Wither Apple CarPlay?

When I announced the relaunch of this newsletter, some of the first people to sign up had General Motors email addresses. Over my decade or so of working in this business, I’ve had thousands of great interactions with people at the company and on their communications teams.

I tell you this because while the team there seems to like working with me, when I’m with the folks at GM, I ask about the company’s decision to nuke Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in future electric vehicles. These discussions have been quite lively — at times, but at the end of the day, I’m not going to have the power to change the decision of one of the largest automakers in the world.

My position, if you didn’t already know, is that the customer should have the choice. On an EV, a deeply integrated system like GM is using means the customer can take advantage of advanced EV features. If you set a destination in the navigation, the car can route you to the charging stations necessary to make it there if it’s out of range. It can activate battery preconditioning automatically to make sure you can recharge at a peak rate. When everything in the vehicle is talking to everything else, you can have the most optimized and easiest-to-use (in theory) experience.

Other automakers also have this type of integration, but still let the customer choose. If, knowing all I know about the built-in system, I decide I’d still rather use CarPlay, I would like to use CarPlay.

I have a very unique technical reason why I can’t fully experience the Android Automotive built-in systems, which means my life is often far less complicated by using my phone. Other people might have apps or integrations that work with CarPlay that aren’t yet available built in.

There are solid counterpoints that aren’t cynical (and some potential reasons that are cynical), such as not being able to control the customer experience. For example, many complaints on the JD Power and Associates Initial Quality Survey (IQS) center around the infotainment system. Customers who have a problem with CarPlay typically don’t blame Apple, but rather blame the automaker, even if the real blame lies entirely within the spaceship offices in Cupertino.

That last reason was one of the reasons that was given to me years ago when Toyota dragged its feet on Apple CarPlay support. What I told them at the time was, “Hey, your competition is using it. Customers don’t care why you don’t support it; they just care that you don’t support it.”

Yesterday, it was reported that GM CEO Mary Barra was on the Decoder podcast and said that GM would eventually eliminate support for Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in its gasoline cars as well.

Also yesterday, I attended a media event in NYC where Barra and company talked about the future software and hardware that is coming to the lineup. While I hate assigning homework, I did cover an important aspect of all of this — data privacy — at Ars Technica, and encourage you to give that a quick read.

Considering Dave Richardson’s background and his newness with General Motors, I’m willing to give him and the company the benefit of the doubt on future privacy concerns. It is not lost on me that the company was, at one point, taking driving data and selling it to insurance companies, but I’ve been assured that the practice is over.

I even told Dave after our interview that I believe there is an opening in the market for a privacy-focused automaker, and while I’m not sure if GM is the one to do it, he understands how important data protection is.

Powering the changes mentioned in my Ars piece is a new processing system on board that is liquid-cooled and will eventually be able to handle onboard inference of localized large language models. These localized models, being vehicle-specific, can help better process vehicle issues and inform the driver of problems. I’m all for improved vehicle safety.

It’s also easy to understand that having separate systems (one supporting certain software, one not supporting certain software) adds complexity and opens the door for more bugs. GM removing CarPlay and Android Auto support across the board is consistent with GM’s messaging. And let’s face it, if the built-in system is good, then nothing will really be missed, right?

Tesla and Rivian don’t offer support, either. Sure, there are popular accessories out there to add that support to those vehicles, but GM isn’t the first here to not support it. One thing GM is the first at, though, is offering the support and then taking it away.

It will likely be a litmus test for how other automakers proceed in the future.

So, how big a deal is it? Will it ultimately matter? Will they lose customers, and how many will they lose?

I reached out to some experts. Robby DeGraff is the manager of product and consumer insights at the automotive research firm AutoPacific. They track what car buyers are looking for. When they survey customers, they only ask about wireless versions of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, since wired is basically ubiquitous across the industry.

Regardless, more than a third of new GM brand buyers want wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto support, with the most being the premium brand buyers (GMC and Cadillac), according to their data.

(Editor’s note: ACP/AA refers to Apple CarPlay and Android Auto.)

“I think we’ve had CarPlay for 8 to 10 years,” says Stephanie Brinley, Associate Director, Research and Analysis, AutoIntelligence at S&P Global (whew, that’s a title). “We’ve lived without CarPlay before.”

While she sees the appeal of the systems in new cars, she doesn’t think it’s as big of a deal as it might seem on paper. “I think consumers can learn a new system,” she tells me. She also doesn’t believe that most users of Android Auto or Apple CarPlay are necessarily using the systems to their full extent. While it might be common to use maps or music, how many are using apps to order pizza, control their garage doors, or even check calendar notifications?

She’s had problems with CarPlay in some vehicles and believes that a native system, when done properly, can be a compelling alternative.

That being said, she did say, “Consumers don’t like change.” She believes that GM is taking a risk, but it’s a “workable risk.”

Automotive journalists tend to use CarPlay a lot because we’re often in a new car every week. It’s often easier to just plug in and go than log into a car’s system and associated accounts. The flaw with this, as you can probably already see, is, some reviewers then don’t spend time with the OEM system and can’t reasonably comment on whether the system is any good.

One thing that I haven’t talked about yet is the subscription fees. When you use your phone in your car, your phone’s data connection does all the work. That’s attached to your phone bill and is something you’re going to pay for regardless. There’s no new subscription to sign up for and keep track of, and there’s no new bill to worry about.

As more and more things become cloud-based, there’s a fee associated with that data connection. Some automakers handle it differently, but ultimately, there’s a tiered system of how much you spend to get what features. For some OEMs, basic keyfob functionality (like remote start) has been included for some time, but if you want to use the built-in hotspot in your car, that’s a monthly data fee. In Teslas, for example, basic map updates and key fob control are included, but if you want satellite view maps, built-in app streaming (like Netflix or YouTube), you need to pay $10 a month.

There are some geeky workarounds, like setting up the hotspot on your phone and then connecting your car to the hotspot, but that’s often a pain in the butt and not something a normal user is going to want to do.

Remember the days when you could just remote start a car from the key fob?

GM vehicles will have to have a connection to the cloud to update maps and provide other functionality. Since you can’t use CarPlay or Android Auto, you’ll have to use GM’s connection. At what cost will that be?

Will we end up with a tiered system, like Apple now, where you can get basic OnStar, but then pay for upgraded OnStar, and then OnStar+, and OnStar One?

“Subscription fatigue is a problem,” Stephanie tells me. “It could end up being a generation gap.” There might be certain people who are more opt to pay for a subscription than others, which makes sense. But Robby also told me that in some of the data they’re seeing, across the board, people are seeming less and less interested in paying for in-car services.

Is there anyone currently doing it right? “Fees are a full industry problem,” Stephanie says, “not just for GM.” Some of the non-legacy automakers might see more people signing up for these services, as they’re more tech-savvy. Stephanie points out that the people buying those products are a smaller group than the group of people interested in a new GM product.

I think there is some possibility in trying before you buy, or bundling the data with a service people are willing to pay for. The slideshow associated with GM’s earnings announcement this week stated that 40% of customers with Super Cruise available pay for the 3-year prepaid subscription. For every 5 customers that try Super Cruise, 2 of them pay $25 a month to keep the good times rolling.

Again, it makes sense that one basic configuration of its infotainment system across all of its vehicles will make it easier to push updates (which will be easier and more often with the new hardware on board) and help remove some cost from the vehicle. GM also says it wants to protect your personal information, and believes it can do a better job if it’s not sharing it with anyone else. They’ll need to prove that, but there seems to be infrastructure in place to facilitate that.

Will the company lose some customers? There will certainly be a few that would rather look elsewhere than try the new system, or do not want to deal with potential fees, and it’s really not known how many people who actually are. My personal car is too old to have CarPlay, and if I bought a new GM today without CarPlay, I wouldn’t even know what I missed (assuming I wasn’t an automotive journalist constantly driving new cars).

I can see this as a litmus test, though. If this goes well for GM, other automakers might also want to pull the plug on support. Certainly, some will draw a line in the sand and always offer it, perhaps even with financial incentives from Apple or Google, but the Google-based Android Automotive ensures that daddy Google still gets a taste.

Long-term, it will likely be extremely important for GM to work on and perfect its own software. While I can’t say for sure about the timing, it’s becoming clear that the Chinese automakers will eventually be selling to U.S. customers, and the Chinese have proven that they are excellent at hardware and software, plus are now building cars that are competitive globally.

I don’t expect this to happen soon, but GM certainly wouldn’t want to be behind the proverbial 8-ball when that happens.

Right or wrong, good or bad, the customer will make the ultimate choice here. Is it a dealbreaker to not offer CarPlay support, or will customers not mind that much? I know I’ll be watching.