10 ms·

CarPlay mostly works, and although it has issues it's definitely user-focused. CarPlay doesn't prevent car makers from tracking vehicle activity. In the end,

by mannyv 3y ago

CarPlay mostly works, and although it has issues it's definitely user-focused. CarPlay doesn't prevent car makers from tracking vehicle activity. In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. It sucks, or it's AA/CarPlay. The first generation of iDrive showed that rich people people will buy cars in spite of the in-car stuff. In fact, most car infotainment sucks, yet people still buy cars. Let's turn the question around: why would car makers want to spend millions of dollars a year rolling their own infotainment system? So they can make incremental revenue selling ads and user data? So they have control? Control over what, exactly?

devmor 3y ago
>In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. It sucks, or it's AA/CarPlay. My ideal "infotainment" is a button that lets me pair bluetooth and volume/skip controls on my steering wheel. I have a phone mount, like almost everyone does. I don't need a display on my dashboard. AA/CarPlay (and everything else) are genuinely just distracting annoyances that take up space. Especially in newer cars where the screens are for some reason, no longer matte and often angled upwards so that they just blast reflected sun into your eyes.
- internetter 3y ago
  Likewise. I vastly prefer the physical buttons, as I can hit them without taking my eyes off the road. The only two things I use infotainment for is mapping and music control.
  - hedora 3y ago
    Bluetooth should let you select phone audio sources from your car buttons. It’s usually terribly implemented. iOS doesn’t support it for third party apps or first party podcasts, and apple music’s support is a shit show. Android is better, but it is hit-or-miss depending on the car. I wish the government would declare this a safety feature and mandate recalls for incorrect implementations (including phones and cars).
- Tagbert 3y ago
  If find the Bluetooth interface too limited because it requires interacting with the touchscreen on the phone. I want to use the large screen on the car with an interface that is optimized to work while in the car not small controls on a small phone.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    No touch screen i should be accessable by the driner unless the car is in park. I don't care if it is the phone or infotainment, no touchscreen is allowed.
    - lokar 3y ago
      It what if I’m in FSD mode? /s
    - Tagbert 3y ago
      The person I was replying to was arguing for a Bluetooth connection to their phone instead of CarPlay. CarPlay is much better from a safety standpoint than a phone screen.
      - prmoustache 3y ago
        You just choose a superlong playlist before starting the car and then play it randomly. You don't have to interact with the phone. Last time I had a car I had an old mp3 portable mp3 player constantly hooked up to the car with 4GB of music inside. I would just hit play and drive and would only adjust volume from the steering wheel if I needed to. If I had a car again I would probably do the same, that is the lowest distracting way to have music in your car.
  - devmor 3y ago
    There is absolutely nothing on the phone I need or want to interact with while driving that is not covered by bluetooth audio controls. Perhaps you should reconsider your driving needs vs safety?
    - 3y ago
nox101 3y ago
When (if?) auto-driven cars become a thing I'd expect some people will want a giant monitor in their car if nothing else, so they can watch movies, play video games, tele-conference, etc.... Disney's "The Magic Highway" might be dystopian to some but the relaxing vehicle seems pretty cool to me https://youtu.be/Vo4-rYNGEwE?t=199 https://youtu.be/Vo4-rYNGEwE?t=199
- cypressious 3y ago
  Impressive. Funny that one thing they got wrong is cars becoming smaller instead of bigger.
  - baq 3y ago
    If you could get 5 self-driving single seaters instead of one 5-seater for the same price... probably the 5-seater wins. But if you can call a reliable self-driving one-seater within 5 minutes guaranteed?
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  Just a monitor? I'm putting in a lazyboy and full on home theater setup in the back of my self driving car, well self driving van.
Fluorescence 3y ago
> Let's turn the question around: why would car makers want to... The tech giants are not component suppliers you can symbiotically partner with to add value to your product. They are predatory and parasitic goliaths. They are wolves more powerful than governments with designs on your hen-house. It is frankly insane to let them own the primary interface to your customer and auto will likely regret letting them get this far. Google/Apple infotainment ventures cannot even be called trojan horses given how open they are in their investments and desires to seize the auto industry the moment tech/profit makes it feasible. Unattractive low-margin manufacturing keeps them at bay but they are gambling on "software eats the world" long-term. For now, they will drain every available high margin service for themselves.
bambax 3y ago
> why would car makers want to spend millions of dollars a year rolling their own infotainment system? This is addressed in the article: > There used to be a big difference in driving characteristics and technology between premium and budget brands. Compared to a Volkswagen, a BMW used to have a more powerful engine, better handling, and comfort features like seat-heating and cruise control. However, a Volkswagen Golf now has similar tech as a BMW and with the transition to EVs, drivetrains and handling won't be the same differentiator as before. > Now, the focus has moved to the interior. Infotainment systems have become a central part of that, so carmakers are coming up with unusual concepts to set them apart, both in hardware and software. CarPlay 2 is going exactly in the opposite direction, more towards standardizing the in-car software. But I think a great differentiator for upmarket brands would be to offer as few screens as possible and as many buttons as possible. Electronics are a plague. Some features are very useful: mainly, route planning and the ability to play music in the car. But the rest is a nightmare. I don't want to talk to my car; certainly not when passengers are sleeping during a trip, and even not when I'm alone. There's a subtle humiliation associated with talking to a machine. More importantly, I don't want to randomly target zones on screens to set up things, and I don't want to look at the screens because I don't want to take my eyes off the road. Give me buttons that have a fixed location, and that I can feel without looking.
- heywire 3y ago
  I’m happy with the way Mazda has integrated CarPlay. No touch while moving, the navigation wheel moves a highlight around the screen to select buttons/links. I find it much less distracting.
  - briandear 3y ago
    Audi is similar. I think also Mercedes. It’s great.
    - throwaway11460 3y ago
      The audi wheel with buttons around it is terrible. I have to look down to find the correct button, and then I need to look at the screen to wheel to the correct option. Touchscreen is not better than physical buttons but at least I can still look forward while operating it. This audi is the first time I actually started using Siri - and not because I like it.
classified 3y ago
Siphoning user data of course. Remember: Over time, every company becomes an ad company.
wannacboatmovie 3y ago
> it's definitely user-focused If it was user-focused, they wouldn't make unnecessary changes to the UI every release. If it was user-focused, they would put more effort into refinement and fixing bugs. No, CarPlay is Apple-focused.
the_snooze 3y ago
>Control over what, exactly? Planned obsolesence. Without proper CarPlay/AA integration, car manufacturers get to decide when those whiz-bang infotainment features stop working. You'd have to replace the whole car to get those features back instead of just buying a new phone.
- s0rce 3y ago
  Do people do that? I just use my phone beside the old useless infotainment. Honestly, I wouldn't buy a new car that used an in-house infotainment specifically because they go obsolete quickly (<5-10 years) and cannot be economically (or at all) to the latest tech. Carplay seems to be long lived.
  - brewdad 3y ago
    My vehicle (a mid teens Volvo) doesn’t support CarPlay or AA. Its infotainment system gets its data from 3G, so it doesn’t get data anymore. Music is through Bluetooth, which works well enough. Navigating means using the clunky in-car nav with no traffic data or a phone with the volume turned way up. It’s far from ideal but at least I have zero expectations for my next car.
    - ddmitriev 3y ago
      I replaced the head unit on my car from the same era with an aftermarket Sony XAV-9000ES unit that has wireless carplay support. It takes about 10 seconds to connect after powering up the electronics but is otherwise seamless. Full steering wheel controls too (volume, next/prev track, pause/resume, mute). No car info, but the car is old enough to have a proper gauge cluster. There are also dash-mounted "carplay screens" that are both much cheaper and much easier to install but lack integrations/require hacky solutions to get, say, audio out.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ruszki 3y ago
      Why don't you use bluetooth to navigate with your phone?
WirelessGigabit 3y ago
Isn't that exactly what VW did? No more GPS. Just use CarPlay.
leovander 3y ago
Top of my head, most car makers aren't rolling their own. It's either off the shelf with some white labeling or they buy it from another care manufacturer. i.e. Mazda default infotainment can be found in some Toyotas
- neogodless 3y ago
  Not sure if there's any more to it than this, but the Toyota Yaris is a rebadged Mazda 2. I suspect you won't find Mazda infotainment in other Toyota models, though.
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    I think you're right. Also, the Mazda infotainment in the mid-late 2010s was made by Johnson Controls. The newer systems might be too, I don't know.
moduspol 3y ago
I mean, theoretically they could make money by selling additional services. Tesla sells "Premium Connectivity" for ~$10/mo, though it might be against the license agreements traditional manufacturers have with dealers to sell enhancements directly to the consumer. IMO it's more about control over the user experience. You don't want your customers' UX to be dependent on the whims of Apple or Google, because now you're implicitly building a long-term dependency with a third party that may not be acting in your interests in the future. You're moving closer toward a future where the vehicle becomes commoditized, and now you have more trouble differentiating from competitors. And keep in mind: it's only very recently that the "Apple car" project was cancelled. That said, traditional automakers are also famous (or infamous?) for sourcing tons of components (including infotainment systems) from the same parts manufacturers. But I guess at least that retains the ability to pivot and use it as a point of differentiation in the future.
- throwaway11460 3y ago
  Every traditional European car manufacturer sells services directly to customers. Not sure about the US/Japanese/Korean, though.
  - geoelectric 3y ago
    Historically, Hyundai/Genesis charged $300/yr for BlueLink connected care. Think my 2023 Ioniq 5 is one of the last (EV) models with that yearly charge, and that year's Ioniq 6 and subsequent models get it free. Unfortunately, I don't think they're planning on offering it free to my model or earlier, and I don't know if the same deal exists for ICE cars.
duxup 3y ago
Yeah it's CarPlay or whatever Android uses, or I want nothing to do with it. Every time I rent a car it's a HELLSCAPE of figuring out whatever crappy UI this brand of car created for that year ... until I get my phone hooked up. Man I just want to get to my hotel not futz with some garbage UI in the garage forever.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Every single car I have rented in the last ~5 years in the US has had CarPlay.
- ossusermivami 3y ago
  I just carry those vent phone holder and use my phone when renting cars.. it's not the best but does the job for getting to the hotel.... obviously i rather have carplay if i could but i am worry about security implication, plugging to a car i don't know
sandworm101 3y ago
>> In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. Drivers don't car, but I think car buyers actually do. Remember that many people are not buying cars for themselves but for other people, usually family. They fall into the trap of thinking that those other people might want such features, if not now then in the future. Look at automatic transmissions. I know many people who much prefer manuals, but they always end up buying an automatic because they believe that other people will want the automatic. And a few years later, all the cars are automatics. The same is happening with in-car entertainment systems. We buy them not because we ant them but because we think other people do.
- baseballdork 3y ago
  > Remember that many people are not buying cars for themselves but for other people, usually family. Can you explain this? I guess maybe the devil is in "many"?
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    Unless you are single, and even then you carry occasional passengers, many/most cars are used by multiple people. So people who buy cars are thinking not just about the primary driver but about all the other people who will drive/ride in the car too. Nobody buying a car actually wants in-dash 4k movies, but they think that their partner/kids will.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      It's true for some features (the wife (and I, to be fair) were pretty strongly on the "heated seats" side of things) but things like infotainment were not dealbreakers if everything else lined up. But CarPlay is darn close; I'd not say I'd never buy a car without it but having it means I don't need to worry if the infotainment setup is crap or not, because I won't be using it.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      This doesn't really ring true for me. I agree that when people buy cars, they are often not just buying for themselves. But the purchase decision is not usually made without input from the other drivers. Well, a purchaser will probably discuss things with their spouse, and ask if they care about particular features. But in the case of someone buying a car for their kid, it's usually "they'll get what they get, and they'll like it".
vsdlrd 3y ago
I thought about that as well. At the moment, CarPlay can't take over every function so carmakers still have to make their own. But in the long term, there is an opportunity for Apple to make the whole thing and monetize it as a cost-saver to carmakers
- krater23 3y ago
  No, never. This would mean to concentrate only to customers with Apple devices. Why should a carmaker do this?
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    I assume Apple would also provide code for a fallback UI that offered basic functionality for when you didn't have an iphone attached.
    - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
      CarPlay poverty mode. Sign me up.
      - bonestamp2 3y ago
        Basically Valet mode for the headunit.
    - eloisant 3y ago
      So everything turns green?
daanvr 3y ago
The auto industry is really at a crucial point with how it integrates tech. As cars get more autonomous, infotainment is becoming a key part of our driving experience. I'm wondering, are carmakers at risk of falling behind if they don’t embrace platforms like CarPlay? Or do they have solid reasons to keep developing their systems in-house to keep control over their tech narrative?
potatolicious 3y ago
> "So they have control? Control over what, exactly?" I think a key thing to consider is that there are in fact three separate questions at play here: 1 - Does infotainment/software UI differentiation matter in the car market? Is there a significant enough market advantage for having better UI that anyone should care? 2 - If there is an advantage for better UI, is it enough of an edge that would compel you to build your own? Or is it the case where it simply has to be good enough? 3 - If there is enough differentiation to be worth building your own, is your company good enough at software to pull it off? Personally I think the answer to #1 is YES. I think cars with better UIs - while not sufficient in and of itself - have a market advantage. Where car makers start veering off from each other is the answer to #2. If you believe that you just need a "good enough" experience to not be actively awful, then you buy off-the-shelf. You see this with Volvo/Polestar and Google Automotive. The "skin" around the stock experience is minimal at best, with only minor customizations. If you believe that being excellent at it confers some advantage, you'd try to roll your own. This would include folks like BMW and Mercedes-Benz. Now, where the latter strategy really goes off the rails is question #3. That said, if you believe the answer to the first two questions compels you to roll your own - would you easily surrender to a third-party? Or would you at least try to level up your software orgs to make a serious play?
- eloisant 3y ago
  Android Automotive is already way beyond what manufacturers are releasing as "their own". So unless it costs a lot of money to integrate, not picking AA isn't about building your own that's better, but it has to be about control. Or at least independance from a big tech, which I can understand.
- anthony_d 3y ago
  For what it’s worth I agree on #1. I really like RR/Jaguar’s current UI. When I’m in a rental or someone else’s car and I’m forced to use CarPlay I hate it. Feels like I’ve been pushed to kindergarten and given crayons… any car manufacturer that just expects me to use CarPlay is probably not on my potential buy list. I might be unusual in my preference but I really expect people to have preferences as strong.
Jtsummers 3y ago
> Let's turn the question around: why would car makers want to spend millions of dollars a year rolling their own infotainment system? So they can make incremental revenue selling ads and user data? So they have control? Control over what, exactly? There's an interesting (and apparently often misunderstood) article called "IT Doesn't Matter" [0]. In it, Carr is largely arguing that IT, as a business differentiator, was over for many of the things people thought were differentiators. That is, things that helped a company (say American Airlines) get a lead on their competitors in the 1960s had become commoditized. Now every airline was offering flight search and booking online (directly and through aggregators). The IT edge had become table stakes, you didn't do it to beat out a competitor but just to stay in the game. And, even more importantly, many of the things that used to be IT differentiators became commoditized. Car infotainment was once a differentiator for car manufacturers or for classes of vehicles within the same manufacturer. Today, it's table stakes. Not all the manufacturers have figured that out (have any?). [0] https://hbr.org/2003/05/it-doesnt-matter https://hbr.org/2003/05/it-doesnt-matter and https://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=99 https://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=99
- netsharc 3y ago
  It's a bit aggravating that a slice of money I pay when buying a car goes to paying for development of the infotainment, which can be shoddy. It's like paying the Windows tax when buying a laptop with it pre-installed. Imagine if car manufacturers started offering cars with no infotainment OS, and as users having a choice of open source OS distros to install on them..
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Personally, the existence of a car infotainment system is a disincentive for me to buy the car. I certainly won't use it, and would prefer not to pay for it. If that system is required in order to control a car's functionality (windshield wipers, etc.), then its existence is not just a disincentive, but a dealbreaker.
numpad0 3y ago
I wonder how much of those frustrations has to do with Japanese market share of car industry; I think the touchscreen infotainment is not there because car manufacturers value it as integral and central part of car experience but simply because otherwise their product loses against one of Japanese brands. Japanese road network is a disorganized weighted node graph and absolutely not a grid, and a bulletproof navigation unit has been a must for a car in Japan since its inception around 1990. It is also preferred that they are 2DIN compatible so it can be later upgraded. AFAIK, those are not high priority checkbox items elsewhere, but all cars nevertheless follow the Japanese manufacturer layout because of manufacturers' collective dominance. Cars before 2DIN navigation units seem to have had 1DIN AM/FM radio units with radio buttons[1], by the way. That dominance leaves a 4:3 8" diagonal hole in immediate view of driver for all cars globally that must be filled with something of value. That doesn't have to be a touchscreen but usually are, and it ends up being a navigation-audio combo unit, and it's outsourced to the lowest bidder. It is not the primary interaction point for cars by overwhelming global demands or principles of automotive product design. That leads to jarring subpar experience that appear to be but are perhaps not intended to be part of core UX of the whole car. I think. 1: https://www.alamy.com/1956-mercedes-benz-190-sl-steering-wheel-and-dashboard-image446861076.html https://www.alamy.com/1956-mercedes-benz-190-sl-steering-whe...
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > That doesn't have to be a touchscreen but usually are […] With back up cameras being mandated in the US (and other jurisdictions?): * https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-required-in-new-cars-in-the-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-required-... There needs to be a screen: I'm not sure what the incremental cost is of it being touch-sensitive. And I think a lot of designers (or cost cutters) may have figured that since they have to have software anyway, it may easier/cheaper to deal with software buttons than with moving parts like physical buttons and dials.
  - toast0 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure a touchscreen is cheaper than buttons, or at least awful close. You'll still get some buttons, unless the car maker really hates you, and hopefully something to turn for volume control (which may even work most of the time, if you're lucky).
api 3y ago
Auto makers want what everyone else wants: recurring revenue. They want to find a way to sell subscriptions to something. The infotainment system is a potential angle for that. CarPlay makes that irrelevant.
babypuncher 3y ago
GM's plan is to sell a subscription service that covers all the things you already pay for on your phone (maps, music streaming, etc). It's why they're killing CarPlay, because they know that even if their service is good, nobody will pay $20/mo for shit they already get for free on their phones. Basically, their goal in life is to be a worthless middleman who takes peoples money while providing no real value to society.
- jasondigitized 3y ago
  How is GM a middleman when they are producing the product I am buying which is a car? If GM bundled OnStar with a top tier infotainment / navigation / ChatGpt / I’m hungry where do I eat app, I’ll pay for that as long as it’s reasonable and lets me know I’ll be taken care of if I crash and need assistance.
  - eropple 3y ago
    Maybe for you. If it doesn't exactly mirror the stuff on my phone, though, it's distinctly worse than using my phone. If it doesn't start playing music from my phone when I turn the car on, it's distinctly worse than using my phone. If it doesn't act like my phone does today, it's distinctly worse than using my phone. For me, there is no room for GM to become a player here. I have friends' addresses, etc. in my iPhone's contacts and they show up on Maps. GM isn't going to do that, so GM isn't going to get my business. I'm starting to look for a new car right now, and this is a hard no. If it doesn't support CarPlay and Android Auto (both--I've used both in the last five years, and might switch back again to Android in the lifetime of my next car), it's outside my observable universe.
    - lokar 3y ago
      I would never consider buying GM. I was, in the past, a UAW shop steward.
      - hedora 3y ago
        I once bought a GM vehicle. Never again.
dboreham 3y ago
Regarding "it sucks", if we're talking mapping/directions I disagree. Google maps is really a pretty piss poor application. It hasn't changed in 15 years and it's obvious its maintainers haven't ever driven anywhere using the application, even around the Google campus in MT View, or downtown SF. It's deeply bad. In my experience some car manufacturer mapping applications are quite a bit better. Since they obviously suck at software, who knows how good it could get with the combination of (not Google) AND (competent team)?
- chgs 3y ago
  > It hasn't changed in 15 years Good. It works. I use Apple rather than Google as I try to avoid Google as much as possible but it’s the same principle. I want long term stability in software, not new changes put in to earn a PM a promotion.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Until Apple Maps got offline downloads (in iOS 17), Google Maps was way ahead for offline use, which was enough to have me use it normally as well.

by mannyv 3y ago

devmor 3y ago

>In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. It sucks, or it's AA/CarPlay. My ideal "infotainment" is a button that lets me pair bluetooth and volume/skip controls on my steering wheel. I have a phone mount, like almost everyone does. I don't need a display on my dashboard. AA/CarPlay (and everything else) are genuinely just distracting annoyances that take up space. Especially in newer cars where the screens are for some reason, no longer matte and often angled upwards so that they just blast reflected sun into your eyes.

internetter 3y ago
Likewise. I vastly prefer the physical buttons, as I can hit them without taking my eyes off the road. The only two things I use infotainment for is mapping and music control.
- hedora 3y ago
  Bluetooth should let you select phone audio sources from your car buttons. It’s usually terribly implemented. iOS doesn’t support it for third party apps or first party podcasts, and apple music’s support is a shit show. Android is better, but it is hit-or-miss depending on the car. I wish the government would declare this a safety feature and mandate recalls for incorrect implementations (including phones and cars).
Tagbert 3y ago
If find the Bluetooth interface too limited because it requires interacting with the touchscreen on the phone. I want to use the large screen on the car with an interface that is optimized to work while in the car not small controls on a small phone.
- bluGill 3y ago
  No touch screen i should be accessable by the driner unless the car is in park. I don't care if it is the phone or infotainment, no touchscreen is allowed.
  - lokar 3y ago
    It what if I’m in FSD mode? /s
  - Tagbert 3y ago
    The person I was replying to was arguing for a Bluetooth connection to their phone instead of CarPlay. CarPlay is much better from a safety standpoint than a phone screen.
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      You just choose a superlong playlist before starting the car and then play it randomly. You don't have to interact with the phone. Last time I had a car I had an old mp3 portable mp3 player constantly hooked up to the car with 4GB of music inside. I would just hit play and drive and would only adjust volume from the steering wheel if I needed to. If I had a car again I would probably do the same, that is the lowest distracting way to have music in your car.
- devmor 3y ago
  There is absolutely nothing on the phone I need or want to interact with while driving that is not covered by bluetooth audio controls. Perhaps you should reconsider your driving needs vs safety?
  - 3y ago

nox101 3y ago

When (if?) auto-driven cars become a thing I'd expect some people will want a giant monitor in their car if nothing else, so they can watch movies, play video games, tele-conference, etc.... Disney's "The Magic Highway" might be dystopian to some but the relaxing vehicle seems pretty cool to me https://youtu.be/Vo4-rYNGEwE?t=199 https://youtu.be/Vo4-rYNGEwE?t=199

cypressious 3y ago
Impressive. Funny that one thing they got wrong is cars becoming smaller instead of bigger.
- baq 3y ago
  If you could get 5 self-driving single seaters instead of one 5-seater for the same price... probably the 5-seater wins. But if you can call a reliable self-driving one-seater within 5 minutes guaranteed?
thereisnospork 3y ago
Just a monitor? I'm putting in a lazyboy and full on home theater setup in the back of my self driving car, well self driving van.

Fluorescence 3y ago

> Let's turn the question around: why would car makers want to... The tech giants are not component suppliers you can symbiotically partner with to add value to your product. They are predatory and parasitic goliaths. They are wolves more powerful than governments with designs on your hen-house. It is frankly insane to let them own the primary interface to your customer and auto will likely regret letting them get this far. Google/Apple infotainment ventures cannot even be called trojan horses given how open they are in their investments and desires to seize the auto industry the moment tech/profit makes it feasible. Unattractive low-margin manufacturing keeps them at bay but they are gambling on "software eats the world" long-term. For now, they will drain every available high margin service for themselves.

bambax 3y ago

> why would car makers want to spend millions of dollars a year rolling their own infotainment system? This is addressed in the article: > There used to be a big difference in driving characteristics and technology between premium and budget brands. Compared to a Volkswagen, a BMW used to have a more powerful engine, better handling, and comfort features like seat-heating and cruise control. However, a Volkswagen Golf now has similar tech as a BMW and with the transition to EVs, drivetrains and handling won't be the same differentiator as before. > Now, the focus has moved to the interior. Infotainment systems have become a central part of that, so carmakers are coming up with unusual concepts to set them apart, both in hardware and software. CarPlay 2 is going exactly in the opposite direction, more towards standardizing the in-car software. But I think a great differentiator for upmarket brands would be to offer as few screens as possible and as many buttons as possible. Electronics are a plague. Some features are very useful: mainly, route planning and the ability to play music in the car. But the rest is a nightmare. I don't want to talk to my car; certainly not when passengers are sleeping during a trip, and even not when I'm alone. There's a subtle humiliation associated with talking to a machine. More importantly, I don't want to randomly target zones on screens to set up things, and I don't want to look at the screens because I don't want to take my eyes off the road. Give me buttons that have a fixed location, and that I can feel without looking.

heywire 3y ago
I’m happy with the way Mazda has integrated CarPlay. No touch while moving, the navigation wheel moves a highlight around the screen to select buttons/links. I find it much less distracting.
- briandear 3y ago
  Audi is similar. I think also Mercedes. It’s great.
  - throwaway11460 3y ago
    The audi wheel with buttons around it is terrible. I have to look down to find the correct button, and then I need to look at the screen to wheel to the correct option. Touchscreen is not better than physical buttons but at least I can still look forward while operating it. This audi is the first time I actually started using Siri - and not because I like it.

classified 3y ago

Siphoning user data of course. Remember: Over time, every company becomes an ad company.

wannacboatmovie 3y ago

> it's definitely user-focused If it was user-focused, they wouldn't make unnecessary changes to the UI every release. If it was user-focused, they would put more effort into refinement and fixing bugs. No, CarPlay is Apple-focused.

the_snooze 3y ago

>Control over what, exactly? Planned obsolesence. Without proper CarPlay/AA integration, car manufacturers get to decide when those whiz-bang infotainment features stop working. You'd have to replace the whole car to get those features back instead of just buying a new phone.

s0rce 3y ago
Do people do that? I just use my phone beside the old useless infotainment. Honestly, I wouldn't buy a new car that used an in-house infotainment specifically because they go obsolete quickly (<5-10 years) and cannot be economically (or at all) to the latest tech. Carplay seems to be long lived.
- brewdad 3y ago
  My vehicle (a mid teens Volvo) doesn’t support CarPlay or AA. Its infotainment system gets its data from 3G, so it doesn’t get data anymore. Music is through Bluetooth, which works well enough. Navigating means using the clunky in-car nav with no traffic data or a phone with the volume turned way up. It’s far from ideal but at least I have zero expectations for my next car.
  - ddmitriev 3y ago
    I replaced the head unit on my car from the same era with an aftermarket Sony XAV-9000ES unit that has wireless carplay support. It takes about 10 seconds to connect after powering up the electronics but is otherwise seamless. Full steering wheel controls too (volume, next/prev track, pause/resume, mute). No car info, but the car is old enough to have a proper gauge cluster. There are also dash-mounted "carplay screens" that are both much cheaper and much easier to install but lack integrations/require hacky solutions to get, say, audio out.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ruszki 3y ago
    Why don't you use bluetooth to navigate with your phone?

WirelessGigabit 3y ago

Isn't that exactly what VW did? No more GPS. Just use CarPlay.

leovander 3y ago

Top of my head, most car makers aren't rolling their own. It's either off the shelf with some white labeling or they buy it from another care manufacturer. i.e. Mazda default infotainment can be found in some Toyotas

neogodless 3y ago
Not sure if there's any more to it than this, but the Toyota Yaris is a rebadged Mazda 2. I suspect you won't find Mazda infotainment in other Toyota models, though.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  I think you're right. Also, the Mazda infotainment in the mid-late 2010s was made by Johnson Controls. The newer systems might be too, I don't know.

moduspol 3y ago

I mean, theoretically they could make money by selling additional services. Tesla sells "Premium Connectivity" for ~$10/mo, though it might be against the license agreements traditional manufacturers have with dealers to sell enhancements directly to the consumer. IMO it's more about control over the user experience. You don't want your customers' UX to be dependent on the whims of Apple or Google, because now you're implicitly building a long-term dependency with a third party that may not be acting in your interests in the future. You're moving closer toward a future where the vehicle becomes commoditized, and now you have more trouble differentiating from competitors. And keep in mind: it's only very recently that the "Apple car" project was cancelled. That said, traditional automakers are also famous (or infamous?) for sourcing tons of components (including infotainment systems) from the same parts manufacturers. But I guess at least that retains the ability to pivot and use it as a point of differentiation in the future.

throwaway11460 3y ago
Every traditional European car manufacturer sells services directly to customers. Not sure about the US/Japanese/Korean, though.
- geoelectric 3y ago
  Historically, Hyundai/Genesis charged $300/yr for BlueLink connected care. Think my 2023 Ioniq 5 is one of the last (EV) models with that yearly charge, and that year's Ioniq 6 and subsequent models get it free. Unfortunately, I don't think they're planning on offering it free to my model or earlier, and I don't know if the same deal exists for ICE cars.

duxup 3y ago

Yeah it's CarPlay or whatever Android uses, or I want nothing to do with it. Every time I rent a car it's a HELLSCAPE of figuring out whatever crappy UI this brand of car created for that year ... until I get my phone hooked up. Man I just want to get to my hotel not futz with some garbage UI in the garage forever.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Every single car I have rented in the last ~5 years in the US has had CarPlay.
ossusermivami 3y ago
I just carry those vent phone holder and use my phone when renting cars.. it's not the best but does the job for getting to the hotel.... obviously i rather have carplay if i could but i am worry about security implication, plugging to a car i don't know

sandworm101 3y ago

>> In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. Drivers don't car, but I think car buyers actually do. Remember that many people are not buying cars for themselves but for other people, usually family. They fall into the trap of thinking that those other people might want such features, if not now then in the future. Look at automatic transmissions. I know many people who much prefer manuals, but they always end up buying an automatic because they believe that other people will want the automatic. And a few years later, all the cars are automatics. The same is happening with in-car entertainment systems. We buy them not because we ant them but because we think other people do.

baseballdork 3y ago
> Remember that many people are not buying cars for themselves but for other people, usually family. Can you explain this? I guess maybe the devil is in "many"?
- sandworm101 3y ago
  Unless you are single, and even then you carry occasional passengers, many/most cars are used by multiple people. So people who buy cars are thinking not just about the primary driver but about all the other people who will drive/ride in the car too. Nobody buying a car actually wants in-dash 4k movies, but they think that their partner/kids will.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It's true for some features (the wife (and I, to be fair) were pretty strongly on the "heated seats" side of things) but things like infotainment were not dealbreakers if everything else lined up. But CarPlay is darn close; I'd not say I'd never buy a car without it but having it means I don't need to worry if the infotainment setup is crap or not, because I won't be using it.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    This doesn't really ring true for me. I agree that when people buy cars, they are often not just buying for themselves. But the purchase decision is not usually made without input from the other drivers. Well, a purchaser will probably discuss things with their spouse, and ask if they care about particular features. But in the case of someone buying a car for their kid, it's usually "they'll get what they get, and they'll like it".

vsdlrd 3y ago

I thought about that as well. At the moment, CarPlay can't take over every function so carmakers still have to make their own. But in the long term, there is an opportunity for Apple to make the whole thing and monetize it as a cost-saver to carmakers

krater23 3y ago
No, never. This would mean to concentrate only to customers with Apple devices. Why should a carmaker do this?
- londons_explore 3y ago
  I assume Apple would also provide code for a fallback UI that offered basic functionality for when you didn't have an iphone attached.
  - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
    CarPlay poverty mode. Sign me up.
    - bonestamp2 3y ago
      Basically Valet mode for the headunit.
  - eloisant 3y ago
    So everything turns green?

daanvr 3y ago

The auto industry is really at a crucial point with how it integrates tech. As cars get more autonomous, infotainment is becoming a key part of our driving experience. I'm wondering, are carmakers at risk of falling behind if they don’t embrace platforms like CarPlay? Or do they have solid reasons to keep developing their systems in-house to keep control over their tech narrative?

potatolicious 3y ago

> "So they have control? Control over what, exactly?" I think a key thing to consider is that there are in fact three separate questions at play here: 1 - Does infotainment/software UI differentiation matter in the car market? Is there a significant enough market advantage for having better UI that anyone should care? 2 - If there is an advantage for better UI, is it enough of an edge that would compel you to build your own? Or is it the case where it simply has to be good enough? 3 - If there is enough differentiation to be worth building your own, is your company good enough at software to pull it off? Personally I think the answer to #1 is YES. I think cars with better UIs - while not sufficient in and of itself - have a market advantage. Where car makers start veering off from each other is the answer to #2. If you believe that you just need a "good enough" experience to not be actively awful, then you buy off-the-shelf. You see this with Volvo/Polestar and Google Automotive. The "skin" around the stock experience is minimal at best, with only minor customizations. If you believe that being excellent at it confers some advantage, you'd try to roll your own. This would include folks like BMW and Mercedes-Benz. Now, where the latter strategy really goes off the rails is question #3. That said, if you believe the answer to the first two questions compels you to roll your own - would you easily surrender to a third-party? Or would you at least try to level up your software orgs to make a serious play?

eloisant 3y ago
Android Automotive is already way beyond what manufacturers are releasing as "their own". So unless it costs a lot of money to integrate, not picking AA isn't about building your own that's better, but it has to be about control. Or at least independance from a big tech, which I can understand.
anthony_d 3y ago
For what it’s worth I agree on #1. I really like RR/Jaguar’s current UI. When I’m in a rental or someone else’s car and I’m forced to use CarPlay I hate it. Feels like I’ve been pushed to kindergarten and given crayons… any car manufacturer that just expects me to use CarPlay is probably not on my potential buy list. I might be unusual in my preference but I really expect people to have preferences as strong.

Jtsummers 3y ago

> Let's turn the question around: why would car makers want to spend millions of dollars a year rolling their own infotainment system? So they can make incremental revenue selling ads and user data? So they have control? Control over what, exactly? There's an interesting (and apparently often misunderstood) article called "IT Doesn't Matter" [0]. In it, Carr is largely arguing that IT, as a business differentiator, was over for many of the things people thought were differentiators. That is, things that helped a company (say American Airlines) get a lead on their competitors in the 1960s had become commoditized. Now every airline was offering flight search and booking online (directly and through aggregators). The IT edge had become table stakes, you didn't do it to beat out a competitor but just to stay in the game. And, even more importantly, many of the things that used to be IT differentiators became commoditized. Car infotainment was once a differentiator for car manufacturers or for classes of vehicles within the same manufacturer. Today, it's table stakes. Not all the manufacturers have figured that out (have any?). [0] https://hbr.org/2003/05/it-doesnt-matter https://hbr.org/2003/05/it-doesnt-matter and https://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=99 https://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=99

netsharc 3y ago
It's a bit aggravating that a slice of money I pay when buying a car goes to paying for development of the infotainment, which can be shoddy. It's like paying the Windows tax when buying a laptop with it pre-installed. Imagine if car manufacturers started offering cars with no infotainment OS, and as users having a choice of open source OS distros to install on them..
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Personally, the existence of a car infotainment system is a disincentive for me to buy the car. I certainly won't use it, and would prefer not to pay for it. If that system is required in order to control a car's functionality (windshield wipers, etc.), then its existence is not just a disincentive, but a dealbreaker.

numpad0 3y ago

I wonder how much of those frustrations has to do with Japanese market share of car industry; I think the touchscreen infotainment is not there because car manufacturers value it as integral and central part of car experience but simply because otherwise their product loses against one of Japanese brands. Japanese road network is a disorganized weighted node graph and absolutely not a grid, and a bulletproof navigation unit has been a must for a car in Japan since its inception around 1990. It is also preferred that they are 2DIN compatible so it can be later upgraded. AFAIK, those are not high priority checkbox items elsewhere, but all cars nevertheless follow the Japanese manufacturer layout because of manufacturers' collective dominance. Cars before 2DIN navigation units seem to have had 1DIN AM/FM radio units with radio buttons[1], by the way. That dominance leaves a 4:3 8" diagonal hole in immediate view of driver for all cars globally that must be filled with something of value. That doesn't have to be a touchscreen but usually are, and it ends up being a navigation-audio combo unit, and it's outsourced to the lowest bidder. It is not the primary interaction point for cars by overwhelming global demands or principles of automotive product design. That leads to jarring subpar experience that appear to be but are perhaps not intended to be part of core UX of the whole car. I think. 1: https://www.alamy.com/1956-mercedes-benz-190-sl-steering-wheel-and-dashboard-image446861076.html https://www.alamy.com/1956-mercedes-benz-190-sl-steering-whe...

throw0101c 3y ago
> That doesn't have to be a touchscreen but usually are […] With back up cameras being mandated in the US (and other jurisdictions?): * https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-required-in-new-cars-in-the-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-required-... There needs to be a screen: I'm not sure what the incremental cost is of it being touch-sensitive. And I think a lot of designers (or cost cutters) may have figured that since they have to have software anyway, it may easier/cheaper to deal with software buttons than with moving parts like physical buttons and dials.
- toast0 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure a touchscreen is cheaper than buttons, or at least awful close. You'll still get some buttons, unless the car maker really hates you, and hopefully something to turn for volume control (which may even work most of the time, if you're lucky).

api 3y ago

Auto makers want what everyone else wants: recurring revenue. They want to find a way to sell subscriptions to something. The infotainment system is a potential angle for that. CarPlay makes that irrelevant.

babypuncher 3y ago

GM's plan is to sell a subscription service that covers all the things you already pay for on your phone (maps, music streaming, etc). It's why they're killing CarPlay, because they know that even if their service is good, nobody will pay $20/mo for shit they already get for free on their phones. Basically, their goal in life is to be a worthless middleman who takes peoples money while providing no real value to society.

jasondigitized 3y ago
How is GM a middleman when they are producing the product I am buying which is a car? If GM bundled OnStar with a top tier infotainment / navigation / ChatGpt / I’m hungry where do I eat app, I’ll pay for that as long as it’s reasonable and lets me know I’ll be taken care of if I crash and need assistance.
- eropple 3y ago
  Maybe for you. If it doesn't exactly mirror the stuff on my phone, though, it's distinctly worse than using my phone. If it doesn't start playing music from my phone when I turn the car on, it's distinctly worse than using my phone. If it doesn't act like my phone does today, it's distinctly worse than using my phone. For me, there is no room for GM to become a player here. I have friends' addresses, etc. in my iPhone's contacts and they show up on Maps. GM isn't going to do that, so GM isn't going to get my business. I'm starting to look for a new car right now, and this is a hard no. If it doesn't support CarPlay and Android Auto (both--I've used both in the last five years, and might switch back again to Android in the lifetime of my next car), it's outside my observable universe.
  - lokar 3y ago
    I would never consider buying GM. I was, in the past, a UAW shop steward.
    - hedora 3y ago
      I once bought a GM vehicle. Never again.

dboreham 3y ago

Regarding "it sucks", if we're talking mapping/directions I disagree. Google maps is really a pretty piss poor application. It hasn't changed in 15 years and it's obvious its maintainers haven't ever driven anywhere using the application, even around the Google campus in MT View, or downtown SF. It's deeply bad. In my experience some car manufacturer mapping applications are quite a bit better. Since they obviously suck at software, who knows how good it could get with the combination of (not Google) AND (competent team)?

chgs 3y ago
> It hasn't changed in 15 years Good. It works. I use Apple rather than Google as I try to avoid Google as much as possible but it’s the same principle. I want long term stability in software, not new changes put in to earn a PM a promotion.
sokoloff 3y ago
Until Apple Maps got offline downloads (in iOS 17), Google Maps was way ahead for offline use, which was enough to have me use it normally as well.