Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

theturnsignalblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 537 posts

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#61

Post by potatolicious »

mannyv wrote: post #4

CarPlay mostly works, and although it has issues it's definitely user-focused. CarPlay doesn't prevent car makers from tracking vehicle activity. In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. It sucks, or it's AA/CarPlay. The first generation of iDrive showed that rich people people will buy cars in spite of the in-car stuff. In fact, most car infotainment sucks, yet people still buy cars…

> "So they have control? Control over what, exactly?"

I think a key thing to consider is that there are in fact three separate questions at play here:

1 - Does infotainment/software UI differentiation matter in the car market? Is there a significant enough market advantage for having better UI that anyone should care?

2 - If there is an advantage for better UI, is it enough of an edge that would compel you to build your own? Or is it the case where it simply has to be good enough?

3 - If there is enough differentiation to be worth building your own, is your company good enough at software to pull it off?

Personally I think the answer to #1 is YES. I think cars with better UIs - while not sufficient in and of itself - have a market advantage.

Where car makers start veering off from each other is the answer to #2. If you believe that you just need a "good enough" experience to not be actively awful, then you buy off-the-shelf. You see this with Volvo/Polestar and Google Automotive. The "skin" around the stock experience is minimal at best, with only minor customizations.

If you believe that being excellent at it confers some advantage, you'd try to roll your own. This would include folks like BMW and Mercedes-Benz.

Now, where the latter strategy really goes off the rails is question #3. That said, if you believe the answer to the first two questions compels you to roll your own - would you easily surrender to a third-party? Or would you at least try to level up your software orgs to make a serious play?

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#62

Post by resource_waste »

oldpersonintx wrote: post #3

Apple is a predatory partner Every partnership Apple enters must result in Apple winning and the other party simply being a subservient cog So, no one wants to do business with them in new markets where Apple doesn't have leverage This is why they couldn't get a manufacturing partner for the now-dead Apple car...no one wanted to be the Foxconn of cars (they do all the work, Apple gets all the credit)

How would Apple not have leverage in the car market? There are 18 companies and only 1 Apple Logo.

I think Apple failed on cars because they are significantly more complex then hobbling off-the-shelf electrical parts together and slapping an OS on it. Think of how many companies can assemble electronics and make OS. Its easy, literal sub 18 year olds make prototypes like this.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#63

Post by cbm-vic-20 »

gmadsen wrote: post #26
xyst wrote: post #17

I used to be fascinated with Apple but I no longer want anything to do with them. I could care less if my car has Apple or android auto at this point. I would rip it out immediately if it had one. Any always on connectivity would be removed. Car manufacturers are increasingly selling off your private data and leveraging all of these technology upgrades you paid for to do it. As soon as the car is connected to the int…

kind of funny a back up camera is now considered a "dumb" car feature

Back-up cameras have been required on all new vehicles in the US and Canada since 2018.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#65

Post by poisonborz »

paxys wrote: post #7

We are in the golden age of phone car integration, so enjoy it while it lasts. In a few more years 100% of auto manufacturers are going to start charging a monthly subscription for this, split between them and Apple/Google.

People would just buy a head unit for a fixed price, and use the built in screen only for adjusting aircon and whatever is vehicle-specific. Also carmakers would never give up to have a total control over their car screen like this. They are struggling for a decade now with more and more horrid iterations, with no end in sight.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#66

Post by baseballdork »

sandworm101 wrote: post #39
mannyv wrote: post #4

CarPlay mostly works, and although it has issues it's definitely user-focused. CarPlay doesn't prevent car makers from tracking vehicle activity. In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. It sucks, or it's AA/CarPlay. The first generation of iDrive showed that rich people people will buy cars in spite of the in-car stuff. In fact, most car infotainment sucks, yet people still buy cars…

>> In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. Drivers don't car, but I think car buyers actually do. Remember that many people are not buying cars for themselves but for other people, usually family. They fall into the trap of thinking that those other people might want such features, if not now then in the future. Look at automatic transmissions. I know many people who much prefer man…

> Remember that many people are not buying cars for themselves but for other people, usually family.

Can you explain this? I guess maybe the devil is in "many"?

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#67

Post by itishappy »

ramshorst wrote: post #9

As CarPlay aims to dominate even more screens in our cars, isn't Apple simply replacing buttons and dials with potentially distracting and fingerprint-smeared touch screens just to extend its software reach?

This seems like an odd thing to blame Apple for. They never provided those buttons and dials.

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#68

Post by dap »

StephenSmith wrote: post #12

If you're in the market for a new-to-you car, then I recommend looking at the model years where they switch from wired car-play to wireless car-play and buying the previous model-year. Typically this difference of one model-year can add thousands to the cost of the vehicle, especially because wireless car-play is so coveted. The experience of wireless is fantastic, but is it worth several thousand dollars? Maybe, but…

I am not sure if this would be a problem with wireless as well, but I've had very inconsistent experiences having Carplay start at all using a dongle. I'd say right now it works about 70% of the time, and about 25% of the time when it doesn't, I can get it working by unplugging and re-plugging after the car is on. The rest of the time I have to stop the car and start it for it to work. This all started about a year ago though. (2022 RAV4 Prime, multiple iPhone and iOS versions, genuine Apple lightning cable, both with and without an extra Lightning->USBC dongle.)

Re: Apple's risky bet on CarPlay

#69

Post by krater23 »

vsdlrd wrote: post #40
mannyv wrote: post #4

CarPlay mostly works, and although it has issues it's definitely user-focused. CarPlay doesn't prevent car makers from tracking vehicle activity. In the end, consumers don't give a shit about the in-vehicle infotainment. It sucks, or it's AA/CarPlay. The first generation of iDrive showed that rich people people will buy cars in spite of the in-car stuff. In fact, most car infotainment sucks, yet people still buy cars…

I thought about that as well. At the moment, CarPlay can't take over every function so carmakers still have to make their own. But in the long term, there is an opportunity for Apple to make the whole thing and monetize it as a cost-saver to carmakers

No, never. This would mean to concentrate only to customers with Apple devices. Why should a carmaker do this?
Post reply on HN