It's called Android Automotive OS (not to be confused with Android Auto). Many OEMs are now using Android Automotive for infotainment, but also support CarPlay/AA. This is a terrible move, but GM is just trying to copy Tesla by controlling the entire UX and putting it some of it behind a subscription (like Tesla's Premium Connectivity).
I have seen quite a few add on modules for Tesla's that enhance the head unit functionality for minimal cost/effort. Eg. Wired and wireless "boxes" for Tesla's that allow CarPlay and Android Auto on aliexpress for $70.
I used to say "in the future your car is unlikely to start start without wifi", but now that promise has come true, I'll just say "your fridge is unlikely to make ice without wifi".
Source?
Impossible within our current understanding of physics: I mean... You could do it, but the added delay for reaction times would literally have many people killed.
Guiding a drone / missile is kiddie stuff compared to remotely driving a car in trafic.
Or "I see you're navigating to McDonalds, would you rather go to Burger King and get half off your Whopper meal?"
The allure of money made via stalking and influence is hard to resist.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/06/gm-aims-to-build-netflix-s...
Assuming this is not a maintenance contract, who in their right mind will spend 135$ per month on "products and services" for their car?
Once you throw in Tesla-like subs for automation, etc., it's reasonable to make that a goal for 2030.
CarPlay does everything I want and the best part is it just works. A large part of that "it just works" is the fact that it's all based directly on my phone.
* That restaurant we just decided to go to. Already in navigation. AND! the maps are all current with road closures/traffic issues.
* The music that I was playing, it just keeps going
* The garage door opener/lock/etc that I just added to HomeKit - automatically pops us.
For better or worse, the smartphone is a vault of almost everything about a person, including the ability to impersonate them.
Obviously, Apple and Google already have access to all of this, but I see no reason to let yet another entity have it.
There is no way they are going to be able to compete with Apple or Google. Literally the worst software engineer at either of those companies is better than anyone GM has.
Will make an interesting Harvard MBA case study.
The insanity goes both ways: I refuse to use a cellphone, so I will not buy a car that has Android or Apple stuff.
Hopefully I'll have other options than this $130k Cadillac, but it's good to know some automakers cater to my preferences too.
> That restaurant we just decided to go to. Already in navigation. AND! the maps are all current with road closures/traffic issues
Funny enough, getting a GPS without auto updates and offering a full offline experience is now a premium, but I'm happy to pay for the exact opposite of what you want: a GPS without auto navigation / user tracking / not being happy to work with old maps if I decide it should (customer is king, except for apps!)
What they're missing is that I don't stream my music from GMTunes, I don't store my photos on GMPhotos, I don't have my files on GMCloud, and I don't have easy access to all of this from my GMPhone, GMPad, GMBook, and GMWatch.
They either fundamentally don't understand why people want Carplay or Android Auto, or have delusions that they can become a bigger ecosystem than Apple, Google, or Microsoft.
If they are unsatisfied with the recurring revenue they currently get via selling car, parts, and electric charging partnerships, maybe they should start pivoting towards public transit.
GM is moving to Google Automotive and doesn't want to enable Carplay or Android Auto, but Google is already in there deep. No other legacy manufacturers have announced plans to take away Carplay/Android Auto. Quite a few are basing their systems on Android Automotive, though (BMW, Volvo/Polestar, GM as mentioned, off the top of my head), so even if you don't use a Google phone, Google is going to have your data.
There is no difference here between ICE vehiclws and BEVs, other than the two startups I mentioned.
GM's actions seem logical to me. But there's no way in hell I'm ever buying a GM if they stop me from using CarPlay. It's well demonstrated that they can't make good software.
1. It's electric. 2. It has CarPlay.
So no Chevy Bolt now. I guess it is a Ford Mach-E then.
To make this even better, route the touch input of the screen back to the device, in some simple way (for example, as a mouse position, not sure of any touch protocols).
Any software has a pretty good chance of getting deprecated or irrelevant during the lifetime of a car. Just think of what is still actively supported in the mobile world from 10 years ago. My 2013 car doesn’t have Android Auto or CarPlay, but has built-in “apps” for Stitcher and Pandora, which I never used. The bluetooth connection still works, but is really flaky with newer iPhone (a 2013 Android worked exceptionally well, however).
Why is this happening? Car executives aren’t stupid, and must realize software is not core to their business. Unless they plan to start selling phones down the line they can never ‘win’ this battle. It’s clearly a huge waste of internal effort.
Does Apple try and take a % of the car sale as a license fee? Even if the fee were $2000 per car… that could be passed on to the car buyer. I would pay $2000 today to get CarPlay into my Rivian.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24841937/I...
Oh god. It's the Cadillac from the article.
The large pillar-to-pillar screen is pretty cool but the text doesn't specify whether it's touch or not. Squinting at the image a bit, pretty obvious that it is. Same for the center console.
I suppose it's a given that all screens have to be touchable now. Such a drag, input challenge is dangerous when hurtling down the highway. Prefer to have physical controls I can grab onto.
I'm sure data is being sold, too.
And no one is paying an extra subscription on their car for entertainment.
