Apple CarPlay and Android for R1T / R1S?

[JakiChan]

I gotta ask, "What does Rivian get from enabling CP/AA?"

A possibly better user experience for their customers.

The reality is that solving the EV navigation/charging finder issue is difficult. And I don't think that every company trying to develop their own solution is going to work as well as companies who are developing a solution for a larger customer base.

Let's take just base navigation as an example. I have not seen an in-car navigation solution that works as good as Waze/Google Maps/Apple Maps. Depending on who you are, one of them is likely to be superior. I use Waze because of how it generates routing based on traffic data from other customers. My partner can almost ONLY use Apple Maps - he refuses to look at the screen while driving and the way Apple gives audio directions ("At the next stoplight turn left") is REALLY good.

BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc - no one has a system as good. Sorry.

How does that compare with an E2E solution in which they have full control over the data, capabilities, and integration with the hardware (and software) in the vehicle to create a better, more immersive and fluid experience?

Easy: They are trying to re-invent the wheel. Who has more developers and UI experts, Rivian, Tesla, or Apple? I'm pretty sure I just listed them in order of least to greatest.

Sponsored

 

[Temerarius]

I have not seen an in-car navigation solution that works as good as Waze/Google Maps/Apple Maps.

And when you pop in your destination, which of these three can tell you where to charge along your route based on your SoC and power consumption?

Easy: They are trying to re-invent the wheel. Who has more developers and UI experts, Rivian, Tesla, or Apple? I'm pretty sure I just listed them in order of least to greatest.

I partially agree, AA/CarPlay are great, but they will have hard limits. Until they can directly interface with your vehicle, understand it's SoC, its power draw down based on use, available charging options along the route, and then predict which one's you will need to hit along the way, for a given amount of time, you will end up using 2 (maybe 3) navigational aids.

Realistically, you are going with:

1. Multiple navs (CarPlay/AA + in car nav or ABRP to plan stops)
2. In car Nav solution provided by a third party (Android Auto OS like a Volvo CX40 Recharge)
3. In car Nav solution provided by the manufacturer (Rivian, VW, Tesla, etc...)
4. Or, CP/AA somehow develop a method to pull the data from your vehicle on SoC and use.

 

[JakiChan]

And when you pop in your destination, which of these three can tell you where to charge along your route based on your SoC and power consumption?

Ok, first, there's a reason that I said "base" navigation and I want to re-iterate this point which I feel you completely ignored:

In a ICE vehicle why would you use the built-in navigation? Can you name a single ICE car that has better navigation than Apple or Google? I haven't seen one, but I'm willing to check it out if so. But suggesting that a carmaker has more resources to devote to the navigation experience than Google or Apple is kinda crazy.

There is nothing unique about the idea of dealing with EV charging and charging infra that a company like Apple and Google can't solve better than a smaller company like Rivian. Full stop. Having "total control" isn't going to give you a better nav experience than Apple has come up with, for example.

But to get to your question: Apple is working with Ford and BMW on this very integration. What's also cool is Ford has now fixed one of the two reasons to use built-in navigation: CarPlay directions will now show up in the instrument cluster for the Mach-E and the F150. That solves one of the two reasons to use the car's nav: instrument cluster/HUD integration and offline maps.

I partially agree, AA/CarPlay are great, but they will have hard limits. Until they can directly interface with your vehicle, understand it's SoC, its power draw down based on use, available charging options along the route, and then predict which one's you will need to hit along the way, for a given amount of time, you will end up using 2 (maybe 3) navigational aids.

As indicated, Apple can already do this with Ford and BMW vehicles. Clearly what we need is a DOT mandate to avoid vendor lock-in.

That's been a suggestion I've had for along time that would really help EV adoption. Two standard APIs:

One API for cars that allows it to tell a phone all the standard data needed for this sort of integration.

One API for charging locations to allow them to publish their locations, capabilities, and current utilization.

Once you have those then you have a really nicely even playing field.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Temerarius]

Clearly what we need is a DOT mandate to avoid vendor lock-in.

That's been a suggestion I've had for along time that would really help EV adoption. Two standard APIs:

One API for cars that allows it to tell a phone all the standard data needed for this sort of integration.

One API for charging locations to allow them to publish their locations, capabilities, and current utilization.

Once you have those then you have a really nicely even playing field.

Agreed, but until then, it sounds like 2-3 Navs for folks that don't like the idea of the in car nav. I will say, I do really like the Android Auto integration in the Volvo (since it does pull data from the car to handle routing and such) as it's a completely native experience and ties into my Google account and such.

And my Ram and Tesla nav works fine, it doesn't call out police stopped along the way, but gets me routed all the same (same routes and times with maybe a +/- of 3-5 minutes as the Waze my wife runs in the passenger seat because she's pretty sure Waze is better than the in car Nav). Plus, for the Tesla, it knows where to stop for charging and will precondition the battery for the best possible charging experience.

Either way, I have no stake in it, I'm just curious why the passion for these two specific options when they are (currently) limited in what they can do versus what the in car nav could do (specific to an EV). I generally use the in car options, especially in my Tesla (because 3-5 minutes doesn't matter that much to me in the long run, but missing a charging stop or getting a bad route based on bad SoC info/predictions would seriously fubar my day).

 

[JakiChan]

Agreed, but until then, it sounds like 2-3 Navs for folks that don't like the idea of the in car nav.

Why "2 or 3"? Why not 1?

I'll say this: If Rivian's nav doesn't include every feature from every other system then it's just a compromise. And a failure, from a certain perspective.

And you also left out one of the key benefits of Android Auto/CarPlay: The UI is pretty much the same no matter what car you're in. I had a head unit installed in my Ridgeline that supports CarPlay. My Porsche has CarPlay. That means that I have feature parity and support between two cars that are 6 years apart in age and infinitely apart in terms of form and function.

My partner, who is 76, just bought a brand new X2. I had to drive it home for him the day he got it because all the technology was just too much. But he admitted that CarPlay made all the difference. He learned CarPlay in his Mazda and how his BMW UI looks almost exactly like his Mazda UI...because it's Apple's UI. Many reviewers consider iDrive to be one of the best if not the best car experience going...and Apple beats it with a stick.

Having a UI I like in the car vs whatever crazy thing the manufacturer came up with is a big win.

Plus, for the Tesla, it knows where to stop for charging and will precondition the battery for the best possible charging experience.

And it does so very stupidly. Just compare the solutions it comes up with vs what you can do with ABRP. There's no option to say, minimize charging time. If Elon thinks you want one long stop then that's what you'll do, don't question it, it's Elon's Will!

The sorry state of Tesla navigation is the very reason I don't want to see a "singular vision" dictating how I use my car.

I'm just curious why the passion for these two specific options when they are (currently) limited in what they can do versus what the in car nav could do (specific to an EV).

Here's a few reasons:

• Those limitations are clearly artificial and temporary. Apple's work with BMW and Ford proves that.
• Some of us are rather allergic to vendor lock-in. We don't want someone deciding things for us we prefer options. Support for CarPlay/Android Auto gives us options. If Rivian's navigation is truly superior it will win. Forcing it by mandate is unappealing.
• We're skeptical of these EV manufacturers to make decent UIs. Tesla's UI has gotten worse over time, not better.
• OTA updates are nice, but there's no OTA update that will make the CPU in the car faster. As new smartphones come out the car gets an effective new brain. That's nice if you like to keep cars a while.

Just a few off the top of my head.

 

[Temerarius]

*shrug*

Clearly it's a big thing for you.

I'll give you the "UX is the same" but even there, you will have limitations (at least for now) when it comes to vehicle specific interactions (unless the drive is to force an API for things like in car HVAC, Security, Driving Setup, Driver Settings, etc...).

For me, though, it's not a point of passion. If I punch in a destination, does it get me there within a reasonable amount of time compared to CP/AA/Waze?

Yup... cool.

Does it know where to stop and charge with a reasonable amount of accuracy and efficiency? Can it precondition my battery? If not, I don't want anything to do with it.

Does it read and send text messages from my phone and allow me to change the temp or such of my car via voice commands? If not, then it sucks and needs an update and better integration.

As for Ford/BMW and Apple, that's cool, kinda not great for Android users, but I'd guess that Android is not far behind on that integration.

I would also point out, that it's using Alexa as a bit of a backbone (how much, I don't know), but I do know there are more and more vehicles integrating Alexa natively (like Android Auto), and I wouldn't push Amazon out of the game as being able to go toe to toe with Google or Apple in being able to build a robust platform.

Time will tell.

Either way, I can see why some folks are passionate about CP/AA, even if I don't agree with all of the motivation/drivers.

 

[AllInev]

software though... that can change in a heartbeat.

As a software developer for 10 years then tech lead and now director/manager of a development team, I wish that were true.

 

[lostpacket]

To me, I see pros and cons to a custom system -- but more cons than pros

• Rivian will have some car specific data and functions that a general nav system will not. But those can be added with standardized formats. It would be relatively easy for the host OS to feed data and register functions with AA/CP.
  
  
• Rivian will never replace the OS I have chosen for myself: my phone, my doorbell, my smoke detectors, my security cameras, my messaging, etc, etc. I have all the calendar settings, maps, messages, everything I need in one place. And Google Assistant is aware of it all and my Google account syncs it all flawlessly and seamlessly. I can look up a ski mountain on my desktop, star it on a map, and the directions are all set in my car when I get there.
  
  
• AA/CP also provides an entire ecosystem of apps. Rivian will not be able to compete with that.
  
  
• AA/CP means no need for an additional LTE subscription
  
  
• AA/CP means your wireless tech (RAM, SoC, LTE, etc) can be easily updated independently of the car.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that everyone is working on solving the same new car/ev problems separately and using it as leverage for platform lock in. As consumers we should want them to work together to develop data/interop standards. This is not just a dig on Rivian, but also on Apple, Google, Amazon, and Tesla. No one buys a car because they want to buy into your software ecosystem. The confusion these companies are causing is not good for easing adoption of EVs. There is nothing "forever" sustainable about platform lock in. We need something like OBDII

Nevertheless I suspect Rivian will possibly add AA/CP eventually when all or some of the following become true:

• The Head of product design realizes that they don't need to lock out other car OS software to define/maintain the brand. That's what the truck/SUV is for!
• Rivian realizes that not supporting AA/CP is a material disadvantage in what will be a massively competitive landscape, especially for electric SUVs
• RJ realizes letting Amazon dictate technology is an existential threat to a startup
• AA/CP have good and easy-to-use APIs for custom functions and battery/car data

That's my 2c anyways

 

[Temerarius]

As a software developer for 10 years then tech lead and now director/manager of a development team, I wish that were true.

Well... in comparison to hardware.

 

[astonius]

Many reviewers consider iDrive to be one of the best if not the best car experience going...and Apple beats it with a stick.

As an X5 owner with iDrive 7, I can confirm. iDrive is one of the best native systems I’ve used. I never use it. Car starts, boots immediately into wireless CarPlay, and I never even look at iDrive.

CarPlay UI isn’t mind blowing by any stretch, but it’s solid enough and way better since they added the split home view in iOS 14.

The focus on nav is only part of the equation. Music is every bit, if not more, important. Like you, I’m not switching to Spotify, no matter what RJ thinks. Spotify does not offer what Apple Music offers in terms of quality and the iCloud Music Library. This means that currently my only option for listening to this in the Rivian is Bluetooth audio, which is both lower fidelity and a worse interface. In fact, I believe @Iwantatesla said the Bluetooth audio interface isn’t even working in the current software build, just Spotify and radio. I believe he also said the phone integration is very basic, not even reading text messages.

The constant refrain from everyone for so many missing features is “it’s coming in an OTA update.” We’ve got a pretty hefty backlog of OTA update items already. Anyone who thinks Rivian is going to come up with something that competes with what CP/AA offers today (not to mention what’s coming in the next iterations of those platforms) in the next few years is dreaming.

 

[mgc0216]

Rivian made it pretty clear in their IPO Road Show video that collecting data from vehicles is a bit deal for them. There is almost certainly ways for them to monetize that data.

I am not well versed enough in AA/CP integration to understand how using those systems might affect their ability to collect and store (and monetize) relevant data.

Speaking of which: Is the privacy policy readily available (this is mostly rhetorical as I will google for it as soon as I hit "post reply")

 

[astonius]

Rivian made it pretty clear in their IPO Road Show video that collecting data from vehicles is a bit deal for them. There is almost certainly ways for them to monetize that data.

I am not well versed enough in AA/CP integration to understand how using those systems might affect their ability to collect and store (and monetize) relevant data.

They can still collect GPS data from the internal system. They likely can't capture all of the UI clicks and such, but for those of us who are adamant the built-in system won't serve our needs it won't matter anyway. We won't be using the built-in nav, bypassing it in favor of a suction-mounted phone, so withholding projection systems for this supposed benefit is moot.

 

[mgc0216]

They can still collect GPS data from the internal system. They likely can't capture all of the UI clicks and such, but for those of us who are adamant the built-in system won't serve our needs it won't matter anyway. We won't be using the built-in nav, bypassing it in favor of a suction-mounted phone, so withholding projection systems for this supposed benefit is moot.

I think it's deeper than just GPS data and I'm pretty sure they don't care about clicks on their own UI (from a monetization standpoint).

Also, I love CarPlay but I don't love it as much as I hate the idea of using a suction cup on the windshield of my $80,000 luxury vehicle. But to each their own in that regard.

 

[astonius]

I think it's deeper than just GPS data and I'm pretty sure they don't care about clicks on their own UI (from a monetization standpoint).

Also, I love CarPlay but I don't love it as much as I hate the idea of using a suction cup on the windshield of my $80,000 luxury vehicle. But to each their own in that regard.

So what other data would they be trying to capture?

I hate the idea of it too, haven't had to do that in years, but I'm not going to give up my navigation and music preferences just because Rivian doesn't support them. Even one of the employees documenting the truck on Instagram is using a suction mounted phone with Waze and ABRP. Like @JakiChan said about competition, if Rivian truly believed their system provided a superior experience then CP/AA would not compete, but give us the choice, just like 98% of manufacturers do. They apparently can't even convince their own employee it's better.

 

[mgc0216]

So what other data would they be trying to capture?

I hate the idea of it too, haven't had to do that in years, but I'm not going to give up my navigation and music preferences just because Rivian doesn't support them. Even one of the employees documenting the truck on Instagram is using a suction mounted phone with Waze and ABRP. Like @JakiChan said about competition, if Rivian truly believed their system provided a superior experience then CP/AA would not compete, but give us the choice, just like 98% of manufacturers do. They apparently can't even convince their own employee it's better.

one thing that comes to mind is search data (granted I work at google, so of course this is what comes to mind). If I searched for restaurants, which one did I pick (and which ones did rivian choose to serve back because they got an incentive to do so). Data monetization isn't my area of expertise, but I think that any time you have a large amount of data someone will buy it.

And, to your last point, I don't think they believe it's better. I think they believe controlling those systems is strategic to their mission (which is why I wonder if it's not related to data collection and monetization). You're essentially talking about a key way the user interacts with your product, so I can see why they'd want to control it.

Sponsored