This might shed light on why automakers don’t go “all in” with CarPlay / Android Auto

[FeelLicks]

This is partially true. They have the same access to the data the car provides to CP/AA.

But they don't have access to the UX data about what the user is doing with the apps running on the phone. At most they have screen touch data, but no context.

That aligns with my naive understanding.

I guess another way to put it is this - personally I've tried Hyundai, Cadillac, and now Lucid's native nav... and all of them haven't been able to convince me to use it. And the primary reason is just inferior routing, traffic, and UX. I think car companies can easily deduce this lol. And if there is no CP/AA like before 3.5, then I mount my phone and use my phone - in which the car company has even less information and I imagine most would do the same.

 

[illopp00]

It's like you read what you want to read and not to the very end of the article you are posting

YEs, but this IS the reason I signed the data collection policy in the lease, because I want to give Lucid info about diagnostics on the car, charging, and aiding in troublshooting for engineers to improve the car. I kinda could careless about them seeing if i press a certain button a lot in the infotainment. They send me a survery once every 6 months and I can tell them exactly what I use and like and don't like in the infotatainment.

 

[FeelLicks]

YEs, but this IS the reason I signed the data collection policy in the lease, because I want to give Lucid info about diagnostics on the car, charging, and aiding in troublshooting for engineers to improve the car. I kinda could careless about them seeing if i press a certain button a lot in the infotainment. They send me a survery once every 6 months and I can tell them exactly what I use and like and don't like in the infotatainment.

Same, agreed. A lot of information they could get by just asking their customer base.

 

[johnse]

In our Mach-E, AA occasionally tries to take over the screen for navigation. We seriously dislike the maps presentation and prefer the native maps (which I think are HERE maps.

We haven't driven since updating 3.5.1, but expect our normal usage will be native nav.

In certain traffic bypass conditions, we have compared the routes given by Google maps, and occasionally used the Google route navigating by phone. In that rare case, being able to use AA will be nice. But it's not our preference.

 

[msaunders9430]

This is partially true. They have the same access to the data the car provides to CP/AA.

But they don't have access to the UX data about what the user is doing with the apps running on the phone. At most they have screen touch data, but no context.

In addition to no UX data access, doesn't that mean while CP/AA is used, there is no or limited data for the carmaker to use for improving the routing accuracy of their native app? Also no data to improve routing/charging integration? Basically limited data to improve native apps. Thereby increasing reliance on CP/AA and continued limitation of native apps capabilities?

 

[borski]

Same, agreed. A lot of information they could get by just asking their customer base.

People do not always remember things correctly, and those who fill out surveys are a self-selecting group, not necessarily representative of the actual population.

There is a lot of value to be gained in understanding *how* someone uses their vehicle’s infotainment, not just where they are and what speed they’re going. If you use CP/AA, all that data is lost and given to Apple/Google which, as you might have guessed, definitely tracks and mines their data for the same reasons.

 

[borski]

In addition to no UX data access, doesn't that mean while CP/AA is used, there is no or limited data for the carmaker to use for improving the routing accuracy of their native app? Also no data to improve routing/charging integration? Basically limited data to improve native apps. Thereby increasing reliance on CP/AA and continued limitation of native apps capabilities?

Correct.

 

[HC_79]

People do not always remember things correctly, and those who fill out surveys are a self-selecting group, not necessarily representative of the actual population.

There is a lot of value to be gained in understanding *how* someone uses their vehicle’s infotainment, not just where they are and what speed they’re going. If you use CP/AA, all that data is lost and given to Apple/Google which, as you might have guessed, definitely tracks and mines their data for the same reasons.

And when one was reportedly working on a car, why would you just willingly give them that data to use to their own benefit.

 

[DeaneG]

The issue is that CP/AA is a black box; so if a customer is using Google Maps, instead of native nav, a manufacturer has no idea how to improve their nav...

I'd think that experience would give the manufacturer a very clear and specific path to improve their nav

 

[borski]

I'd think that experience would give the manufacturer a very clear and specific path to improve their nav

And partner with Apple since the majority are on an iPhone?

 

[Mr.Quindazzi]

Software is going to be the differentiator when it comes to vehicles now and into the future. T

I fear you are right. That will bring mostly tears

 

[TahoeMichael]

My problem with auto manufacturers backing away from carplay/aa is that the auto companies have largely been unable/unwilling to match the software investments made by Apple and Google. If they did match them, I'd have a different attitude about it. But most would agree that Tesla has the best vehicle software, and even Tesla cannot match what Google does.

If I were running a car company, I'd try really hard to strike a partnership with Google or Apple (preferring Google due to there being a lot more Android and Google App users) that gave me access to all the usage data but still allowed me to leverage their deep investments in software.

 

[msaunders9430]

My problem with auto manufacturers backing away from carplay/aa is that the auto companies have largely been unable/unwilling to match the software investments made by Apple and Google. If they did match them, I'd have a different attitude about it. But most would agree that Tesla has the best vehicle software, and even Tesla cannot match what Google does.

If I were running a car company, I'd try really hard to strike a partnership with Google or Apple (preferring Google due to there being a lot more Android and Google App users) that gave me access to all the usage data but still allowed me to leverage their deep investments in software.

With cars, especially EVs becoming more software-defined, I don't see creating a dependency on a specific consumer-oriented software company as a good move.
Of course Apple and Google are going to have more software investments; they are software companies.

Competition is usually a good thing over acquiescing to a competitor with a higher level of product offering, especially when that competitor's focus has been in that segment for a substantial amount of time. Conceding to third-party providers moves in the direction of generic offerings and improvements dependent on those limited providers. You become hostage to whatever those providers decide, with limited leverage.

Imagine if Spotify was the only music app offering in every car and on every consumer computing device.
I understand the desire for the best product offerings as a consumer.
I just don't see taking a shortcut via third-party agreements versus internal improvements.
Or at least consider agreements with other providers.

And yet this all probably centers around car-to-phone integration.
Based on phone operating systems, that results in Apple and Google as the ecosystems to join.

I just don't believe in joining an ecosystem, as the only solution.
Ecosystems sometimes equate to or result in unfortunate dependencies.
Don't we already have enough Apple and Google already? Rhetorical.
History just shows me that competition is good.

Imagine if the overall sentiment regarding video creation platforms was, just use YouTube.
No Tik Tok or other platforms with unique twists from YT.

 

[Bobby]

With cars, especially EVs becoming more software-defined, I don't see creating a dependency on a specific consumer-oriented software company as a good move.
Of course Apple and Google are going to have more software investments; they are software companies.

Competition is usually a good thing over acquiescing to a competitor with a higher level of product offering, especially when that competitor's focus has been in that segment for a substantial amount of time. Conceding to third-party providers moves in the direction of generic offerings and improvements dependent on those limited providers. You become hostage to whatever those providers decide, with limited leverage.

Imagine if Spotify was the only music app offering in every car and on every consumer computing device.
I understand the desire for the best product offerings as a consumer.
I just don't see taking a shortcut via third-party agreements versus internal improvements.
Or at least consider agreements with other providers.

And yet this all probably centers around car-to-phone integration.
Based on phone operating systems, that results in Apple and Google as the ecosystems to join.

I just don't believe in joining an ecosystem, as the only solution.
Ecosystems sometimes equate to or result in unfortunate dependencies.
Don't we already have enough Apple and Google already? Rhetorical.
History just shows me that competition is good.

Imagine if the overall sentiment regarding video creation platforms was, just use YouTube.
No Tik Tok or other platforms with unique twists from YT.

That kinda read like a poem to me.

 

[msaunders9430]

That kinda read like a poem to me.

Waxing poetically about Apple and Google dominance.
Exactly what I intended.

 

[Mr.Quindazzi]

With cars, especially EVs becoming more software-defined, I don't see creating a dependency on a specific consumer-oriented software company as a good move.
Of course Apple and Google are going to have more software investments; they are software companies.

Competition is usually a good thing over acquiescing to a competitor with a higher level of product offering, especially when that competitor's focus has been in that segment for a substantial amount of time. Conceding to third-party providers moves in the direction of generic offerings and improvements dependent on those limited providers. You become hostage to whatever those providers decide, with limited leverage.

I may lack imagination, but I would describe CarPlay as a commodity which has very little room for innovation and improvement (at least on the customer end). Have smart phones really improved over the last 10 years?
I especially don't think a company like Lucid should move towards bespoke software- they just need the cars to work now.

 

[tmichael]

Having come from the analog world of Mopar vehicles, CP was my solution for everything. Maps, music, phone and text messaging in a common format.

Having experienced Lucid's built in apps, I find their fit and finish to be winning me over. The built in map awesomely spreading over the right side of the clearview cockpit is nothing short of "totally cool!" Using the right touch pad on the steering wheel to feather through views - I love it.

In a short week, I have gone from wanting CP to be my interface to using the built-in apps 90% of the time, with CP running in the background, providing ABRP, Siri, calls or texts or other apps when I need them, while viewing the built-in apps for their fabulous integration in the screens.

I, for one, wanted choices and needed CP for some of the apps, but my own choice for everyday driving has remained with the built-in apps. Even more reason for Lucid to expand the availability of native apps. If they don't offer one I want, I'll have CarPlay for that.

I'm loving this version of life right now!

 

[BSheppard]

Or you could just drive and enjoy the driving experience as presented

 

[msaunders9430]

I may lack imagination, but I would describe CarPlay as a commodity which has very little room for innovation and improvement (at least on the customer end). Have smart phones really improved over the last 10 years?
I especially don't think a company like Lucid should move towards bespoke software- they just need the cars to work now.

I think there's perhaps a bit of lack in imagination on your part.

The focus should not be on CarPlay specifically. Nor should it be specifically on smart phones.

The focus should be on how to efficiently access and integrate content on multiple devices.
CP and AA currently do so, but that does not mean there are not better, more efficient ways of doing so.
The focus should also be on how to expand capabilities in ways previously not considered or possibly considered undoable.
The focus should be on the technologies (present and future).
Therefore, there is room for innovation and improvement based on the actual foci.

I don't know your age, but there was a time when Bell/AT&T was treated as a commodity.
When you thought phones, Bell was the choice.
There was a time when phone modems were the only choice for Internet connectivity.
The FCC intervened with Bell and good ole competition came to the rescue and look where we are today; smart phones.
It doesn't have to stop with smart phones and CP/AA.
It won't stop because there is a greater need for advancement, improved efficiency and implementation.

Good ole necessity will always be the mother of invention.

 

[Mr.Quindazzi]

I don't know your age, but there was a time when Bell/AT&T was treated as a commodity.
When you thought phones, Bell was the choice.
There was a time when phone modems were the only choice for Internet connectivity.
The FCC intervened with Bell and good ole competition came to the rescue and look where we are today; smart phones.
It doesn't have to stop with smart phones and CP/AA.
It won't stop because there is a greater need for advancement, improved efficiency and implementation.

Good ole necessity will always be the mother of invention.

I am 64
Fair enough, but you don't really have the history quite right.
The legal Bell monopoly broke up in 1984- and the results were mostly reduced prices and a choice of different physical phones which you could actually own (pretty much all of which were worse than the bell phones). Certainly the phone system didn't work any better other than the reduced price. Definitely had to be done and was the right move.
Smart phones were what? 2007? Cell phones were the result of improved technology and the growing wealth of the U.S.
Virtually everyone on the planet has an iPhone or Android device and phone companies work hard on making them work well. People are familiar with the interface.
At a minimum, car manufacturers had best include it in their cars.
I don't see the expense of developing native systems as the type of investment that is likely to differentiate a car to the point it is profitable.