New CarPlay Support Email?

[yizzung]

it feels likes that to you but maybe you arre the one unable to grok correctly. Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean they cannot reason correctly. They just disagree with your opinion. Bringing carplay to the entertainment system does not turn it into a “dumb combo of metal and plastic or forfeit future revenue streams to big tech” in my opinion. I disagree with you there completely. It simply gives options to the consumer. I like options. Nothing is preventing Rivian from building a better app ecosystem in their media system. They just simply haven’t done it yet. Maybe they are working on it. However, They are grossly lacking in app options right now.

Well you ignored my two examples of total value extraction from TV sets and mobile phones from OEMs to Apple/Google. Then you reverted to your opinion about what you want as a consumer, ignoring the underlying economics and implications for the business.

I don’t begrudge you for wanting these things, as a consumer, but that’s the only argument for Rivian to do what you’re asking them to do. And I’m saying that consumer sentiment alone likely won’t move the needle, just in my opinion.

You’re free to disagree with me but you seem to be simultaneously making my point that you don’t really understand why they would have very obvious reasons not do it…

Sponsored

 

[Toadkillerdog]

Well you ignored my two examples of total value extraction from TV sets and mobile phones from OEMs to Apple/Google. Then you reverted to your opinion about what you want as a consumer, ignoring the underlying economics and implications for the business.

I don’t begrudge you for wanting these things, as a consumer, but that’s the only argument for Rivian to do what you’re asking them to do. And I’m saying that consumer sentiment alone likely won’t move the needle, just in my opinion.

You’re free to disagree with me but you seem to be simultaneously making my point that you don’t really understand why they would have very obvious reasons not do it…

I do understand your points but disagree with your logic and conclusion. That’s all I have said. You make points, offer up shady conclusions as proof and are upset when I don’t agree. Rivian has their reasons for not including CarPlay but I think they are misguided. Multibillion dollar corporations make judgment errors all the time. I think this is one of them.

I think everyone understands that Rivian wants to milk the consumer for money. Everyone is implementing this model. I merely want the CarPlay and xm radio apps aside from that. If they dont give it to me, fine. I will still buy the vehicle, but imho it will be an inferior experience. They certainly have a minimal media App offering so far right now, unfortunately.

 

[yizzung]

I do understand your points but disagree with your logic and conclusion. That’s all I have said. You make points, offer up shady conclusions as proof and are upset when I don’t agree.

hahahaha

 

[Toadkillerdog]

hahahaha

I really do understand what you are getting at but think it’s a mistake on Rivians part to go this way and don’t think it is a threat to them if they implement CarPlay or xm radio. . I just choose to disagree with you. Your reasoning makes sense to you but doesn’t convince me that it is a good idea on Rivian’s part. Can we just leave it at that? We both must love this truck, right?

 

[jtshaw]

You're not addressing the contradiction in your argument. Also the Alexa functionality contradicts your argument, it doesn't prove or even support your supposition that Rivian would arbitrarily neglect to support Carplay and Android Auto, nor do you explain why Tesla deliberates keeps Apple and Google out of their vehicles.
My observation is just at the business strategy level, not the technology, but for an example of the features and functionality of integration, I have a '21 F-150 Hybrid that supports Carplay and Android Auto. It has a "multi-screen" instrument panel and both Apple and Google work fine; far from great, but they do work. Ford, Rivian and Tesla should all offer HUD. GM, the dullard of the auto industry, has had a pretty good HUD for years. Personally, what I'd like to see Rivian build is a multi-user integration platform (for four occupants to all be able to connect their phones simultaneously) regardless of Carplay or Android Auto.

Apple and Google should put some effort into Carplay and Android Auto, but I suspect they want a bigger slice of the UX pie, which they are building with other car makers.

?‍ I don't think there is any contradiction in my argument. Your point was that Amazon was dictating this behavior in your original post and I see no evidence that supports that being true.

Alexa integration like Rivian is doing gives them complete control of the UX hand-off points. Rivian can define actions and what they do relevant to the car and they can lean on Amazon's NLU technology stack which is expensive to build yourself. CarPlay and AA don't currently allow apps that function across screens. The fancy nav split across both displays wouldn't work, for example. They also wouldn't be able to have quite the same tight integration they can provide as far as trip management (highlighting chargers to use, etc). I also suspect Rivian has a long list of very "adventure" specific software features that they want to deliver.

That all said, I think the biggest headwind is probably that they want to ensure the most number of customers possible continue their Rivian Membership, which is a critical revenue stream for them according to the S1 filing pre-IPO. Connectivity is part of the Membership fees and if a significant percentage of users end up using AA or CP for, they might not renew.

 

[AllInev]

The tech mantra of "never buy a product today on the promise of future software updates."

?

 

[astonius]

Alexa integration like Rivian is doing gives them complete control of the UX hand-off points. Rivian can define actions and what they do relevant to the car and they can lean on Amazon's NLU technology stack which is expensive to build yourself. CarPlay and AA don't currently allow apps that function across screens. The fancy nav split across both displays wouldn't work, for example. They also wouldn't be able to have quite the same tight integration they can provide as far as trip management (highlighting chargers to use, etc). I also suspect Rivian has a long list of very "adventure" specific software features that they want to deliver.

CarPlay does support multiple screen implementations, but the manufacturer has to do some work on their end to support it. BMW supports it today.

 

[crashmtb]

I only use CarPlay/android auto as a bandaid for crummy built in-systems. Which is mostly in rental cars!

on a 5000 mile road trip currently, I’m using sync 3 in my ford.Deliberately have CarPlay off. It works great, and I don‘t worry about my map disappearing in the middle of nowhere.

I’m not complaining about a lack of CarPlay without knowing if it’s necessary or not.

 

[jtshaw]

CarPlay does support multiple screen implementations, but the manufacturer has to do some work on their end to support it. BMW supports it today.

It's possible this has changed, but last I looked at the implementation details it allowed you to mirror an app on both displays or have 1 app running on each. I don't believe it allowed having a different view from the same app on both like Rivian (or Tesla on the S and X) does. The latter would also require app developers to do a bunch of work.

 

[astonius]

It's possible this has changed, but last I looked at the implementation details it allowed you to mirror an app on both displays or have 1 app running on each. I don't believe it allowed having a different view on both like Rivian (or Tesla on the S and X) does. The latter would also require app developers to do a bunch of work.

I don't have the latest iDrive system, but if you consider a HUD a second screen it does not show the same thing as the main display. It shows arrows and guidance text for Apple Maps. I didn't see an up-close view of the new iDrive in the i4, but the gauge cluster seems to be showing a different view than the main display.

 

[yizzung]

I really do understand what you are getting at but think it’s a mistake on Rivians part to go this way and don’t think it is a threat to them if they implement CarPlay or xm radio. . I just choose to disagree with you. Your reasoning makes sense to you but doesn’t convince me that it is a good idea on Rivian’s part. Can we just leave it at that? We both must love this truck, right?

It's all good. We both must, indeed.

I'm not trying to win hearts and minds here. Just bored as hell waiting for Rivian to build my truck and ship it to me... I've worked in Silicon Valley for over 20 years, worked at two of the biggest household-name software companies in the world, and was one of Google's largest API partner for 3.5 years. You're free to disagree with my "shady conclusions" -- most on here do just that when it comes to AA/CP -- but most disagree with me because they are consumers that just want UX satisfaction, not because they disagree with the underlying economics.

This is the exact the same thing that consumers angrily demanded from Nokia/LG/Samsung in phones (where Android has destroyed the market cap of every manufacturer except Apple). Here's market share in North America today after Google's friendly incursion into the market: Android has 88.57%, IOS has 11.08% and Samsung has 0.25%...

In TVs -- not yet as consolidated as phones -- Google's Chromecast has a share of five percent and Android TV also has a share of five percent. Samsung (13 percent), Amazon (18 percent) and Roku (31 percent) make up the rest of the market with some scraps going to Apple. (Think Samsung learned anything from getting is ass kicked in phones by Google as they now try to defend their TV platform share?)

If you don't think this is a worry in cars, you may ultimately be right, but Apple has been rumored for years to be working on its own car (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/29/apple-carplay-massive-success-paves-way-for-automotive-entry.html). Google ("Alphabet") owns a self-driving car company, Waymo, that was once valued at 2X Rivian's current market cap, although it has come back down to earth ($30B est) in recent funding. They're sitting on something like $3B in cash?

Some estimate that the "connected car" market will grow north of 25% CAGR, while the dumb metal-box-on-wheels market will grow at only 3%. Tesla knows this. Rivian knows this too. We're at the beginning of a new era, aka a land grab. This is the reason Tesla (and Rivian) have insane multiples. Rivian isn't more valuable than Volkswagen because of its unique fender design or clever spare tire storage.

I'm not the only one to reach these "shady conclusions" about AA/CP. People smarter than me in the automotive space understand that these tech platforms are trojan horses and that their motives are not benign (https://www.automotiveworld.com/art...-automakers-the-battle-for-the-connected-car/).

Ford has fought like hell to keep big tech at bay but recently got in bed with Google (https://jalopnik.com/heres-why-ford-and-googles-partnership-actually-makes-s-1846173378). GM got in bed with Microsoft. This might make sense for these OEMs because both bring huge market share, aka bargaining power, to the table. (Rivian with 0% market share, has none, BTW.) All depends on what they give up but both OEMs are signaling that they're not capable of competing or developing their own consumer-loved solutions. (Note both company's market caps.)

Will any of that business logic keep AA/CP out of the Rivian cockpit? Hard to say. Consumers with pitchforks can be a powerful force. (See TV market. See phone market. See smart speaker market.) Can Tesla and Rivian survive the surge? Don't know. It's incumbent upon them to develop solutions that consumers will like just as much if not more. If they don't, then they'll probably fold just like OEMs in other spaces and leave all that money on the table. If that happens, consumers may get a temporary win in the UX but if/when that happens it'll be time to start shorting Rivian stock IMO.

 

[jtshaw]

I don't have the latest iDrive system, but if you consider a HUD a second screen it does not show the same thing as the main display. It shows arrows and guidance text for Apple Maps. I didn't see an up-close view of the new iDrive in the i4, but the gauge cluster seems to be showing a different view than the main display.

Nice, I just read through the APIs. It does seem they added split view support way back in iOS 13, it's just almost no cars supported it until more recently (BMW and select VW's seem to support it now, unclear who else). I can't find a good list of apps that actually implement it (Apple Maps and Waze definitely do). That would certainly make it a lot more functional but still doesn't solve the overall UX control issue that I suspect product folks at Rivian and Tesla debate constantly (or the financial side regarding membership, or the data integration issues).

It also seems like Android Auto did something similar, but of course, implemented it differently.

 

[the long way downunder]

?‍ I don't think there is any contradiction in my argument. Your point was that Amazon was dictating this behavior in your original post and I see no evidence that supports that being true.

Alexa integration like Rivian is doing gives them complete control of the UX hand-off points. Rivian can define actions and what they do relevant to the car and they can lean on Amazon's NLU technology stack which is expensive to build yourself. CarPlay and AA don't currently allow apps that function across screens. The fancy nav split across both displays wouldn't work, for example. They also wouldn't be able to have quite the same tight integration they can provide as far as trip management (highlighting chargers to use, etc). I also suspect Rivian has a long list of very "adventure" specific software features that they want to deliver.

That all said, I think the biggest headwind is probably that they want to ensure the most number of customers possible continue their Rivian Membership, which is a critical revenue stream for them according to the S1 filing pre-IPO. Connectivity is part of the Membership fees and if a significant percentage of users end up using AA or CP for, they might not renew.

The contradiction is that there's clear business advantage to Amazon for Rivian to exclude Apple and Google, but you disagree because there's no proof (fair enough) while posting that Amazon isn't influencing Rivian with no proof. Observing that Rivian has coded for Spotify is not relevant, nor is the architecture of home automation and voice interfaces (not that I'm a fan of Google listening in on my conversations, but it's a helluva lot more natural and effective than Alexa … and Siri is just plain brain dead.
I just thumbed back through this thread and see there's multiple back-n-forth on the topic, so I think there's some crossover of arguments leading to miscommunication (a shocking thing for an Internet forum … : )
My bottom line as stated by others is simply that Apple and Google are not dealbreakers – I think that's the feedback those companies should take to their product people. Tesla and BYD have both gone the vertical integration route (which Apple has maintained strategically for decades and is now stacked right down to the silicon) so I don't see this carplay/android auto approach as a long term strategy, more like Alpine and Kenwood "heads" … used to be state of the art, didn't make the transition to touchscreens in cars (I imagine they tried.) Like Garmin and nav … seemingly quit without even a struggle … how is it that Garmin isn't the most common app on phones, watches and "the" nav in cars? It's a tough game, especially when Apple and Google want your customer. Given your insider knowledge of Amazon, perhaps you can explain how and why Amazon doesn't compete with Apple and Google in key markets like phones, watches, wearables and leaves Samsung and LG alone in consumer products from TVs to fridges and almost every other major household durable purchase, yet burns serious R&D on Fire and Alexa … mystifying …
(and yeah, we're way off topic … sorry)

 

[R1T7777]

I certainly understand why some folks are upset about this, even if I'm not. But FWIW I think the theories about Rivian's rationale are verging into conspiracy territory.

I don't think it's about subscription upsells, or data collection, or licensing fees, or anything that cynical. It's about owning the end to end user experience.

Look at everything else Rivian is doing - first-party charging networks, service networks, direct sales, deep partnerships leading to a curated selection of accessories, integrated fleet offerings, membership programs, Guides, etc. They want to be able to design the full experience you have with the car.

Android Auto and CarPlay turn the infotainment stack into a dumb terminal. It may be desirable in the abstract to some consumers, but from Rivian's point of view it creates all kinds of problems. How do you make sure that the mapping interface routes cars to compatible chargers? Is it aware of the truck's state of charge? Is the audio high quality and optimized for the sound system? Is the interface latency and display quality up to snuff? Can you still control media playback if you e.g. switch to the Drive Mode screen? How does it interact with the binnacle display? And a thousand et ceteras.

No, none of those are absolute dealbreakers, and I'm sure some of you are thinking right now "so what, I can work around those / manage my own solution / manage multiple interfaces." And that's valid for you. But this is very much a "vertical integration" vs. "open ecosystem" debate and it's clear what side Rivian has chosen, and reasonably so. I've driven plenty of vehicles where AA/CarPlay are a confusing mess and you're constantly bouncing between totally different interfaces.

If I'm Rivian's experience team, I don't want to offload that to customers just to please a subset of power users. Instead I want to identify their actual customer problems ("I want to be able to play Spotify," "I want high quality mapping and traffic data," "I want to see my text messages...") and solve those in a thoughtful, integrated way that plays to the vehicle's strengths.

This is exactly what Tesla has done, and certainly opinions vary. But personally I love that I never have to think about my phone or iOS when I'm driving my Model Y. The infotainment system is just right for my needs, thoughtfully integrated with the vehicle's controls, and a better user experience than CarPlay. I'm confident Rivian can get there too for my needs, even if it won't make everyone happy.

My point here is not that anyone is wrong to want AA/CarPlay - you want what you want, and that's fine. If it's a deal breaker, I understand. My point is just that you don't need to dig for conspiratorial reasons why Rivian is doing this. Slapping someone else's UI in the middle of your interface is a design kludge and inconsistent with everything about Rivian's brand and product philosophy.

This is a very thoughtful response and has helped me deal with the disappointment of not having Google Maps and the other convenient aspects of Android Auto. I guess I just hope I’m not forced to use Spotify for music when I have YTM premium, and I hope my Google Maps data can be imported or linked with the nav system so my searched/saved/reviewed locations pop up.
If they build an ecosystem that gives me choice and an excellent coherent experience, I’ll have nothing to complain about.

 

[astonius]

Nice, I just read through the APIs. It does seem they added split view support way back in iOS 13, it's just almost no cars supported it until more recently (BMW and select VW's seem to support it now, unclear who else). I can't find a good list of apps that actually implement it (Apple Maps and Waze definitely do). That would certainly make it a lot more functional but still doesn't solve the overall UX control issue that I suspect product folks at Rivian and Tesla debate constantly (or the financial side regarding membership, or the data integration issues).

It also seems like Android Auto did something similar, but of course, implemented it differently.

I agree with the theory that a native, well-integrated platform is ultimately the best possible outcome. It's probably the reason I prefer macOS/iOS over Windows/Android as it nails the tight integration between hardware and software. But for Rivian, in practice, there is a massive gap between that ideal and reality for the foreseeable future or longer. What Rivian has delivered with the state of their system today and what little insight we've been given into the future of that system is a massive gap from that ideal, particularly in the breadth of their offerings. We can speculate, but there's zero concrete information about the future state of their infotainment offerings.

To use an example, I don't care how much better the native Spotify experience is if I don't use Spotify. I use Apple Music, and that's not going to change simply because of my vehicle. Ideally Rivian would provide a native Apple Music application, but the reality is there's been zero indication this is going to happen at all, let alone anytime soon.

One might argue "you can just use the bluetooth connection." That's true, it is an option, but it's not a very good one. The interface is generic. The audio quality is lesser. I can't switch between media applications without looking at my phone. There are all sorts of drawbacks using the infotainment as a glorified bluetooth speaker. This was a fine solution 10 years ago, but in modern vehicles it is a distinct step backwards.

This is where CarPlay (or Android Auto) fills in the gaps. It's not the ideal, best user experience, but it's certainly better than a generic bluetooth connection. We get better sound quality, a better user interface (compared to bluetooth), and the ability to control it all without touching our phones while driving. It's an established, near-ubiquitous solution to a perfectly reasonable and valid user concern, otherwise these platforms wouldn't exist.

Give me native apps when they're available. Give me bluetooth for its breadth of applications. But also give me CP/AA to fill in the gaps that automakers cannot or will not fill.

Sponsored