mpantone

AppleZulu said:

mpantone said:

Nobody sane really thought that Apple Car was going to ship. If you looked at Apple's publicly available autonomous vehicle driving logs available on the California DMV website, they were hardly doing any testing at all. There was a long span of several months when they didn't log a single mile.

Only some of the tech media turned Apple Car into a done deal. Yeah, Apple probably learned something from it, both what to pursue and what not to. For sure some of the gained knowledge would be applicable in other parts of the company. For sure they burned through a lot of R&D dollars on Apple Car/Project Titan/whatever.

Let's remember that the way any Apple Car would be marketed and priced would exclude 99.9% of the planet. Hell, look at Apple Vision Pro at $3500.

The biggest problem with all the Apple Car discussions online was the fact that most people were looking at the project through American blinders, seeing it only from the myopic perspective of the number one car culture on the planet. We know you love walking to your garage, planting your big fat ass in your big fat SUV, attach your iPhone to its MagSafe holder, drive to your company's big fat ass parking lot, and bitch and moan when you have to park more than 50 feet from the front door of your office. We get it. 

The rest of the world does not have a car culture like the USA. Plain and simple. Sure, most people want them but for a lot of people, even in technologically advanced countries like Japan, the personal auto is more of a leisure device. Construction workers in Tokyo go to job sites on the subway, not in Ford F-150s or GMC Sierras. In Europe getting a driver's license can be very expensive. It's not like the USA. I think a California driver's license today is $40. Forty years ago it was $2, about the same as three gallons of gasoline.

In the USA, getting your driver's license is a rite of passage for teens. It is not the case anywhere else. ONLY HERE.

Uhhh. O.K. What does that have to do with CarPlay?

Some people online think that CarPlay is a really, Really, REALLY important feature in a car purchase decision. It's not because the rest of the world doesn't have the same car culture as the USA. It's unlikely that CarPlay Ultra will trickle down to mass-market models. Even regular CarPlay won't make to many of these. We've already seen some auto manufacturers pull back from CarPlay or decide not to pursue it. Full integration makes more sense for premium models, trim lines, and EVs that are essentially computers on wheels.

But the average Honda or GM sold in Indonesia or Bangladesh really doesn't need it that much.

Many of these automobile manufacturers are looking at shaving costs from a global perspective. Putting in the extra engineering effort to address a benefit that really benefits a handful of markets isn't a great value proposition, especially when they aren't making money off of it. Infotainment systems are a cost center. Most companies would prefer to put in the least amount of effort without coming in dead last amongst the competition especially on basic trim levels.

Nobody really needs album art thumbnails on their dashboard.

I realize that many of these basic concepts, particularly how different US car culture is compared to the rest of the world is beyond the comprehension of many people online.

In the end, whatever infotainment/UX standard the Chinese (or possibly Indian) car companies come up with will dominate. Not tomorrow, not next months, but give it 10 years.

As Charlesn mentions, having your own proprietary infotainment system gives you the luxury of monetizing driver data and/or upselling subscription services. There's nothing inherently new about this. Car navi systems requires paid upgrades. Even standalone GPS devices (Garmin, TomTom et al.) required payment for new map data. Even early iPhone GPS navi apps had add-on features like lane guidance.

Most companies would like user data under their own TOS not Apple's. I expect more car companies to follow GM's lead and abandon CarPlay and Android Auto in the next few years.

Nobody sane really thought that Apple Car was going to ship. If you looked at Apple's publicly available autonomous vehicle driving logs available on the California DMV website, they were hardly doing any testing at all. There was a long span of several months when they didn't log a single mile.

Only some of the tech media turned Apple Car into a done deal. Yeah, Apple probably learned something from it, both what to pursue and what not to. For sure some of the gained knowledge would be applicable in other parts of the company. For sure they burned through a lot of R&D dollars on Apple Car/Project Titan/whatever.

Let's remember that the way any Apple Car would be marketed and priced would exclude 99.9% of the planet. Hell, look at Apple Vision Pro at $3500.

The biggest problem with all the Apple Car discussions online was the fact that most people were looking at the project through American blinders, seeing it only from the myopic perspective of the number one car culture on the planet. We know you love walking to your garage, planting your big fat ass in your big fat SUV, attach your iPhone to its MagSafe holder, drive to your company's big fat ass parking lot, and bitch and moan when you have to park more than 50 feet from the front door of your office. We get it. 

The rest of the world does not have a car culture like the USA. Plain and simple. Sure, most people want them but for a lot of people, even in technologically advanced countries like Japan, the personal auto is more of a leisure device. Construction workers in Tokyo go to job sites on the subway, not in Ford F-150s or GMC Sierras. In Europe getting a driver's license can be very expensive. It's not like the USA. I think a California driver's license today is $40. Forty years ago it was $2, about the same as three gallons of gasoline.

In the USA, getting your driver's license is a rite of passage for teens. It is not the case anywhere else. ONLY HERE.

teejay2012 said:

GM is not offering CarPlay in many models, not because people don't want it, or that CarPlay is not great, but because GM can not gouge their buyers with lucrative subscriptions. It is a gamble as some buyers will not consider cars without CarPlay or Android Auto.

GM CEO Mary Barra flatly stated several years ago that GM was moving toward their own in-house infotainment system. That puts the burden on GM's software engineering team to make the system compatible with the majority of the world's smartphones but there are only two operating systems they need to worry about. Their strategy will result in the lowest common denominator but that's acceptable for GM's primary audience. 

Over time CarPlay Ultra will be reserved for luxury cars while the Great Unwashed will be looking at some forgettable, plain UI. It's clear based on the fact that it is debuting in an Aston Martin not a Honda Civic. GM is plain cars for plain people. And that's perfectly fine, however it means keeping a tight control over costs.

Let's remember that CarPlay debuted in 2014, so over a decade old. Automobile manufacturers have had plenty of time to study it and Google's offering. All the companies have likely done some sort of prototyping. GM itself had CarPlay compatible infotainment systems before so it's not like they don't know what effort incorporating Apple CarPlay entails. It's not like any of these companies are just discovering car infotainment systems in 2025 and getting their feet wet for the first time.

It's important to understand that all of the big players here are global corporations. While the USA is typically their largest market, it is the also the only nation that is truly a car culture. GM deciding to go with their more modest in-house solution is likely a strategy that encompasses their entire worldview, not just that of the USA.

AppleZulu said:

Is there any indication that this might eventually be enabled on existing vehicles?

This is addressed in the last paragraph of the article:

"...and will be available for existing Aston Martin vehicles in the U.S. and Canada featuring the brand's next-generation infotainment system in the coming weeks through a software update available at local dealers."

It is safe to assume that it will be up to each manufacturer to decide whether or not to do the extra programming work to bring the CarPlay Ultra to vehicles already on the road. Most likely it will be a model-by-model decision with a higher chance of it being deployed on more expensive, premium trims.

In the old days, the car you bought is the car you live with. I don't think anyone should be entitled to think that they deserve all of the latest features when nothing like that was promised when they signed the sales contract. I certainly don't expect CarPlay Ultra to magically appear in my 20-year-old Toyota. 

However most people aren't in the habit of changing their automobiles often so bringing the CarPlay Ultra feature to existing recent vehicles demonstrates some goodwill. 

It is clear there was a fundamental shift about ten years ago about what constitutes an automobile. They're basically computers with wheels these days. At some point, manufacturers may start charging extra for infotainment software upgrades in existing vehicles. It's not like software engineers work for free.

It's really up to the individual manufacturer who will have to assess the value of the additional engineering effort. There is plenty of precedence for this. Tesla Full Self-Driving Mode (FSD) is an extra charge and GM's OnStar satellite connectivity was a recurring subscription fee after a complimentary first year. Today's consumers are now accustomed to recurring charges (like streaming music/video or satellite connectivity on phones) so at some point car infotainment upgrade fees might be tolerated (albeit not embraced with open arms). It'll take just one manufacturer to start imposing fees and then soon the most of their competitors will follow suit.

Tim & Co. don't want to serve niche markets. As we all know, they pulled the plug on the popular iPhone mini series after just two releases, abandoning a market that is unserved by the competition. Maybe the margins were too low. And I can't imagine the margins on an iPhone Thin will be much better (apart from a simpler camera module). They also ditched the "low cost" plasticky iPhone 5c after one release.

For there to be any growth in their iPhone business, they need to focus on emerging markets not to chase the 1% of their mature markets that might want to upgrade to something flashier. In the end it's still just another phone. The iPhone Thin won't do anything better than the standard iPhone; the leakers and rumor mongers have only said it'll be thin, there are no other unique features that will set the handset apart.

I'm still baffled why they would want to market an iPhone Thin. Sure, the initial model will sell well but I don't see any other reason for its existence other than pure aesthetics. For sure it's not going to be the performance champion nor will it be priced as an entry level model. Yes, we'll see it all over Instagram and Tik Tok but that's not going to build the user base in Ivory Coast or Bangladesh.