Rants and Raves after 2 months of Rivian R1T ownership [DISCLAIMER: Unauthorized feedback from non-owner]

[Sdvictor]

As far as I can tell Rivian's infotainment system is based on Android along with about a half dozen other auto manufacturers

As much as I wish that was the case, it's actually QNX w/ unreal engine

Sponsored

 

[NooterIA]

well, that was a fun 23 page read .. Since this thread mentions Rants, I'll add mine. Paying $80k for a truck of the future with the latest technologies built-in where we still have to keep a universal garage door opener attached to the visor like we did in the 90's is just mind boggling to me. PLEASE RIVIAN ADDRESS THIS.

I really hope these rumblings about the RF hardware being in the truck already, and an OTA update will somehow put it to use, are true.

 

[kurtlikevonnegut]

well, that was a fun 23 page read .. Since this thread mentions Rants, I'll add mine. Paying $80k for a truck of the future with the latest technologies built-in where we still have to keep a universal garage door opener attached to the visor like we did in the 90's is just mind boggling to me. PLEASE RIVIAN ADDRESS THIS.

I really hope these rumblings about the RF hardware being in the truck already, and an OTA update will somehow put it to use, are true.

To be fair nothing is stopping you from using geofencing with a smart garage door opener to have it open when you drive up like a fully modern person in the 2020s ?

 

[E.S.]

To be fair nothing is stopping you from using geofencing with a smart garage door opener to have it open when you drive up like a fully modern person in the 2020s ?

Funny as this is. This also doesn't need a $70k+ vehicle to use. That Rivian didn't include a Homelink-like feature on a vehicle this expensive is a slip on their behalf. Just like it's a slip that they didn't OEM a swivel-like door on the back of the R1S for a full sized spare tire. For the price they're asking, this should also have been an auto-inclusive.

 

[hola29]

Confused, why does anyone would use old RF tech, when one could use either cell, BT, 802.11, GPS, etc...

Homelink is 1950's tech...

Carplay is 2010's tech...

Folks here keep forgetting they are buying a technology stack for transportation, which is maybe too new for folks to grok yet, but folks here as early adopters should get used to the concept...

Remember getting rid of your flip phone and typewriter?

well, that was a fun 23 page read .. Since this thread mentions Rants, I'll add mine. Paying $80k for a truck of the future with the latest technologies built-in where we still have to keep a universal garage door opener attached to the visor like we did in the 90's is just mind boggling to me. PLEASE RIVIAN ADDRESS THIS.

I really hope these rumblings about the RF hardware being in the truck already, and an OTA update will somehow put it to use, are true.

 

[kurtlikevonnegut]

Confused, why does anyone would use old RF tech, when one could use either cell, BT, 802.11, GPS, etc...

Homelink is 1950's tech...

Carplay is 2010's tech...

Folks here keep forgetting they are buying a technology stack for transportation, which is maybe too new for folks to grok yet, but folks here as early adopters should get used to the concept...

Remember getting rid of your flip phone and typewriter?

It would be like buying a new laptop and complaining that it doesn't have a CD drive in it. It's legacy tech for which there are other better options. If you still need a CD drive you can still get an external one and plug it in with USB, but I'm personally not going to base my buying decision on having one.

 

[kylealden]

A car company will never have the developer resources of the entire Android ecosystem. And their nav software will never compete with a trillion dollar software companies' product, like Google Maps.

I get your point but this is a false dichotomy. Tesla maps are powered by Google. Nobody is writing an OS from scratch (most of these are some kind of Android or QNX derivative), and there's an extremely rich array of services available to provide very competitive features like nav, voice, entertainment, etc.

The reverse argument is also persuasive: A commoditized platform will never be tailored for the particular user experience and feature set of a given vehicle. It's an integration versus modularity debate.

This is why any car manufacturer that doesn't include Android Auto/CarPlay shouldn't even be considered for purchase.

There isn't one right answer, just the answer that is right for you. I think it would be cool if Rivian supported CarPlay/AA so other folks would be happy, but I don't give two shits about it for my use, don't miss it in my cars, and am certainly not going to stuff it into my decision matrix because you care.

 

[moosehead]

As a matter of choice, quality, and functionality, is anyone here happier using their own automotive OS for maps and entertainment rather than their smartphone? I'd really like to know: Tesla, recent generation Audi, other?

 

[Bullitt]

As much as I wish that was the case, it's actually QNX w/ unreal engine

The infotainment is Android based still. Rivian is on the lookout big time for Android engineers to help develop the infotainment out further. This is what I am in product development doing (car infotainment and home streaming). The reason AA/CP are not likely included has been called out a couple times in this thread. Looking at it from the Apple side of this…

1) Lack of control over functionality and compatibility. This relies on Apple
2) Rivian would give up their customer to Apple while they’re building an eco system - This is non-starter and keeps Rivian from being at Apples mercy with every update. Trust me, chasing those updates as a licensor trying to keep customers happy is miserable and will always be YOUR fault, not Apples in the eye of the consumer
3) Security - AA/CP opens up holes in security that a traditional car does not have to worry about compared to a car that is almost entirely run by software And can be taken over with the proper security flaws exposed

Im an Apple user and I used to look for CP integration on cars, but after not getting it on my Tesla I quickly lost the need or desire to have another layer of software sitting on top of the OEM. In LA I have found that the volume of people using Waze or the likes makes Waze routes a waste of time and more times than not a route I will get stuck in.

 

[Bullitt]

As a matter of choice, quality, and functionality, is anyone here happier using their own automotive OS for maps and entertainment rather than their smartphone? I'd really like to know: Tesla, recent generation Audi, other?

More than happy using the Tesla system. Also, a lot of the reason that people wanted a better mapping app was because Apple and Google were not accurate when they launched. Some folk were driving the wrong places. It has long since been resolved, but not before the Waze craze happened

 

[KiloV]

As a matter of choice, quality, and functionality, is anyone here happier using their own automotive OS for maps and entertainment rather than their smartphone? I'd really like to know: Tesla, recent generation Audi, other?

Yep. I have a stock Honda Ridgeline infotainment/nav system. It's fine. It supports Android Auto, but I don't use it because Android Auto sucks. I use Audible and Spotify apps on my phone for audio book and music delivery. I'm not an Apple customer and don't plan to be. So, yeah, this CP/AA issue isn't existential for all of us. I really wish the debate would stop at long last. If CP/AA is top of anyone's trade-off analysis, then that person shouldn't buy a Rivian (or a Tesla).

 

[skyote]

we still have to keep a universal garage door opener attached to the visor like we did in the 90's is just mind boggling to me. PLEASE RIVIAN ADDRESS THIS.

I really hope these rumblings about the RF hardware being in the truck already, and an OTA update will somehow put it to use, are true.

It has been addressed. HW is there, refer to the owners manual.

 

[Interferon]

I'll flip that script a bit.

A car company will never have the security holes and vulnerabilities and general issues with a huge open-source ecosystem that Android Auto/Apple CarPlay have.

That said, Apple has at least some edge there because they maintain better controls around their sandbox.

And no, that doesn't mean that Rivian's system couldn't have vulnerabilities either, just that it's a smaller and more well-controlled ecosystem.

Someday we'll stop having to worry about putting our seatbelts on when we get in our cars, and instead we'll be worrying about whether some new vulnerability is going to let some bottom-dweller hijack our car mid-transit and tell the autopilot to drive into a wall.

Yes, I know, crazy security guy rants from soapbox.

Android Auto is just a touchscreen mirroring service for the most part. The apps still run on the attached phone.
It would have less security vulnerabilities than a built-in web browser.

 

[IPTV65]

The infotainment is Android based still. Rivian is on the lookout big time for Android engineers to help develop the infotainment out further. This is what I am in product development doing (car infotainment and home streaming). The reason AA/CP are not likely included has been called out a couple times in this thread. Looking at it from the Apple side of this…

1) Lack of control over functionality and compatibility. This relies on Apple
2) Rivian would give up their customer to Apple while they’re building an eco system - This is non-starter and keeps Rivian from being at Apples mercy with every update. Trust me, chasing those updates as a licensor trying to keep customers happy is miserable and will always be YOUR fault, not Apples in the eye of the consumer
3) Security - AA/CP opens up holes in security that a traditional car does not have to worry about compared to a car that is almost entirely run by software And can be taken over with the proper security flaws exposed

Im an Apple user and I used to look for CP integration on cars, but after not getting it on my Tesla I quickly lost the need or desire to have another layer of software sitting on top of the OEM. In LA I have found that the volume of people using Waze or the likes makes Waze routes a waste of time and more times than not a route I will get stuck in.

The infotainment system is QNX rather than Android. They are hiring a lot of QNX guys as well...to work on the infotainment system. The Android guys are probably working the phone App or maybe the Amazon Van uses Android?

 

[ironpig]

I'll flip that script a bit.

A car company will never have the security holes and vulnerabilities and general issues with a huge open-source ecosystem that Android Auto/Apple CarPlay have.

That said, Apple has at least some edge there because they maintain better controls around their sandbox.

And no, that doesn't mean that Rivian's system couldn't have vulnerabilities either, just that it's a smaller and more well-controlled ecosystem.

Someday we'll stop having to worry about putting our seatbelts on when we get in our cars, and instead we'll be worrying about whether some new vulnerability is going to let some bottom-dweller hijack our car mid-transit and tell the autopilot to drive into a wall.

Yes, I know, crazy security guy rants from soapbox.

I always appreciate these insights. I have a relative who works for a software company that creates embedded software/operating systems for things that need to be unhackable - mostly in the Defense industry etc - But the last decade it's switched to working with a lot of OEMs and car companies for their infotainment and autonomous rollouts. I don't always understand the full nature of the vulnerabilities he describes, but needless to say some manufacturers are taking things way more seriously than others.

Sponsored