3 ms·

Short term, this is stupid. GM pulled out too quickly, and without a superior drop-in replacement. Long-term, this is smart. GM will gain complete control of th

by 1970-01-01 4y ago

Short term, this is stupid. GM pulled out too quickly, and without a superior drop-in replacement. Long-term, this is smart. GM will gain complete control of the software stack, and they won't be bullied into anything. Tesla knows this. Others like Rivian know it too.

fzzzy 4y ago
Well ok, but this is why I will never buy a tesla, rivian, or gm.
CharlesW 4y ago
> Long-term, this is smart. GM will gain complete control of the software stack… CarPlay (I’m not familiar with Android Auto) doesn’t require that GM cede any control over their software stack. As Wikipedia puts it, it just “enables a car radio or head unit to be a display and a controller for an iOS device”. What GM wants is to charge you $30/month for services, since phones have mostly killed their OnStar cash cow. What they’re going to learn is the extent to which “doesn’t work with my phone” is going to be a deciding factor for vehicle purchases.
- chrisjc 4y ago
  > cede any control over their software stack Except, from what I understand they'll use Android Automotive (not to be confused with Android Auto).
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  > CarPlay ... just “enables a car radio or head unit to be a display and a controller for an iOS device”. Then why does it demand that Siri be enabled in order to complete the connection?
  - MBCook 4y ago
    At least in some markets (I think Japan may be one) there are laws mandating interaction via voice after a very small number of taps to prevent drivers from constantly looking at and poking at the screen.
  - boringg 4y ago
    Did carplay a couple days, no siri requirement. Not sure what you are talking about.
ak217 4y ago
I find it incredible that GM (or Rivian, or anyone else trying this) will be able to develop something that works as well as carplay/android auto and maintain it for the life of the vehicle. Phone manufacturers are known for better software departments than car makers and they routinely fail miserably at this. Even Microsoft has failed at embedded a number of times despite knowing how to maintain software over time. It takes a lot more resources and talent than people assume. It took Tesla 15 years, a headquarters in Palo Alto, and tens of billions of dollars to get to the point where maybe they have a chance to pull it off. I don't see these competitors getting ready to invest those kinds of resources.

fzzzy 4y ago

Well ok, but this is why I will never buy a tesla, rivian, or gm.

CharlesW 4y ago

> Long-term, this is smart. GM will gain complete control of the software stack… CarPlay (I’m not familiar with Android Auto) doesn’t require that GM cede any control over their software stack. As Wikipedia puts it, it just “enables a car radio or head unit to be a display and a controller for an iOS device”. What GM wants is to charge you $30/month for services, since phones have mostly killed their OnStar cash cow. What they’re going to learn is the extent to which “doesn’t work with my phone” is going to be a deciding factor for vehicle purchases.

chrisjc 4y ago
> cede any control over their software stack Except, from what I understand they'll use Android Automotive (not to be confused with Android Auto).
SoftTalker 4y ago
> CarPlay ... just “enables a car radio or head unit to be a display and a controller for an iOS device”. Then why does it demand that Siri be enabled in order to complete the connection?
- MBCook 4y ago
  At least in some markets (I think Japan may be one) there are laws mandating interaction via voice after a very small number of taps to prevent drivers from constantly looking at and poking at the screen.
- boringg 4y ago
  Did carplay a couple days, no siri requirement. Not sure what you are talking about.

ak217 4y ago

I find it incredible that GM (or Rivian, or anyone else trying this) will be able to develop something that works as well as carplay/android auto and maintain it for the life of the vehicle. Phone manufacturers are known for better software departments than car makers and they routinely fail miserably at this. Even Microsoft has failed at embedded a number of times despite knowing how to maintain software over time. It takes a lot more resources and talent than people assume. It took Tesla 15 years, a headquarters in Palo Alto, and tens of billions of dollars to get to the point where maybe they have a chance to pull it off. I don't see these competitors getting ready to invest those kinds of resources.