They will, but not by standing firm. No, first will come the backlash, then GM will "listen to its customers" and backtrack on this.
The problem is, I've already as of this morning stopped listening to GM. I sent the link to my wife, and now we're planning which Hyundai/Kia dealer to go to first to look at Ioniq 5s and $(whatever the equivalent Kia is called). Doug in Edmonds says he has 65 of the l'il buggers. We might just drive one home this weekend, at which point GM has not only lost a sale but further convinced me to stay away from GM.
Did I mention that my father worked for GM all his career, and already pre-ordered an EV Blazer, which we said we'd take if he didn't want it at delivery? Yeah, I need to send Dad quick email about that...
As someone who is quite concerned that I'm going to have to sell my Kia because insurance companies are refusing to cover them because they're so easy to steal, just... be careful which model you pick.
One of the reasons I've taken Hyundai/Kia off my list is because I don't trust thieves to be aware of which models are easy to steal and which aren't. Even if they can't steal it, they can still fuck it up by trying.
A good point. Also worth mentioned that Kias are (apparently) easy to break in to. Twice over the past year my neighborhood has had a group come around and jimmy just the Kias in the neighborhood to steal stuff from inside. I don't live in a high-crime area, either. It's real problem.
I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in that being an absolute requirement for a car purchase. I guess it's not surprising that GM is making another stupid move though.
Definitely not alone. Some VP doesn’t get it and is going to find themselves in a new job elsewhere after they figure out what they just committed themself to.
I love GM cars once you remove their terrible UI and escape to CarPlay/Android Auto. The biggest issue with cars is that they rely on a touch screen for controls and the UX is awful. I now have an Audi and a Porsche and the MMI suite is Android based. This isn’t too bad but the services and mapping are far behind Apple and Google.
Mazda may come close. They have the control knob in the center.
I agree no touchscreen for AC/volume knob and some other things, but zero touchscreen at all (even for radio and menu) seems out there. Time to get a 2001 Cherokee.
Note that I’m not requiring zero touchscreen to be present, just that I don’t have to use the touchscreen for any functionality in the vehicle.
My 2011 car can accomplish everything perfectly well without a touchscreen while I’m wearing giant ski mitts in -30 weather; I’m not interested in a downgrade.
Apple does restrict access to much of their platform for only Apple-based access. There's exactly one company stopping Google or anyone else from building a compatible car system that runs for both Android and ios, and that's Apple. The use of private APIs and preventing competitors from using them, to secure another market (car infotainment systems) certainly should run afoul of anticompetitive laws in spirit, even if it doesn't to the army of lobbyists and lawyers the most valuable company in the world can muster.
By comparison, nothing (not even Google) is stopping Apple from producing CarPlay for Android. All the APIs are there. They could even distribute it in the Play store.
Compare the PhoneLink capabilities between iPhone and Android, vs the macOS integration Apple offers iOS.
Uh, my Honda's factory radio is literally an Android device.
It happily allows CarPlay from my iPhone.
CarPlay is (very roughly) the phone pushing video to the car's head unit like it's an external monitor (with a UI tailored for the size/location/usage of a typical car display).
I have a ~$175 Android head unit that offers CarPlay functionality in one of our daily drivers. There's nothing stopping car makers or head unit/car infotainment systems makers from creating CarPlay compatibility in their devices.
I'm honestly surprised anybody is still buying GM cars/trucks.
If you want a truck, get a Ford. They're hands-down the best in class. Or get a Toyota or Honda if you roll that way.
If you want an SUV, well, everybody is making those and GM doesn't have any standout offerings.
If you want a luxury car then there are much better options that are not only more luxurious, but more reliable, and oftentimes cheaper.
If you want reliable, cheap transportation then you're getting a KIA or Hyundai.
No matter how you slice it and dice it, the answer is never GM. (I'll concede the Corvette, they're great sports cars, but c'mon! Not many people are buying those!)
I have a LEAF and generally very much like it. The massive Achilles heel of my car is the 24kWh battery, which is slightly annoying about once a month and seriously annoying about 4x per year.
Any Bolt is a better car hands-down on battery capacity alone.
On the infotainment topic: I have the top-spec LEAF for my year and the (upgraded) infotainment unit is hot garbage, easily bested by the $175 Android touchscreen I put in my wife's car.
They are still pretty solid for vehicles like the Suburban/Tahoe/Yukon for specific uses (fleets, large family, tow vehicles) and the Sierra isn’t quite as nice as the F-150 but isn’t bad.
I will only rent a car if it has CarPlay. If it doesn't then I will rent another vehicle. It's not worth trying to get maps/phone setup in a car that I haven't driven and in a location that I am unfamiliar with. Where CarPlay allows me to use the same UI, apps settings et al that make it significantly easier.
> ”GM will absolutely lose this battle. Idiotic move.”
I dunno. Lack of CarPlay support has not exactly stopped people buying Teslas.
On the other hand, Polestar uses Google’s Automotive OS for it’s infotainment system and yet also supports CarPlay. So the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
GM is very much not Tesla, though. They don't have Tesla's reputation of being tech-forward and somewhat competent in software UI/UX, plus I'd argue that the kind of buyers who'd consider e.g. a Bolt are those who are looking for normal cars that happen to be EVs — they're the type who'd normally be buying something like a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord. They want something that's a reliable commuter, not a touchscreen gadget on wheels.
Lack of CarPlay support has not exactly stopped people buying Teslas.
Oh, it absolutely does. I bought TSLA when it was in the double digits, and I bought lots of it (and long since sold it all). Despite scooping up capital gains with a backhoe, my wife and I never considered a Tesla simply because it didn't have CarPlay. As it applies to any car maker, CarPlay/Android Auto seems like an easy win, and if the company can't be bothered, then we'll look elsewhere.
Lack of CarPlay just doesn't stop everyone from buying one.
Tesla is probably an edge-case. Tesla's navigation has excellent support for Superchargers and even pre-conditions your battery a few minutes before you arrive at the charger for more efficient charging.
There are ways to run CarPlay in the browser, and it works fine (plenty of videos about it), but it isn't enough of a value-add for people to want it.
But it actually has. Lack of CarPlay support was a major reason I didn't seriously consider a Tesla for my last purchase (long before they became electric MAGA hats), and I know other people who have the same issue. Are we statistically significant? Not enough data. Maybe not. But there's definitely some money that Tesla's leaving on the table.
Volvo/Polestar has a rather nice, well-integrated implementation of CarPlay, in fact. It definitely can be done. GM is insane.
> “GM doesn’t have a Tesla quality infotainment system”
Yet.
Having poked around with a Polestar, Google’s infotainment software is actually very good.
It’s certainly in the same ballpark as Tesla’s. Clean elegant design, tight integration to the car’s systems, fast smooth performance. And has clear advantages over Tesla in some aspects (ie: ability to install 3rd-party apps).
Not having Android Auto or CarPlay is the thing I dislike most about Tesla. I doubt they would be more popular if they had these features, but I also doubt GM will suddenly find they have the software capabilities of Tesla.
“We do believe there are subscription revenue opportunities for us," Kummer said. GM Chief Executive Mary Barra is aiming for $20 billion to $25 billion in annual revenue from subscriptions by 2030.”
Ah yes pissing off your customers because you think they’ll not just accept a worse experience, they’ll actually pay more for it. It’s a bold strategy.
GM is chasing the United airlines and Ryan air business model.
United expects customers to be grateful if they get involuntarily rescheduled to arrive a day and a half after the original arrival time, with not so much as a free snack ticket to compensate e even when the flight delay is of their causing, not weather, that made the original connection impossible.
Well CarPlay (and Android Auto) do cut off revenue.
I’ll never buy the satellite radio plan for my car to stream music. Why would I? My phone already provides a cell connection.
I’ll never buy the car cell plan to stream Spotify. Why would I? My phone does that already.
I never bought the $200+ per year map updates for my last car. Why would I? I had Apple Maps on CarPlay and it updates for free.
In many ways this seems like trying to go back to 2006 when cars had some subscription stuff (maps, satellite radio) but consumers had no other choice besides going without.
Today we have another choice. Use our cell phones. And they’re often superior experiences.
This will be reversed after much shareholder pain.
Well CarPlay (and Android Auto) do cut off revenue.
Sure, but that revenue stream only exists in a situation where the auto manufacturer has monopoly power (over that particular service).
Prior to cell phones, they had that power over navigation and could charge a fee for updated maps (annually via DVD initially).
Attempting to subvert the market and create a monopoly here is anti-consumer, anti-competitive, and very likely a short-sighted decision that GM will regret in 5 years.
The other future path is that all the other OEMs follow suit because they don't want to just make money once in selling hardware - but have a recurring revenue stream.
At the moment GM (and Tesla...) is capacity constrained so no reason to appease customers any more than they need to. Not till you have excess supply. I think GM can take the hit for a year or two and see if other OEMs follow. If not they can always say "whoops, here's an OTA upgrade".
If other OEMs follow what will consumers do - besides mounting their cellphone on their dash.
It'd be like if United split Economy into say Basic Economy and Economy with the difference being Basic Economy doesn't let you pick a seat. And then in Economy, they charged to pick anything but a middle seat.
They sell 2.2M cars a year, so if 5 model years of cars are involved, that's >$2200 ARPU. This makes no sense at all. It's orders of magnitude too high.
This isn't actually a problem because Gen-Z can't afford a GM vehicle anyway. The domestic manufacturers have abandoned the affordable vehicle segment to all fight over the high margin luxury business. Even basic pickup trucks are $60k and rotting on dealer lots because the luxury vehicle market just isn't big enough for all of the people who want to be there.
If you listen to HN, GenZ worships bicycles and public transportation and is clamoring to ban cars ASAP when the Boomers and Xers die off.
In fact I’m surprised no one has suggested banning cars on this thread yet. Someone always seems to pop up suggesting that in any thread remotely related to cars.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/06/gen-z-survey-says...
I love Android, but I also know how to read.