On the other hand, the voice command system works as badly as it did when I got the car, while Siri has gotten worse.

The insane lag to enter anything on google maps on my 2024 Yukon is ridiculous. Worse, the fact it makes me TYPE in the touchscreen instead of letting me do this on the phone is yet another reason to completely ditch it. Google could easily let me control it through the phone (as they do with youtube on my tv) but I doubt they care enough to do that.

It should be straightforward, pick a direction on my phone, beam to car, car opens it automatically in google maps. That is not difficult.

I installed a new stereo for my old car today, intentionally avoided CarPlay and got a simple non-touchscreen JVC. $60, 15 minute DIY job, BT paired instantly, has aux too, and sounds great.

That said, a car without CarPlay is simply out of the pool of possible cars I would buy. It's a requirement.

So what exactly are you ranting about here? Why this rant when you don't seem to know what those technologies are?

Why can't we stop companies selling our data? You'd think it's easy:

--- very clear opt-in method for having your data sold

--- rejecting cannot prevent regular use of services

--- heavy penalties for breaking these rules

Problem is that no politician wants to touch this because

--- manufacturers sell data to subsidize the product

--- if they can't sell data, costs are going to shoot up

--- if they do this in response to a law, they get to raise costs even more because it affects the whole industry at the same time and there's a clear scapegoat

Consumers care a LOT more about their cheap, connected devices than their privacy. Because getting by your data like [2] happens to individuals, but costs affect the group.

EDIT: To clarify, the MP only suggested that costs would go up and people don't care. The rest is my personal speculation.

I'd much rather see stronger privacy legislation that bars companies from selling your data to third parties -- period, no exceptions, no opt-in terms that offer customers more features or services if they'll agree to privacy violations.

And then actual enforcement, with fines high enough that they can't just be shrugged off as the cost of doing business.

While I don't think we'll ever get quite there, I do think we're going to be moving in that direction. I do have a car with connected features, and I live in California, and I've already instructed them that they may not sell my data to third parties. I don't know if they actually follow the law on that, but it's a start.

This isn't meant to be a dig of Apple vs Android - I think I would feel the same about CarPlay if i was on iOS.

I think we just value different things. As someone who wants to be able to drive, navigate with google maps, listen to a podcast, and handle incoming messages, but do it safely, these integrations are incredible.

Obviously good. Driving is incredibly dangerous to other people and insurance companies are the most motivated to make it safer.

Mazda, cx5 <= 2016. Small. Has usb sd, simple knobs, backup camera. It reminds me of when apple removed the escape key, I had to learn how to buy a used mac.

And by 'rip out' you mean "disconnect your phone"

I love that when I search for something with Google Maps it knows, typically in a letter or two, what place I'm trying to go to. I don't want to use a different music service in my car -- it has all my playlists and my "likes" already.

Do I want Ford to write its own implementation of Google Maps or Pandora? Why? Seems stupid to have 10 different implementations of the same service.

I’d rather connect my phone, for which I’ll update the hardware 4+ times over the time I own my car, and get the corresponding OS and software updates yearly or more frequently. Send that data to the car’s reliable and dumb screen(s) from my chosen phone and I’m in control and happier for it.

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?

Cars from the 90s up until about 2013 can be easily fitted with a $500 head unit upgrade, and support carplay quite well. With the right tools, it can be done in about two hours right in your driveway.

Cars from 2018 and up pretty universally support carplay, and it's generally quite well integrated into the car's infotainment system.

But, between 2013 and 2017, things were a complete mess. In-car systems were too integrated to be replaceable with a third party 2-DIN unit, but too primitive to run carplay/AA. People who have cars from this era either sell them (for less than they're worth, since only 21% of people will buy a car without carplay!) or put up with it for another 8 years or so until the car's wound out.

For example, my rustbucket '06 Toyota has a great sounding stereo with carplay but my sibling's 2017 Nissan is stuck with flaky and poorly integrated bluetooth.

Or, if you do want to upgrade your 2013-2017 car, you end up replacing half of the in-dash components with ones from a couple model years up, tapping into the car's CAN bus to recognize the new controller, and then running some sketchy scripts to patch the firmware to remove component protection since the VIN's don't match up anymore. Not for the faint of heart.

As the article itself says, CarPlay Original Flavor is a massive success, I'm in the "79% of drivers only consider a car if it has CarPlay" (bye-bye GM!)

Does the author have no experience with Android Auto? The same happens there, if the app is on my phone and it supports Android Auto then it will automatically be available in the car, along with all media on my phone. This isn't a CarPlay only functionalitiy, it's just how phone mirroring works on both platforms. Author seems to think there is an extra step involved on Android. Perhaps by "Play Store" they mean the car manufacturer's own app store?

Source: I use Android Auto constantly in my own vehicle and in the 15+ rental cars I have every year.

The author seems to blame everyone but Apple for this, though. Apparently it's Google's fault that his preferred podcast app isn't available on Android. What about the app developer, who has decided not to support Android? And it's the auto manufacturer's fault for deciding to go with Android Automotive as the infotainment OS. What about Apple, for refusing to license any of their OS offerings to third parties? (Let alone not having an automotive-suitable version of any of their OSes anyway.)

Instead, Apple wants auto manufacturers to implement a complex, proprietary Apple protocol to give iPhones the ability to control most aspects of the car's infotainment functions. Why would auto manufacturers want to do this? Not only would the auto manufacturer have to develop their own infotainment system (perhaps even using Android Automotive, but perhaps something else), but then they have to do all this extra work to essentially allow drivers to not use their own system. (And while I agree that most auto manufacturer software is weak or outright garbage, that point of fact isn't really relevant here.)

I don't agree with the author that some car makers are not excited about CarPlay 2 primarily because they want to own the automotive experience. It's because of all the extra work they need to do to support CarPlay 2 (probably an order of magnitude what it takes to support CarPlay 1 or Android Auto), and doing so isn't really in their interests, outside of Apple users who might refuse to consider their cars without CarPlay 2 support. But this is a chicken-and-egg problem: CP2 doesn't exist yet in any car, so customers don't know what they're potentially missing.

Car manufacturers have had decades to develop their software but almost all are difficult to work with, slow, give bad user feedback (full screen pop-up with entire paragraphs while navigating) and are cumbersome to get accustomed to when switching cars.

I’m one of the 79% that demands CarPlay, if it’s not part of the car I don’t want it.

Good I bought the car, now get out of my life. I’m not paying hundreds of dollars for GPS map updates when I can plug in my phone and use any other mapping app’s evergreen maps. Also, subscriptions for heated seats are patently absurd.

Typically this difference of one model-year can add thousands to the cost of the vehicle, especially because wireless car-play is so coveted. The experience of wireless is fantastic, but is it worth several thousand dollars? Maybe, but herein lies the trick.

Buy a dongle. They're about $100 for a good one. They can be tucked away in the vehicle. They work almost* as good as integrated wireless car-play.

*Maybe add 5 seconds to auto-connect when you get in your car.

CarPlay v1, however, is an absolute requirement. It works great and gives me pretty much everything I want.

Tangential I know, but I giggled at yet another example of Google's incompetent branding and product naming. How a company filled with so many brilliant people can be so bad at brand strategy is baffling to me.

> 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.

The thing is: that didn't used to be that way. You can blame it on the transition to EVs, but part of that transition seems to be that a bunch of manufacturers decided not to build their own platforms, motors, etc and are just licensing from other manufacturers*. The article's correct to note that flattens a lot of the value proposition of any given manufacturer, and if that's forcing them to lean in a lot on the software, that's a weird position for an automotive manufacturer, because that's never been anyone in the industry's strong suite - there's a reason 80% of drivers won't buy a car without CarPlay.

It's also notable that the brands who do seem to be going in on CarPlay are those that still make a point of building their own engines and platforms - Aston, Porsche, and even Polestar tries to differentiate itself there.

* to be clear, this was happening before EVs, too - BMW put out a car that shared a platform with a Toyota, in a move that should've caused a plague of locust to descend on Munich if God existed and had a driver's license, and Stellantis put a Lancia badge on a Chrysler a couple years back.

Obsolescence - ‘your phone is too old to use with this car’ or your car being too old for your phone. Double points for software updates to either which disable functions or features.

Vendor lock-in - are the players mutually exclusive? Does having a phone from one manufacturer limit my car choices?

This is a really good case study in how difficult it is to find a balance between co-branding and maintaining a consistently high-quality design system across co-branding partners. There's a massive amount of work across UI/UX design and implementation done at Apple that assumes that widgets are not only using a serif font, but a specific serif font with specific kerning; that color-primary-60 and color-primary-50 and color-for-text-on-top-of-primary-60 are distinguished in a very specific way.

(Light/dark mode and localization efforts force a degree of flexibility here, but there are still a finite set of QA targets if you focus on primary language markets.)

But what happens if multiple partners want their own primary color and font? This suddenly has far-reaching, costly ramifications across multiple organizations. Even having planned your APIs from day one around color and style customizability doesn't guarantee that this can be done successfully. Taken to an extreme, frontend engineers (not just their embedded designers) are practically required to hold the context of all future potential customization needs in mind when implementing a component - a nigh impossible ask.

Which is to say that there are few companies that could pull off what the OP posits that car manufacturers are requesting, having a world-class interface that is customized to their brand. That's a tall order even for Apple's depth of talent.

Why can't we let the car deal with car-related functions and Apple deal with playing podcasts and showing maps? It seems like the best of both worlds to me. Apple is solving a problem that doesn't need solving.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Apple could design a better interface than car manufacturers, but is it really worth the hassle?

I also really don't like wireless charging. It spares the port from constant wear but my device tends to get really hot and the charging is very inefficient. I plan to go back to slow wired charging everywhere to put less strain on the battery. I already have in my car and by my PC. Unfortunately my XC40 doesn't support dual screen CarPlay so I use the Google Maps in Android Automotive for navigation and use CarPlay for music, podcasts, etc. Switching from AA Google Maps and CarPlay and back is not a high friction interaction though so it's an okay solution. I'm also able to deactivate wireless charging so I'm pretty happy with this solution.

(a) a standardized mechanism for attaching and powering your phone on its dashboard (think a "mini VESA mount" with options for USB/wireless charging)

(b) bluetooth HID-compatible physical controls on the steering wheel and/or center console so you don't have to reach for your device

(c) a minified car "radio" that only offers AM/FM radio and bluetooth audio connectivity

All other controls should be physical, copied straight out of a 90s/00s car.

Mazda sells a retrofit kit for their 2014 (Mazda 3) / 2016 (other models) and newer cars that didn't come with native CP/AA. It's about $200 and DIY if you're the least bit handy:

https://mazdaparts.org/mazda-3-smartphone-mirroring-kit.html

Something I found interesting when I was hacking my VW to add Carplay (without paying £300) was that a ton of manufacturers in the ~2016 era use the exact same head unit and OS but with a different front fascia, different button layout and a relatively advanced UI skinning system. If you can be bothered you can add e.g. Audi track G-sensors to your VW or use a different skin.

https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Receivers-Display-Stereo-Blu...

By contrast, my 98 Jeep and '08 sedan were both easy upgrades to modern head units with standard DINs.

Not having CarPlay/AA was actually a massive reason I wanted to get rid of that car.

I don't know what cars you drive, but they are not budget or Chinese. I recently rented a bottom-of-the-line Nissan '24 and just getting audio from my iPhone was a struggle - and there was absolutely no Carplay in sight. Most Chinese cars I've rented (all 23 or 24 models) have advertised Carplay, but what they really have is a half-baked phone mirroring, which maybe worked on ios11 or something, but definetely doesn't today.

I sold cars up til a few years ago. Countless cars got sold where Bluetooth itself barely works, and people are basically fine with it.

People buying used cars will take Bluetooth as a nice perk, but to think they make major decisions based on carplay in a 2015 Chevy Volt is funny.

That statistic is complete bullshit.

...is there a handy list of which models these are? I'm in the market for a used car, and I'm perfectly happy to pay less for something without CarPlay.

Auto is driven from your phone whereas Automotive is running on your car directly.

They lost a capitalization which makes it a bit ambiguous but their scenario is this:

There are two app stores being discussed: iOS (for CarPlay), and Android Automotive (the infotainment system's play store).

If you have Android Automotive on an infotainment system and an iPhone and can't connect your iPhone to the infotainment system, you have to download the app twice: iOS App Store and Android Automotive Play Store.

I don't know the numbers, but Android Automotive infotainment systems don't universally support CarPlay. Some only got it via updates over the last couple years (that's also a selling point of them, though, that they could do it via software updates and not a whole hardware refresh).

I am still amazed that some people see it as a brain-free non-decision to buy into a status symbol.

I have an iPhone. It has things that I like and things that I hate. I have a brain that can process nuance, and it’s entirely possible to say nice things about some features and rant against others.

I bought my current phone knowing what I can do and cannot do with it. It is an informed decision and a compromise by necessity. I bought it expecting it to integrate with my car via CarPlay, and I would definitely complain if it either stopped working or if car manufacturers dropped it.

(I don’t care about CarPlay 2 at all)

I would be interested in CarPlay 2 if I were buying a new car when it’s out. Infotainment is still a huge weakness in many cars, and is definitely a plus to many users. Carmakers are free to ignore it of course, but unless they are maybe Tesla, they have no good reputation to rely on in selling their own custom infotainment experiences.

Yes and no. Android Automotive supports android apps, but GM's implementation (for example) still locks out android phones from using Android Auto. Yes, you can install the same apps, but the nice thing about hooking up your phone is that you're maintaining all of your apps, data, and state in one place instead of two and it's inherently different for as many different drivers as there are phones.

Yes, as far as I know, any automaker can choose to make the screen in the dash compatible with Carplay, at least the non fancy Carplay that will be able to show all the apps on the phone.

Zero reason, in my opinion, to not offer a Carplay compatible screen, other than to inconvenience car users. Not the CarPlay 2 thing, but just original Carplay.

There is an existing vibrant ecosystem of Tier 1 partners who can do the CarPlay (or AA) integration, lessening the burden on the Auto OEMs for such specialised integration work (Luxoft, etc).

CP2 is an eventual pathway (pure conjecture here) for Apple to offer other upgrades in the future, like an L2+ ADAS package, via a subscription model, with a potential profit split between Apple and the OEM.

Somewhat like what MobilEye currently offers and their current business model. Apple gets valuable realtime traffic info from such an L2+ offering, which can feed into making Apple Maps better with up to the minute traffic updates. And the OEM gets to leverage a valuable "sticky" offering that is bound to attract the Apple crowed (usually well heeled folks with deeper pockets). And they both get to monetize CP2 via a paid subscription model.

> Apple’s long-term goal is likely to find ways to directly monetize CarPlay. It could license CarPlay to carmakers at some point. But with the entire global car market amounting to only around 70 million cars per year and the car industry’s slim profit margins (ranging from 5% to 15%), it must reach a high market share to get significant revenue from it. However, carmakers may be hesitant to invest in what they see as a competing product.

I don’t think Apple sees this as a promising revenue stream. It’s just another way to encourage people to stay within the walled garden. That seems many times more valuable than any possible licensing fees they would get from manufacturers

In that respect a UI made by Apple will certainly appeal to an audience already demanding current CarPlay. On the other hand, it could be that the current level of CarPlay integration is already enough.

Because the solutions the auto makers came up with _sucked_ and as it’s not core to the operation of the car, I’d prefer it be done by someone that even approximately knows what they’re doing with software?

I am not buying the car for their infotainment features, I’m buying it for the car. I’d like it the entertainment bits were just delegated to the setup I already have…

Bluetooth but for cars.

Such a missed opportunity.

We've upgraded the wired one with one of those dongles. It mostly works, but has some quirks. The three most annoying:

* Phone calls result in a feedback loop for the other end. Essentially, they break the in-car noise cancellation and playback the caller audio to the caller.

* When my wife pulls in the garage, my phone will connect - even though it should have been connected to her phone.

* The USB port that connects to the head unit remains power for a period of time after the vehicle is off. Annoying when I'm in the kitchen (next to the garage) and my phone keeps trying to CarPlay.

EDIT: I'm also realizing that I believe the car with Wireless has associated each of our keys with our phones. Despite them both being paired, it will prioritize the phone last used with the key. That's pretty handy for not having to fight with pairing.

Moral of the story: Don't buy a head unit from Pioneer. They suck ass. This is quite possibly the shittiest tech product I have ever spent money on.

This problem didn't exist at all before going wireless.

Bought a dongle for £55, works fine.

Love having a car with a steering wheel with real buttons, and climate controls with real knobs.

It feels like around 2018 is the zenith of Human Machine Interface in cars and it's all been downhill since, as they cram everything in a fucking touchscreen.

"Kinda works" for a while, with a noticeable delay when changing songs etc.

Actually pondering replacing the infotainment system itself to get wireless airplay.

It seems maybe tesla is the one fighting it. I think the original model S used steering wheel stalks from mercedes?

Now they do so many things themselves (or don't do in case of stalks), to the point of making their own chips for the machine learning stuff.

Why is this bad on BMW? Doesn't Toyota make the most reliable cars?

Entering Japanese addresses IS tricky, though; here, custom-built Japanese solutions outshine. There are (mainly) no street names; instead, you specify your location by filtering down from Prefecture (Tokyo), City (Ota-ku), Commune (Kugahara), District (1-Chome), Block (26), House Number (1).

Japanese systems allow you to enter it this way - with Google (or, even worse, Apple Maps), it's a bit hacky. You would specify it as Kugahara 1-26-1 and hope for the best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-Zenith_Satellite_System

> The Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS), also known as Michibiki (みちびき), is a four-satellite regional satellite navigation system and a satellite-based augmentation system developed by the Japanese government to enhance the United States-operated Global Positioning System (GPS) in the Asia-Oceania regions, with a focus on Japan.

...

> The primary purpose of QZSS is to increase the availability of GPS in Japan's numerous urban canyons, where only satellites at very high elevation can be seen. A secondary function is performance enhancement, increasing the accuracy and reliability of GPS derived navigation solutions. The Quasi-Zenith Satellites transmit signals compatible with the GPS L1C/A signal, as well as the modernized GPS L1C, L2C signal and L5 signals. This minimizes changes to existing GPS receivers.

Its got a neat orbit that does a figure 8 with the apogee over Japan (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tundra_orbit )