this, just not common anymore. e.g. I want a GTI, but I really hate the lack of buttons. Even the steering wheel controls aren't physical buttons anymore.
I have a car with just aux, and I bought a $37 aux to bluetooth adapter [1] that works perfectly. It is a small puck shaped thing you can attach on the dash, with physical buttons for play/pause/prev/next, a good-enough microphone and you can answer/end calls with the play button.
If they release Bluetooth 6.0 or whatever with cool new features, then in a couple of years when I've bought a phone that supports this, I can just buy a new Bluetooth adapter.
The only time I've been in a car with aux and without bluetooth was when briefly borrowing my mom's car when I visited home, so I haven't had a need for a product like this.
That's hot it is with my Fit. No touch screens or syncing with apps or any of that. I stick my phone in the holder, plug in power if I'll be driving for a while, and switch the stereo to aux/bluetooth.
I've had rentals with Carplay/Android Auto and they're kinda neat when they aren't a pain in the ass to set up (probably due to the cheap head units' software). But I already see nav and hear directions/music/podcasts/calls through the car's stereo.
I thought about upgrading the head unit from stock, but then I realized I was looking at a few hundred bucks at least. I don't spend enough time in my car to need a slightly bigger screen when I already have one right in front of me, sitting in its mount.
Not as if I'd rip the thing out if I got a car with Carplay/AA built=in. I just don't see it as a huge selling point.
It seems like their point is to be able to capture more driver data, and get a nice sum from Google for making them the default (only?) map software. I would rather not have their OS at all.
Isn't that the point of CarPlay and android auto? You don't have to rely on auto manufacturers to design the UI/UX for that screen and don't depend on the their OTA updates either.
A good example: In 2015 I bought a tiny little Toyota Aygo (UK). It came with "Mirrorlink", it was the first car I'd ever owned that had a fancy touch screen, and it was advertised as working with iPhone's.
Now bearing in mind this was a brand new model, you can imagine how pissed off I was when I got the car, tried my phone and it didn't work, only to be told it only works with the iPhone 4 - we were on the 6S at that point.
To this day there has never been a software update. They continued selling that model with the misleading claims for about 4 years, eventually releasing a new model with carplay support. If I want carplay support added to mine, it needs the newer head unit which is around £900.
Car manufacturers are assholes. I dont want them having anything to do with the software, just make it work with carplay and android auto and then dont touch it, let the people that actually maintain their software on your phone deal with it all.
I’ll remain open minded about this, but it seems unwise to go all-in with android and abandon Apple for even the most expensive cars. Are people who buy Cadillacs (who probably own iPhones) not going to mind not having CarPlay? Or will they buy a BMW or Mercedes instead?
When you’re dropping $75k on a car, you expect it not to have any compromises.
As other commenters have said, people dismiss $75k+ cars all the times for things like "this shade of exterior paint is too light/dark" or "I don't like how the shifter feels" or "this doesn't have ambient lighting."
In that context "this car won't integrate with your phone so you'll need to rely on shoddy BT at best" is a pretty major issue.
They're not going all-in with Android or abandoning Apple, they're phasing out both CarPlay AND Android Auto in favor of something entirely new (that just so happens to be built by Google).
They’re dropping Android Auto, the CarPlay equivalent.
They’re switching to Android Auto, the infotainment OS. Or is that Android Automotive? Or Android for Autos? Or Android Auto(motive?) OS, which is AAOS. Or something based on Android Open Source for cars or maybe Android Auto Open Source?
Which is not AOSP. Or Android. But kind of is.
I’m not in the Android world but I’m never sure what to call the car Android thing as opposed to the phone Android thing for use in cars.
Using Android Auto with your Android based auto. Sigh.
I give up. I’m going to go watch Apple TV on my Apple TV through the Apple made TV app.
I think you misunderstood what they are doing. They are dropping both Carplay and Android Auto, the Android Equal of carplay.
Instead they are making the car platform based on Google Automotive with the play store so you can install any app you want natively.
Their argument is that they want to make the internal software as good or better. I'll remain open minded as well..but TBH I fully expect almost all car makers to do this. No sane company would spend billions making a product and then let some other company overlay over it and make all the money.
The same thing that stops Apple from making their phones USB-C compatible, or iMessage RCS compatible, or making the app store back-end not require xCode and a mac merely to upload a file. They are a monopoly, and they are trying to coerce consumers to give them more money.
GM is killing Both carplay and AA, everyone is confused all over the place and reporting is awful.
The new system runs off "Google Automotive Services" (AKA: GAS - Native Google Android on the car's computer hardware) complete with the Play Store. Apple could always build iMessage and Apple Maps for GAS.
Ditto. I also am shopping for a new car just for the sole purpose of having wireless CarPlay. I put over 100k miles on my car in 3 years so I would consider myself in the well above average tier for car usage. Apple CarPlay has improved the driving experience considerably.
I'm guessing GM made the calculation that the money they were getting from Google to do this was greater than the money they would lose in car sales to iPhone owners.
People who drop 80k on a car, dont have time nor energy to learn and fiddle with new car UI. Once you get used to CarPlay you aint coming back, since it is so integrated with the phone UX
It's been said elsewhere as well, but if one is willing to spend that much on a car, or can at all, they usually want exactly what they want beyond just the UI.
If I'm spending <$8,000 (picking $8K as 10% of your initial number) on a car I know I'm compromising on everything and buying the car for a very specific reason. There's no room for negotiation - you take what you get at that price point.
If I'm spending $80,000 on a car it better be perfect in every way, and every little bit of it matters because I don't want to be disappointed in any part of it. I would hate getting into my $80,000 car every day and knowing that I wasn't getting what I wanted from it.
Also getting rid of Android Auto, according to the original source:
General Motors plans to phase out widely-used Apple CarPlay and Android Auto technologies that allow drivers to bypass a vehicle's infotainment systems, shifting instead to built-in infotainment systems developed with Google for future electric vehicles.
Obviously they entered into an exclusive partnership like this with Google after a lot of thought. I cannot imagine what google gave them for that. The main question for me is, how is it benefitting Google? Does GM sell that many cars? Do the users data on their drives worth that much to them? Or is it just a play to make Apple appear weaker?
> This change, the report explains, will help GM “capture more data on how consumers drive and charge EVs.”
> “We do believe there are subscription revenue opportunities for us,” Edward Kummer, GM’s chief digital officer, added. The company is targeting $20 billion to $25 billion in annual revenue from subscriptions by 2030.
I love my yukon, but I'm not buying anything with google inside of it or anything without carplay. This seems like a miscalculation because GM sells some expensive vehicles, and people with lots of money in my limited experience have iphones.
> Kummer also acknowledged that there are "subscription revenue opportunities." Don't be surprised if you're paying a recurring fee for certain features like you already do with some brands.
This is getting so tiresome. Not only have car prices exploded, now we have to pay for subscription features too.
I just don't know how much more of this we can take. Companies no longer innovate. They all just rent seek because there's no true competition anymore.
I think GM (and most car manufacturers) miss out on the partnerships with such players like Apple and Google entirely to extend their OS reach and ubiquity. The SYNERGY could be a billion dollar package add-on. What also puzzles me was why Tesla never bought Apple or vis versa. The UI/UX fast-track in such an endeavor would be mind boggling.
I haven’t seen anyone mention car rentals in this thread. It is a huge bonus to have an interface, maps, music, etc you know and trust. When renting a car in the last 5 years it is basically standard to have access to CarPlay, and it is the same system many of us use in our own cars. Will rental companies buy vehicles without it, and support this move too?
This is a good point, but pretty much all rental companies have GM vehicles, and renters get stuck with whatever is available. I doubt renters will change their behaviors because they won't be able to effectively avoid GM vehicles. So as a result, rental companies won't change their behavior either.
It will just suck for renters a bit more than before.
But is there any chance that one rental company would actually be able to guarantee CarPlay availability (meaning no GM vehicles)? Seems unlikely to me.
Sure, but they can't guarantee that you'll get a non-GM car, since they never know if they'll have availability in advance. Sometimes you show up and they don't have the vehicle type, or any vehicle whatsoever.
I largely ignored CarPlay since it came out since my car didn't support it and I didn't feel like I was missing much vs my mounted phone but recently I borrowed a car for a few days that had CarPlay and I really enjoyed it. So much better than anything from any car manufacturer and the integration was flawless. In fact, my biggest issue was figuring out how to get back into the CarPlay UI from the car default UI when I started the car (I'm sure there was an easy way and I took a convoluted way).
For a long time I said "Just give me keyless entry/start, bluetooth, and a backup camera and I'll be happy" but now I really want CarPlay as well. The car I was driving was much nicer than mine in a number of ways (adaptive cruise control, lane keeping assist, etc, all stuff I enjoyed) but CarPlay was the one thing I'd really love to have.
Does carplay hijack the phone pretty aggressively? I've tried the Android one a few times, but it prevents manipulation of the phone while you're riding and the phone has to ask of the head unit (and be rejected) permission to disable Bluetooth to restore the phone. Then you have to ask the driver to get, unlock, and relinquish his phone for you to accomplish the task.
It's possible I was the victim of bad default settings, as I turned the whole thing off each time after this happened.
IME the iPhone works normally, but if you have a navigation app running a route that app turns into a list of the next steps with no options to view a map, add a stop, or manipulate anything.
It's really frustrating for us when, e.g. we have the route to the final destination on screen but the passenger wants to look for a place to stop and eat. They either have to use the car touchscreen (intended for the driver and limiting for someone who can give it full attention) or juggle multiple maps apps or phones.
It used to, but a few years ago (2019 I think?) they changed so that it's a properly separate display.
The only thing you can't do is separately play audio from the phone (because the CarPlay unit is basically serving as its output while it's connected), or use your maps app to do something different while the navigation is running on the CarPlay unit (because CarPlay is just a view into the phone's apps, and so they'll both be in navigation mode).
CarPlay is awesome, but I found the lack of being able to use maps very restricting. If you’re driving with someone who is co-piloting then them being able to use your phone to scout ahead for stops, restaurants etc is really useful.
We ended up using Google Maps for this while navigating with Apple Maps.
It used to work as more of a screen mirror (e.g. if the passenger changes apps on the phone the CarPlay screen would change as well) but they updated it a few years ago and now they are totally independent, except there’s only one “version” of each app so if you change the navigation destination on the phone it’ll change on the CarPlay screen.
After replacing the head unit in my Tacoma, I couldn't live my life w/o the modern amenities with Apple CarPlay, TBH. I drive my wife's Nissan and just so let down on the interface of early Rogues .. but at least the entire setup now comes up in a 2020 we drive. Anyway ... GM is shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
I replaced a 2-DIN unit in our 2005 Scion xB probably ten years ago with a Pioneer. No need to send a link to a ten-year old product, but go to Crutchfield (if in U. S.), search on "pioneer CarPlay", and you'll get head units with CarPlay from $300 on up. Ours is one of the nicer ones (at the time), and even without CarPlay it's still a nice unit.
We've replaced the unit in the Sprinter RV with a JVC (which, from what I can gather, is just a Chinese brand that bought the name) for something like $300. We pretty much only use CarPlay in that vehicle, which is fine because the rest of the unit is pretty low-end, including the UI. But the CarPlay piece gets the job done.
I've purchased from Crutchfield, as did my father before me, for over 40 years. Not one...single...bad word to say about my experiences. They have almost always exceeded expectations, and to reiterate what you already said, their instructions and support are outstanding. Hence my "go to Crutchfield's site...".
385 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 306 ms ] thread"Buyers of GM EVs with the new systems will get access to Google Maps and Google Assistant, a voice command system, at no extra cost for eight years, GM said. GM said the future infotainment systems will offer applications such as Spotify's music service, Audible and other services that many drivers now access via smartphones"
Maybe the real money is in services?
It's possible they may sell fewer cars, but make more money overall. The article says they think they can generate $20-$25 billion of subscription revenue by 2030. That's the revenue from about 400,000 vehicles. If their vehicle sales drop by less than 17%, they win.
I don't care if it's "rational" behavior for the business; it's disgusting and shouldn't be allowed. The good of society should always come before increasing profits even higher for already-massive, already-highly-profitable companies.
Oh cool, a company reducing features so they can collect more data on me.
People reject cars all the time for even more trivial things (oh — this one doesn’t have wireless charging? Next.), so I can’t imagine this being a smart idea for GM.
Not sure if the associations are per-user or per-car, though. I believe there was work to move them along with some other settings to your "user profile" and would go with you across cars.
I won’t buy a car that doesn’t support CarPlay.
Additionally, my 2019 Model 3's infotainment is noticeably slower than a 2023's. I'd hate to be limited by compute in a car that I'll probably replace in 8 years. If it's my phone, the replacement time is much shorter (and much more affordable!).
It would not stop me from buying another Tesla. The infotainment is generally fantastic (as is the rest of the car). But CarPlay would make the music and podcast experience so much better.
Previously Tesla offered MCU1 to MCU2 paid upgrades for Model S/X owners. It seems unlikely that Tesla will offer anything similar for MCU2 to MCU3 but not impossible that it could be done as a 3rd party retrofit. The connectors and physical dimensions are different so it’s not trivial.
Does any major car manufacturer routinely nail their infotainment systems?
Basically with Tesla you get the latest model year car software on an ongoing basis, and it’s revolutionary from an owner’s perspective.
The alternative is needing to trade in/buy a whole new model year car to get to enjoy whatever new feature, which is how it always used to work, and is so scammy.
If you don’t want the latest software, you can always choose not the install it, but you would be seriously limiting the performance, comfort, safety and entertainment value of your car.
Most cars don’t get faster, safer, and cheaper to operate after you buy them, but Tesla’s do. The obvious trade-off to getting the latest model year’s software and features is getting the latest model year’s UI as well.
Bluetooth doesn't support the data rates necessary to deliver the data for CarPlay. As for the "maybe with slightly less functionality" would you take no display? You're basically talking about Siri Eyes Free where you'd have a button to activate Siri on your steering wheel, but wouldn't get much functionality. But I'm guessing you want the navigation to be displayed on your screen, not just a bluetooth audio connection with a Siri button.
Basically, the 1-2Mbps of Bluetooth really isn't enough to drive a display with any decent resolution and I'm guessing that real-world data rates are a bit less than spec with so much stuff in the 2.4GHz band. Microsoft notes that you need 1.5Mbps for 1024x768 and I'm guessing most car displays are better than that today (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/remote/remo...).
Maybe you'd argue that you'd take 5 FPS and semi-reliability, but I just don't think they want to implement something that's just kinda crappy. Apple doesn't want you going around saying, "wireless CarPlay is garbage." Yes, you might understand a retrofit to a car that doesn't really have the capability, but 99% of people won't. It's not that it's impossible as much as something likely to be way more pain than it's worth. Even if you want it and would be ok with the trade-off, that's not always how products work. Heck, if they did implement it and it didn't work, would you end up using tech support for it? That costs money. Would you post online where your problem-solving becomes interpreted as "Apple sucks" even if you don't mean it that way?
Worse, car manufactures might (and car dealers definitely would) start promising these models as supporting wireless CarPlay. Maybe Apple could deal with official marketing materials, but dealers will say almost anything to sell a car. People would be duped into buying these cars and then complain to Apple that their product sucks. People would be asking online "is this real wireless CarPlay or the fake kind?" The absolute headache!
You can buy an adapter that will plug into the USB port if you want wireless CarPlay: https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/27/carplay-wireless-carplay-adap.... Basically, the information goes from your phone to the adapter (via Bluetooth-setup-WiFi) and then the adapter just sends it over USB. That's way less headache for Apple and probably a better experience since it actually supports the right data rates. I haven't used one of these so you should read up if you want to buy one (or try it out and return it if it doesn't work for you), but this seems like a much better alternative than trying to jam CarPlay over Bluetooth (without WiFi).
Near zero cost to GM, tons of convenience for GM’s customers. I can only imagine GM wants customers’ data or subscription fees, and Apple will not allow that. And this is a business that got bailed out by US taxpayers, and is explicitly too big to fail.
GM doesn't want Apple or Google taking over the UX of the car, because then GM is eventually just another FoxConn
and sure, there's a money thing...they want revshare from Spotify and every other app they can position in the UI
CarPlay and Android Auto will be gone as fast as car makers can make it happen
This isn’t how it works in my Dodge. There is a Dodge logo / startup screen first, then a “don’t use screen while driving sign that I am forced to accept every time” and then it shows me CarPlay.
Apple announced the total UI takeover option (though I’m not sure if it works today) but no car maker supports it on a shipping vehicle.
Many have announced interest but at this point we don’t know if it will ever be available, even if only on some kind of ultra-luxury car.
I assume Kia is South Korea’s lower end offering, Hyundai is their mid tier offering, and Genesis is their luxury offering.
This will also be an opportunity for other car manufacturers to differentiate themselves: “We still support CarPlay”
but I doubt CarPlay will even end up as the lowest-common-denominator...one of GM or Mercedes or whoever will try to get their system good enough that they can license it to other car companies...so CarOS or whatever will be the default if your car brand doesn't have a bespoke experience
I like Android Auto and use it all the time, but I can't fault GM for not wanting to be treated as just another OEM...FoxConn does all the hard work for Apple on the hardware side and isn't even allowed to put their name on the product...the ultimate replaceable cog
Apple might have been received better by car makers if it hadn't threatened to be developing their own vehicle...now all the car makers see them as a competitive threat
GM is only doing this because they see an avenue to charge recurring fees, which smartphones obviated.
Isn’t this just the gift that just keeps on giving?
Looking around a bit, apparently there's also a neat though slightly more expensive product called the datalink maestro rr or rr2 that does the camera and head unit interfacing part while retaining additional features.
https://youtu.be/AkWzSXFJYTo
First they kill the Volt -- IMHO the best PHEV on the market when I bought it -- now they kill a vastly superior interface to anything I've ever used in a car.
Sorry GM, you might just have lost a (stockholding, for now, at least) customer.
For example, Toyota is head and shoulders better than the competition at ICE and hybrids, but they're arguably last in EVs. In fact, Consumer Reports says the Chevy Bolt is currently the best EV[1].
1. https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/electric-vehicl...
If I wanted a near-supercar, I'd consider a Corvette. Without CarPlay, I'll buy a Cayman S or something else instead. The Corvette might be measurably better in most performance metrics, but if I can't use the apps I'm accustomed to using, I won't buy it.
The rest of the GM line-up? Yeah, pretty uninspiring.
I even use Android, and don't personally care that much about Apple support, and I'm still unhappy about this and it's making me less interested in Chevy for the next car.
>General Motors plans to phase out widely-used Apple CarPlay and Android Auto technologies that allow drivers to bypass a vehicle's infotainment systems, shifting instead to built-in infotainment systems developed with Google for future electric vehicles.
I can do most things without interacting with the touch screen at all.
Physical knobs and these systems def. do exist.
Well, shit.
Fine, give me bluetooth or give me death!
I have a car with just aux, and I bought a $37 aux to bluetooth adapter [1] that works perfectly. It is a small puck shaped thing you can attach on the dash, with physical buttons for play/pause/prev/next, a good-enough microphone and you can answer/end calls with the play button.
If they release Bluetooth 6.0 or whatever with cool new features, then in a couple of years when I've bought a phone that supports this, I can just buy a new Bluetooth adapter.
[1] https://www.ebay.com/itm/185493363534?hash=item2b30441b4e:g:...
Good to know they work quite well! Thank you.
I've had rentals with Carplay/Android Auto and they're kinda neat when they aren't a pain in the ass to set up (probably due to the cheap head units' software). But I already see nav and hear directions/music/podcasts/calls through the car's stereo.
I thought about upgrading the head unit from stock, but then I realized I was looking at a few hundred bucks at least. I don't spend enough time in my car to need a slightly bigger screen when I already have one right in front of me, sitting in its mount.
Not as if I'd rip the thing out if I got a car with Carplay/AA built=in. I just don't see it as a huge selling point.
There is, it's Apple CarPlay and Google Carwhatever. The whole point of these are that it basically replaces the entire car infotainment setup.
A good example: In 2015 I bought a tiny little Toyota Aygo (UK). It came with "Mirrorlink", it was the first car I'd ever owned that had a fancy touch screen, and it was advertised as working with iPhone's.
Now bearing in mind this was a brand new model, you can imagine how pissed off I was when I got the car, tried my phone and it didn't work, only to be told it only works with the iPhone 4 - we were on the 6S at that point.
To this day there has never been a software update. They continued selling that model with the misleading claims for about 4 years, eventually releasing a new model with carplay support. If I want carplay support added to mine, it needs the newer head unit which is around £900.
Car manufacturers are assholes. I dont want them having anything to do with the software, just make it work with carplay and android auto and then dont touch it, let the people that actually maintain their software on your phone deal with it all.
When you’re dropping $75k on a car, you expect it not to have any compromises.
In that context "this car won't integrate with your phone so you'll need to rely on shoddy BT at best" is a pretty major issue.
I wouldn't buy a toyota I wanted simply because it didn't have Carplay and their infotainment sucked.
They’re dropping Android Auto, the CarPlay equivalent.
They’re switching to Android Auto, the infotainment OS. Or is that Android Automotive? Or Android for Autos? Or Android Auto(motive?) OS, which is AAOS. Or something based on Android Open Source for cars or maybe Android Auto Open Source?
Which is not AOSP. Or Android. But kind of is.
I’m not in the Android world but I’m never sure what to call the car Android thing as opposed to the phone Android thing for use in cars.
Using Android Auto with your Android based auto. Sigh.
I give up. I’m going to go watch Apple TV on my Apple TV through the Apple made TV app.
Their argument is that they want to make the internal software as good or better. I'll remain open minded as well..but TBH I fully expect almost all car makers to do this. No sane company would spend billions making a product and then let some other company overlay over it and make all the money.
The new system runs off "Google Automotive Services" (AKA: GAS - Native Google Android on the car's computer hardware) complete with the Play Store. Apple could always build iMessage and Apple Maps for GAS.
The state of "journalism" in 2023.
If I'm spending $80,000 on a car it better be perfect in every way, and every little bit of it matters because I don't want to be disappointed in any part of it. I would hate getting into my $80,000 car every day and knowing that I wasn't getting what I wanted from it.
General Motors plans to phase out widely-used Apple CarPlay and Android Auto technologies that allow drivers to bypass a vehicle's infotainment systems, shifting instead to built-in infotainment systems developed with Google for future electric vehicles.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gm-plans-phase-apple-carplay-...
> “We do believe there are subscription revenue opportunities for us,” Edward Kummer, GM’s chief digital officer, added. The company is targeting $20 billion to $25 billion in annual revenue from subscriptions by 2030.
Yech
This is getting so tiresome. Not only have car prices exploded, now we have to pay for subscription features too.
I just don't know how much more of this we can take. Companies no longer innovate. They all just rent seek because there's no true competition anymore.
It will just suck for renters a bit more than before.
And I would pick Enterprise over Avis if it came down to availability of CarPlay.
For a long time I said "Just give me keyless entry/start, bluetooth, and a backup camera and I'll be happy" but now I really want CarPlay as well. The car I was driving was much nicer than mine in a number of ways (adaptive cruise control, lane keeping assist, etc, all stuff I enjoyed) but CarPlay was the one thing I'd really love to have.
It's possible I was the victim of bad default settings, as I turned the whole thing off each time after this happened.
It's really frustrating for us when, e.g. we have the route to the final destination on screen but the passenger wants to look for a place to stop and eat. They either have to use the car touchscreen (intended for the driver and limiting for someone who can give it full attention) or juggle multiple maps apps or phones.
The only thing you can't do is separately play audio from the phone (because the CarPlay unit is basically serving as its output while it's connected), or use your maps app to do something different while the navigation is running on the CarPlay unit (because CarPlay is just a view into the phone's apps, and so they'll both be in navigation mode).
We ended up using Google Maps for this while navigating with Apple Maps.
No, just let me view the damn map on my phone and the car display?
We've replaced the unit in the Sprinter RV with a JVC (which, from what I can gather, is just a Chinese brand that bought the name) for something like $300. We pretty much only use CarPlay in that vehicle, which is fine because the rest of the unit is pretty low-end, including the UI. But the CarPlay piece gets the job done.