Ford Keeping Carplay and Android Auto For Safety Reasons while GM is Removing It...For Safety Reasons...

Posted by TanStarfield@reddit | cars | View on Reddit | 236 comments

I'm thinking Ford is going to win the PR battle with this. GM appears to just be looking for money from subscriptions, especially since the "safety" argument is a new one from them. https://www.androidauthority.com/ford-keep-android-auto-carplay-safety-3393955/

Reply to Post

Reply

236 Comments

[-]

TanStarfield@reddit (OP)

Safer.... https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/20/gm-carplay-new-software-reviews/

Reply

[-]

Maleficent_String606@reddit

GM is truly clueless if they think that people will not only believe their claims but also voluntarily abandon ecosystems they use every day.

Reply

[-]

colin_staples@reddit

I have no opinions on whether it is safe/unsafe or whatever. But a LOT of customers want CarPlay and Android Auto in their brand new car (and a few years down the line that will mean in a used car which won't earn GM a new car sale but will mean revenue in parts and servicing) and they will make their choice accordingly Not every consumer, obviously. Tesla doesn't have CarPlay. And some consumers are fiercely brand-loyal and will never switch to "the other side" But some will switch. Some will see GM's choice as consumer-hostile. Especially when one goal is to lock in recurring subscriptions which GM is on record as saying they expect to bring in billions. Regardless of if CarPlay is safer or not, it's an unpopular decision and Ford is obviously trying to take advantage of their rivals' mistake.

Reply

[-]

katherinesilens@reddit

Tesla only really gets away with it, barely, because of how good their innate infotainment control is. It's not as good but it is pretty functional... and that's after dumping far more development into it than other automakers. I really don't get what GMC is doing here. Just looking at the size of their software arm there is no chance this will work out in their favor. It's just not possible unless they hire services that will be far more expensive than whatever it costs to license CarPlay and Android Auto.

Reply

[-]

DonnieJL@reddit

GM will just pass those costs, along with a markup. They'll come up with some Customer Electronics Convenience Package or something, add some obnoxious markup, and tell customers to take it or leave it.

Reply

[-]

designCN@reddit

I rented a model 3 last year for a week and as someone that absolutely sucks at directions, the map was amazing. Didn't like everything was touch control, but the map being on a giant table was so freaking useful for me. My ND Miata with aftermarket wireless AA is a bit of the PITA to setup, but when it works it's fine. Can't necessarily just hop in the car, put in the address, and go like the tesla

Reply

[-]

Twombls@reddit

Android auto and Apple carplay both work like that. I give Android auto a slight advantage because it's really good at predicting where you want to go. Although kinda creepy because it does obviously browse your browsing history.

Reply

[-]

nucleartime@reddit

> Can't necessarily just hop in the car, put in the address, and go ... that's how my aftermarket wireless AA works? Well there's a short startup delay for the wireless adapter to bootup, but once that's done, you put in the address and go. Plugging my phone in is slightly faster, but ehhhhhhhh.

Reply

[-]

ZannX@reddit

It takes most cars at least 15 seconds to boot the infotainment, get it to connect to your phone, and reach a point where you can actually input an address. This assumes everything is working correctly and you didn't have connection issues (wireless or not). Teslas are 'always on' and good to go the moment you get in. It's a small thing on paper, but in practice it's fairly significant in terms of experience delta.

Reply

[-]

nucleartime@reddit

Eh, I just start the car before I buckle my seatbelt and check my mirrors and all that jazz. It's usually good to go by the time I've finished my pre-drive checks. Honestly the most annoying thing has been wireless AA dropping me off my home wifi in my garage with shit cell reception.

Reply

[-]

ZannX@reddit

Keep in mind EVs don't need any of the ICE preflights like warming the engine etc. I have a Tesla EV, a non-Tesla EV, and experience owning every ICE (automatic, CVT, stick). There is nothing that comes close to the convenience of getting into a Tesla and going.

Reply

[-]

Corsair4@reddit

>ICE preflights like warming the engine etc Have you driven an ICE from the last 50 years? "Warming the engine" is not really a thing unless you're flooring it out of the parking lot.

Reply

[-]

ZannX@reddit

I don't think there's significant 'pre-flight' in ICE either, but I'm responding to the guy who claims to have to do all this preflight before he can even start considering searching for his destination on his infotainment. But, I'm also not expecting reasonable discourse on this sub when it comes to EVs or Tesla. I think the bottom line is that you would need to experience it to feel what the difference is. Again, it sounds trivial on paper, but my personal experience having owned and driven many varieties of cars is that the Tesla experience is different.

Reply

[-]

Corsair4@reddit

You're pointing out how unreasonable discourse is, and in the same breath, making the argument that a 15 second time differential is in any way significant, or that ICEs need to "warm the engine". In practice, I don't have that differential at all, because I can either put the address in my phone before I get to the car, or I put it in after I've already pulled out of my apartment complex. My sense of direction is decent enough that I can at least pull out of my apartment complex and make my way to the nearest highway without needing navigation for that. So if you're making the argument that the Tesla saves time because it's always on, well - I'm gonna make the argument that my phone saves time because it's in my pocket and I can even push navigation to my phone from any computer in my house before I put my shoes on. That's also a ridiculous argument, but then, so is this entire discussion.

Reply

[-]

nucleartime@reddit

Teslas still have seatbelts and mirrors and seat adjustments such. If it's a longer drive, I'm gonna empty out my pockets. None of these things are really ICE related. I guess you can turn on the heated seats and AC remotely, but like ehhhhh I usually don't think that far ahead.

Reply

[-]

ZannX@reddit

I'm not aware of a single person that needs to readjust mirrors and seats every time they get into their car, nevermind a Tesla. Most cars have saved profiles now. Bottom line, just go experience it.

Reply

[-]

snoo-suit@reddit

My girlfriend is way shorter than me, but 2 clicks is all you need to adjust everything to my saved driver profile.

Reply

[-]

designCN@reddit

It does not like the Miata infotainment. Not all are made the same.

Reply

[-]

mags87@reddit

A really smart thing they did was just integrate Google Maps into the system as the navigation and then contracted with AT&T for data.

Reply

[-]

katherinesilens@reddit

Oh yeah, beats a phone on a mount any day. It's got some bugs in the nav (tells me to make illegal u-turns) but it's so nice to have a giant tablet for your nav. I think the only way to improve it would be to center it in vision with a dash integration (like S/X do) or a HUD. I wasn't keen on paying 40-50K for that though.

Reply

[-]

shoopg@reddit

Yeah, it has native apps for things like Spotify and Google Maps so there's less interference from a "infotainment system." If you've used any GM infotainment system since well, ever, you'll know how bad of an experience it is. CarPlay and Android Auto was a saving grace for these manufacturers since it removed their awful UIs and replaced it with the one UI they are using daily. Then they realized customers were no longer opting for the $1000 nav package where they could sell a monthly subscription or $499 yearly map updates lmao.

Reply

[-]

delebojr@reddit

>Tesla has native apps for things like Spotify and Google Maps so there's less interference from a "infotainment system." If you've used any GM infotainment system since well, ever, you'll know how bad of an experience it is. GM also has native Spotify, Google Maps, Waze, etc. They use Android Automotive now.

Reply

[-]

BossPat@reddit

eh. their recent infotainments since 2017 have been pretty good. They're more intuitive than other OEM's rental cars that I've driven. (I've been on the road the past couple of years and have driven Fords, Chryslers, Audis, Toyotas, BMW, and Hondas) On GM cars, the only one that was bad was the Cadillac's which was slow on the ATS/CTS, but they've upgraded the processors on those, and really responsive now. The google based ones are pretty good -- Responsive and clean and with enough physical buttons still, Has the ma Now I'm not defending this practice at all, which seems to be a ploy to lock to subscriptions. But I'm just saying that there are worse experiences out there.

Reply

[-]

TKFT_ExTr3m3@reddit

IMO android auto is safer because it's easier to and people are used to it. When I drive my mom's 2016 Highlander, while not a new car it's not terrible old either, I don't use the internal nav system. It's clunky, hard to use and out of date. It doesn't have traffic or construction info unless you pay a subscription and it's overall it just sucks compared to Google maps. Unless I was lost without cell reception I wouldn't touch it. So I use my phone, small screen that I have to pick up and look at and overall less safe then a proper head unit. When I'm in my car with my aftermarket HU it's much safer to use the navi.

Reply

[-]

DarkSideMoon@reddit

I wouldn’t buy a new or relatively new used car without CarPlay. Not a single automaker knows how to make an infotainment system that isn’t complete garbage.

Reply

[-]

Snap305@reddit

New Toyota UI is really, really good imo. Funny thing is - it automatically switches to AA or Carplay when it's connected, meaning you never even have to use the Toyota UI. Quite funny because they know that's what customers will do anyway. I love it

Reply

[-]

blainestang@reddit

It may matter less for non-EVs, but the Ford EV infotainment+Carplay is definitely inferior to Tesla. Of Tesla is complete garbage, then Ford is worse and I’ll take the “complete garbage” any day. Source: own a Ford EV w/ CarPlay

Reply

[-]

Formber@reddit

While I think the Sync 3 system in my Ranger is perfectly fine and usable. The map is decent and the controls are easy and responsive, I still use Android Auto every day because it's just a better experience to have it entirely integrated with my phone and music apps.

Reply

[-]

balthisar@reddit

Same. I've got Sync 4 in two vehicles, and as long as I wouldn't have to pay to subscribe, I'd be happy with it if I didn't have CarPlay. Mostly I use CarPlay because it's there, and I prefer Ford's nav to any of the CarPlay-compatible apps. I'm potentially willing to pay a subscription for live map data, but if it's stupid expensive, then, no, I want CarPlay. I'm still waiting to see what BlueCruise costs after three years. I got it on the understanding it was only $600/3 years, but newer Mach E drivers are being told it's now $800 per year, and no word for Expedition.

Reply

[-]

DragoonJumper@reddit

800..per YEAR?

Reply

[-]

balthisar@reddit

Yup.

Reply

[-]

Hustletron@reddit

That’s the key point to me. It is one and the same with my phone. Sure car companies can try but I will always prefer the 100% seamless experience my phone will have with itself (essentially).

Reply

[-]

Mental_Medium3988@reddit

For real. Even if they are rhetoric same app I don't want to be forced to sign in again in my car and have that harvesting data that way. I'm sure there'd be something the automakers could get that they can't from Android auto or carplay..

Reply

[-]

Pull_Pin_Throw_Away@reddit

Try a Tesla. I consider car play to be hot garbage after getting used to their system, it's smoother and more reliable. Android Auto is a buggy mess in my Ford, with the added bonus that the rest of the touch UI outside AA sucks donkey balls too.

Reply

[-]

DarkSideMoon@reddit

Climate control on the touchscreen is a no from me dog.

Reply

[-]

Pull_Pin_Throw_Away@reddit

It's on the wheel now as well as voice commands. TBH the only time I ever even adjust it is for defogging, otherwise the auto does a very good job in concert with the seat heat in auto mode.

Reply

[-]

Corsair4@reddit

>as well as voice commands Fine as a supplement, should never be a primary control point. My dad has a bit of an accent - people understand him just fine, voice control doesn't. The lovely thing about a button is that it doesn't care.

Reply

[-]

obeytheturtles@reddit

Have you ever actually used a decent automatic system? The most I do day to day is bump the set temperature up or down a couple degrees. With Tesla in particular, it's all about pre-heating/cooling the car before you get in it, so there's basically never any reason to be fiddling with the fans and whatnot while driving.

Reply

[-]

lordtema@reddit

Tbf, i feel like Ford has done the climate controls on touch screen pretty well on the Mach-E, and especially so after the recent upgrade where you can use the volume wheel to control the temp and fan speeds when toggling them, add to the fact that the climate controls are fixed at the bottom of the screen!

Reply

[-]

HOONIGAN-@reddit

The latest GM Android Automotive based infotainment is good, from my experience. And some versions of it do have CarPlay/AA. I believe only the EVs are currently missing it.

Reply

[-]

natesully33@reddit

I put up with the lack of CarPlay in my Y, not having it is very much an anti-feature since it's about the best way to play music on my phone. Bluetooth isn't as great quality or UX wise. It's definitely something that makes me look at other BEVs. Ford has Carplay and Android Auto, but their ADAS is subscription based - can't win 'em all I guess.

Reply

[-]

blainestang@reddit

Tesla infotainment and navigation comfortably beats Ford’s implementation of CarPlay, IMO. Some might disagree depending on their use case, but there are several annoying misses with Ford’s system in my Lightning.

Reply

[-]

Specific-Gain5710@reddit

I wouldn’t NOT buy a car because it didn’t have apple CarPlay, but I will listen to Apple Music through a Bluetooth speaker before I subscribe to any half ass thing that GM or any of company comes out with to replace it.

Reply

[-]

armada127@reddit

It has nothing to do with safety one way or the other, I think the difference with Tesla's infotainment system is that the processor powering it all is way more powerful than anything GM is putting in their vehicles, so the menus are smooth and fast, if GM put as much effort into it as Tesla, they could probably get away with it, but if they don't, I feel like there will be a significant portion of the market that will choose not to buy their products. All that said, the real reason GM is doing this is because they want the telemetry data.

Reply

[-]

whoiam06@reddit

Just to go further with this, I'm a used car buyer, next car will have android auto. If not, I'm not buying it. I know GM doesn't get the money in secondary sales, but if the depreciation is high enough, will people even bother buying it to begin with? And like you said there will be brand loyalist and some people will buy it if it's cheap enough. Some people might get suckered into it and think they would be able to change out the head unit but won't be able because everything is integrated into the infotainment system. (Already have this problem with an 06 Acura w/ Navi. I would have to replace the dash console with one that ADDS in HVAC controls because it's currently integrated with the head unit and it's like $300 just for that piece. Then add in the unit + other bits and bobs and installation, makes it not worth it.)

Reply

[-]

fallinouttadabox@reddit

Even now, I won't buy a used car that can't have the head unit swapped for something with Android Auto/car play. There's a slew of cars from the late aughts/early teens that on paper are great but just wouldn't interest me at all

Reply

[-]

TheNerdNamedChuck@reddit

I like android auto but I think at the end of the day all I really need is a solid phone mount and bluetooth/aux/FM transmitter for music and I'm fine my car doesn't even have a smart screen for infotainment (it's a 2007 lol I don't think anything "average" in 07 had one) so I guess I wouldn't really know but my phone is faster and more responsive than any infotainment anyway, and if I have music playing from my phone I can control it from my watch *and* use my hacked Spotify version. for stuff like teslas, I'd honestly just connect to Bluetooth and use my phones Google maps lol I need my personal phone experience

Reply

[-]

GetEnPassanted@reddit

Tesla gets away with it because of their legitimate claim that their built in software is better. No other manufacturer can say that because it’s all trash. Even the decent ones are awful by comparison.

Reply

[-]

roveroverroverover@reddit

this is some elementary shit why is everyone upvoting this

Reply

[-]

legopieface@reddit

If GM gave a shit about safety they wouldn’t build a 9000 pound sports truck.

Reply

[-]

not-covfefe@reddit

Car and Driver and Wikipedia lists the weight at 9,640 lbs. but I've read some models' gross weight can be up to 10,400 lbs. I drive a 370z in the summer, if I get hit by one of these monstrosities I'm going to get killed on the spot. GM's safety concerns seem hypocritical at best.

Reply

[-]

DavidAg02@reddit

> I drive a 370z in the summer, if I get hit by one of these monstrosities I'm going to get killed on the spot. Just duck down. It will probably just take the top few inches of your roof off and you can fit under it like F&F.

Reply

[-]

FuzzelFox@reddit

How long before they have to start mandating better roll over protection for smaller cars? Roll over being when a car rolls over top of yours.

Reply

[-]

PracticalExam7861@reddit

It looks like this was somewhat address with the revised roof-crush rules in 2009 **It looks like this was somewhat addressed with the revised roof-crush rules in 2009** **0 pounds or less must be able to withstand a force equal to three times their weight applied alternately to the left and right sides of the roof. The roof cannot bend so far that it would touch the head of a median-height-male test dummy.** **While the heaviest passenger vehicles, those weighing between 6,000 and 10,000 pounds, used to be exempt, they are now covered by the standard. However, those heavier vehicles need only withstand 1.5 times their own weight on the roof.** The roof-crush test is mostly there for rollovers but the fact that lighter vehicles have to survive a tougher standard indicates some consideration was given. These standards are also partially responsible for the pillbox styling on so many cars today.

Reply

[-]

4th_Times_A_Charm@reddit

Factory installed roll cages for anything under 60"

Reply

[-]

6786_007@reddit

> if I get hit by one of these monstrosities I'm going to get killed on the spot. This is a growing concern in my A5. I just can't help notice my roof is nearly at or lower then many of these trucks and large SUVs. Sometimes I'm worried these people wont't see me and plow me to my doom.

Reply

[-]

lostboyz@reddit

Just wait until you find out how much RVs and Semis weigh. The Hummer EV existing does not change your risk on the road by any measurable means

Reply

[-]

not-covfefe@reddit

People don't buy Semis or RVs to go to work or drops the kids at school everyday. It's not the same.

Reply

[-]

lostboyz@reddit

How many Hummer EVs do you think they're going to sell? They're frankly not much different than any other full sized truck

Reply

[-]

Hokie23aa@reddit

Yes they absolutely do. An F450 weighs anywhere from 7700-8500 lbs unladen whilst the Hummer EV weighs 10,000lbs. And can go from 0-60 in 3.5s. They are *much* different from other full sized vehicles.

Reply

[-]

lostboyz@reddit

How many accidents happen like that though, its almost always momentum and a city car at speed is enough to kill someone, a Hummer EV changes nothing

Reply

[-]

Hokie23aa@reddit

What are you talking about? Car accidents are always at the top of the list for fatalities, and having a 10,000lb car will most certainly add to that list. That is more than 3x the weight of 3 toyota camry’s. Do you not understand basic physics? F = M * A.

Reply

[-]

grelphy@reddit

> That is more than 3x the weight of 3 toyota camrys Camry out-light-and-nimbling the Miata here. ;) ('23 Camry's curb weight is roughly 3.5k lbs, the Hummer EV comes in a hair under three times that much. You only wanted *one* multiplier by three. The general point obviously still holds, of course.)

Reply

[-]

Hokie23aa@reddit

Oh wait - good catch. I knew I was gonna phrase it wrong when writing it lol.

Reply

[-]

alwaysthinkandplanah@reddit

Researchers at IIHS studied data for nearly 18,000 pedestrian crashes. They found that pickup trucks, SUVs and vans with a hood height greater than 40 inches are 45% more likely to cause fatalities than shorter vehicles with a hood height of 30 inches or less. So taller bigger vehicles are already way more dangerous, and adding more weight isn't going to make it less deadly.

Reply

[-]

Apical-Meristem@reddit

All manufacturers tout their 0-60 times, but the 60-0 distance is more important. The new Hummer takes a 137 feet while an Accord type vehicle is usually somewhere around 110 feet. Kinetic energy is 1/2 the mass x velocity\^2. So a Hummer EV packs a punch over 3 times that of an Accord in a rear end collusion situation. That energy has to go somewhere.

Reply

[-]

Hokie23aa@reddit

Wow.

Reply

[-]

peppermintpattymills@reddit

I'm not going to get killed by a dude dropping his kid off in a Cybertruck going 5mph in the school lot lol

Reply

[-]

Razgriz2118@reddit

RVs and semis are larger, accelerate like a glacier, and aren't marketed as a vehicle to use everyday for every task, like all of the 8,000lb - 10,000lb EV trucks/SUVs being marketed. The Hummer EV and its contemporaries certainly increase risk of injury and death.

Reply

[-]

whoiam06@reddit

"Safety" for their customers. Not other people

Reply

[-]

More_Information_943@reddit

Exactly, you could hit a brick wall at 50 in one of these in walk away, at the expense of it becoming a Titanic monstrosity that you cant park without a fleet of cameras lmao.

Reply

[-]

Killbot_Wants_Hug@reddit

Larger vehicles usually fair worse when hitting extremely stationary objects. People feel safer in larger vehicles, but the statistics say it ain't so.

Reply

[-]

grelphy@reddit

Chevy will still sell you a Malibu, so it's only "safety" for their *richest* customers.

Reply

[-]

roman_maverik@reddit

The 370z is a husky boi compared to something like a miata or s2000. I love small roadsters, but I can really only drive them at night comfortably. Living in the south, rush hour is nothing but back-to-back f150s and super duties.

Reply

[-]

WTF_Conservatives@reddit

I'm in danger.

Reply

[-]

mk4_wagon@reddit

I parked my lifted Volvo nose to nose with one. The bottom of the front bumper is above my hood. Monster Jam time!

Reply

[-]

Not_Daijoubu@reddit

Just last night I had a near miss with a careless driver who was trying to overtake on a 2 way highway. Pickup in front of me, pickup behind me. If The guy following behind me wasn't paying attention, I would have been sandwiched that night lol.

Reply

[-]

FukushimaBlinkie@reddit

I ended up submarining the rear bumper of a dodge ram that cut me off then stopped dead back in May in my 240sx. Managed to slow down to like 10mph before the hitch took the hood and shoved it and the radiator support back about a foot.

Reply

[-]

Redeemed_Expert9496@reddit

Nor would their CEO defend selling cars without airbags

Reply

[-]

PurpEL@reddit

I'd buy one without if I could.

Reply

[-]

Mercurydriver@reddit

Wait that actually happened?

Reply

[-]

Redeemed_Expert9496@reddit

Yup look up: General Motors CEO Mary Barra Defends Marketing Cars That Do Not Include Airbags

Reply

[-]

Smitty_Oom@reddit

> General Motors CEO Mary Barra Defends Marketing Cars That Do Not Include Airbags Worth noting that was 7 years ago, and they already made the change away from cars without airbags back 5-6 years ago.

Reply

[-]

lowstrife@reddit

> Worth noting that was 7 years ago I'm surprised that it was ONLY seven years ago. I was expecting this shit to be a quote from the fucking 90's by some dude in a tweed suit and a moustache.

Reply

[-]

mini4x@reddit

Weren't airbags mandatory back in about 1990? My 91 BMW had one.

Reply

[-]

ThatsNotFortyDollars@reddit

In the US, in the early 1990’s, cars had to have either an airbag or one of those automatic seatbelt systems that you can’t unbuckle.

Reply

[-]

mini4x@reddit

omg those seatbelts were shite!!

Reply

[-]

leeta0028@reddit

Is for developing markets, you're comparing a car with no airbags to a motorcycle or [bicycle](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/naiqdq/soba_noodles_delivery_guy_tokyo_1940s/), not a Lexus. Still not great since those cars will remain on the road after people can afford airbags, but not in comical territory.

Reply

[-]

leeta0028@reddit

It's for developing markets, you're comparing a scooter to a car without airbags, not a Lexus. Still not great, but not comical territory.

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Unfortunately your comment has been removed because it contains a link to a delisted domain. This is almost always due to spam from the domain. Please use a different source. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

[-]

KingGumboot@reddit

When you say "worth noting", you mean because that makes it even more fucking abhorrent right? I didn't even know there were any cars made/sold this century without airbags

Reply

[-]

critical_suspect1@reddit

Facts don't matter on /r/cars; only sensationalism

Reply

[-]

chiniwini@reddit

Marketing cars without airbags 7 years ago is as grave as marketing cars without airbags *today*.

Reply

[-]

Jaxraged@reddit

It was 7 years ago not 70. We all knew the benefits of airbags in the 2010s.

Reply

[-]

Chi-Guy86@reddit

She still made the statement she did at the time. It was still an unethical thing to do, even if it was later addressed

Reply

[-]

ccmega@reddit

It’s a fact that she said that and attempted to pass it off as a good thing. She’s still in charge and may still be acting in bad faith

Reply

[-]

warenb@reddit

Are these airbag-less cars made in russia?

Reply

[-]

RamTank@reddit

According to google, made in China for export into parts of Latin America, where airbags weren't mandated. GM weren't the only company not to do it either, but their CEO went on record to try to spin it as a good thing. No airbags gets the car a 0-star safety rating, but it's still street-legal. Not sure why they were made in China specifically and not say, Mexico, but that was what they did.

Reply

[-]

thepenis_mightier@reddit

Nissan sold the B13 Sentra in Mexico up to 2017.

Reply

[-]

LEO7039@reddit

Absolutely. Aftern western imports stopped, the Lada Vesta and Granta, and probably both of the Nivas were produced with no airbags, at least for a while. Not sure, maybe they fixed it for a while.

Reply

[-]

UGMadness@reddit

They were delivered to the customer with no airbags, with the option to be installed at a later date at no charge once supply returns.

Reply

[-]

topcat5@reddit

So fascinating considering that GM, back in the day, invented the first airbags to be used in automobiles way back in 1973.

Reply

[-]

Whisper_Quiet_Maytag@reddit

A lot can change in 50 years...

Reply

[-]

notsoentertained@reddit

Seriously, the new Hummer hitting you at 60 is like a new Accord hitting you at 100. Cars are not designed to survive 100mph impact.

Reply

[-]

techieman33@reddit

And get move most of the controls that you need to access while driving back to physical buttons. Touch screens create a big distraction since you have to keep looking at the screen to figure out what your pressing.

Reply

[-]

0x706c617921@reddit

The Hummer EV is a thing of beauty though.

Reply

[-]

More_Information_943@reddit

Someones gonna have to punch one of these clean through a strip mall before people get it lmao. 5 seconds to sixty in something that big is ridiculous.

Reply

[-]

TEG24601@reddit

To be fair, that is more of a congressional error in their passage of some environmental bills, that gave exemptions to larger and heavier trucks.

Reply

[-]

lee1026@reddit

Eh, why? Not like you would be in danger from that thing if you buy it.

Reply

[-]

TheDriverJ@reddit

Oh you misunderstand, my friend, they care about safety for the occupants, but anyone outside? God help them /s for those that need it

Reply

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Unfortunately your comment has been removed because it contains a link to a delisted domain. This is almost always due to spam from the domain. Please use a different source. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

[-]

metalmelts@reddit

(GM) we can't make it work right (Honda) we don't seem to have a problem (Tesla) that's all you got?

Reply

[-]

TunaOnWytNoCrust@reddit

If my car's stock stereo unit requires a subscription, it's getting thrown in the trash and I'm getting an aftermarket one with Android auto.

Reply

[-]

AddamOrigo@reddit

Which is fine until they make features increasingly dependent on the stock touchscreen interface, thus making it way more difficult to install an aftermarket unit

Reply

[-]

TKFT_ExTr3m3@reddit

More difficult and expensive but still possible. Idatalink makes firmware for hundreds of cars and as long as they keep doing it there will always be an option to replace your shitty headunit

Reply

[-]

TunaOnWytNoCrust@reddit

If they double down on it then I just won't even consider buying their car. I mean what kind of an idiot would buy a car that requires a subscription for the fucking radio? Or heated seats?

Reply

[-]

AddamOrigo@reddit

Agreed - if I have to fork over the massive amount of money required to own a car, I had better own every feature in that car

Reply

[-]

ILikeTewdles@reddit

This won't be an option soon. GM is integrating everything into their head units. Some of their new vehicles already have things such as headlight controls and certain HVAC functions only available in the infotainment...

Reply

[-]

TunaOnWytNoCrust@reddit

And here I am already never willing to buy a GM car lol. I'm hoping the HVAC controls situation reverts because absolutely nobody likes using a touch screen to turn up the heat or the AC. I had a friend back in the day who had a brand new Dodge dart when they were re-released and her entertainment center froze up. She had to take her car to the dealership just so she could get HVAC controls to respond again.

Reply

[-]

ILikeTewdles@reddit

Yep, one of the reasons I'm selling my 23 Subaru that uses the infotainment for everything and going back to a vehicle that has actual physical buttons for everything not Carplay\\Android Auto. I didn't think it would be a big deal but after using it for a while now, I don't like it. I guess if you are only selling cars to the generations that have a phone attached to their hands at all times, the infotainment is probably great. I'm a late date millennial (early 80's) and I think it is really stupid to have to swipe through menus and tap at a screen while driving.

Reply

[-]

candre23@reddit

If ~~my~~ any car's stock stereo unit requires a subscription, ~~it's getting thrown in the trash and I'm getting an aftermarket one with Android auto~~ I'm not buying that car. I'm not going to give high-five-figures to a company that wants to nickel and dime me in exchange for a worse user experience. Fuck that. "No AA" has been a hard no for me for the last two new vehicles I've purchased, and it's going to be a hard no for the indefinite future.

Reply

[-]

Thirsty_Comment88@reddit

If GM cared about safety they wouldn't make their reverse lights turn on for anything other than reverse.

Reply

[-]

delebojr@reddit

I watched a Technology Connections video mentioning this, it's actually a safety feature.

Reply

[-]

Thirsty_Comment88@reddit

No. It is not a safety feature. It was a safety feature when it warned people you are reversing.

Reply

[-]

delebojr@reddit

The inventor of the reverse head-light, federal regulators, and automotive engineers all disagree with your statement as it is wrong. It is safer to see behind your vehicle than not. You can't deny that statement.

Reply

[-]

Thirsty_Comment88@reddit

Then why is every other manufacturer uses the reverse lights in the correct way. GM are the only idiots that do it that way. You don't need lights when your out of your vehicle that's why flashlights exist. Reverse lights should only be on when the vehicle is in reverse.

Reply

[-]

delebojr@reddit

They aren't reverse warning lights. They're reverse head lights. Your headlights are on when you exit and single lock your vehicle; so are your reverse head lights. If you don't understand that, it's not my problem. It's not GM's problem. It's your problem. You can turn them off in your car's settings if you so wish to step into a pot hole behind your car.

Reply

[-]

Skreali@reddit

Hypothetically: Would you walk behind a truck that has its reverse beeping on? (The manufacturer of that truck decided to reuse the beeping to let the driver know that the truck was locked successfully)

Reply

[-]

delebojr@reddit

The original and continued use of the beeper is to meet the OSHA requirement that workers must be able to hear vehicles backing up over the background noise at their site. The original and continued use of reverse headlights are to light up behind the car so the driver can better see behind them. Because lights are lights, other drivers can see them. The "warning" is just a byproduct of their use.

Reply

[-]

Skreali@reddit

Then why do road laws of all of the countries that don't require daytime front lighting mandate use of reversing lights no matter the time of the day? It's bright outside, why do i have to use reversing lights if i can see everything just as fine? Mayyyybe so that other people can see that my car is in reversing gear? Don't bother replying, even though the conversation is about lights, you're definitely not the brightest bulb.

Reply

[-]

delebojr@reddit

Oh! I guess you've never read the patent. [https://patents.google.com/patent/US2911620A/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US2911620A/en) >The present invention relates to a light system for motor vehicles, **particularly for illuminating the area at the rear and rear sides of the car**, aswell as for serving as a warning signal when the caris to be driven in a reverse direction. and >the invention is to provide means for automatically supplying a steady light, when the gear shiftlevenis-placed in reverse, from the same lights which, for direction-indicating purposes, flash intermittently or provide blinker-type signals. Thus, the driver of the car, when engaging the reverse gear, will be able to see more clearly toward the rear and the sides of the car, and he will not be irritated by the blinking lights which might cause him to misjudge the space available for manipulating the car. Notice how the primary use is to light up the area behind the vehicle and the byproduct is that others know the vehicle may begin moving in the reverse direction? It's almost like my comment was telling the truth because, well..., it was. LOL

Reply

[-]

Skreali@reddit

Why the fuck would I read that? That patent expired 50 years ago, why would it be relevant to the conversation about modern road safety? Ok, the thing might have been invented for illumination, but soon after it became the way to signal the intention of the driver, just like the turn lights do. You being stubborn about proving your right “b-but it was invented to illuminate what’s behind the car” does not change the fact that GMs decision to use reversing lights as courtesy lights is straight up dumb and whoever is defending that is probably too.

Reply

[-]

delebojr@reddit

>The original and continued use of reverse headlights are to light up behind the car so the driver can better see behind them. Read my original comment

Reply

[-]

cb2014cardinal@reddit

you really walk out of your car with a flashlight?

Reply

[-]

delebojr@reddit

Given all the downvotes, it seems as if most people on this sub walk out of their car with a flashlight. lol

Reply

[-]

Thirsty_Comment88@reddit

Is that supposed to be some kind of insult about using a flashlight in the dark?

Reply

[-]

delebojr@reddit

If you go up and get reference, the vehicle with its reverse headlights on will light up behind the vehicle. Thirsty\_Comment88 doesn't like this so cb2014cardinal asked if Thirsty\_Comment88 walks out of their car with a flashlight so they can see.

Reply

[-]

Thirsty_Comment88@reddit

Yeah if it's that dark and I can't see I do, my phone has a built in flashlight.

Reply

[-]

Chi-Guy86@reddit

This drives me crazy. Every time I see a GM car, I think the person is ready to back out of the space, even if they’re not

Reply

[-]

AddamOrigo@reddit

That is the undisputed champion of stupid, confusing, and unnecessary features

Reply

[-]

SniffUmaMuffins@reddit

Ford must be pretty happy about GM ditching CarPlay and Android Play. GM is basically handing customers over to Ford on a silver platter.

Reply

[-]

AddamOrigo@reddit

I cannot believe GM thinks it’s a winning strategy to market having fewer features than their competitors. A kindergartner could work this out

Reply

[-]

not-covfefe@reddit

They want the monthly subscription to give you the same services you get from Android Auto and CarPlay for free. It's a money grab like Tesla's Premium Connectivity monthly fee, that's all.

Reply

[-]

TempleSquare@reddit

>Tesla's Premium Connectivity I'm surprised they've made it this far without AA/ACP My dad (60s) got AA in his Mazda. And now he won't drive my mom's car anymore. He's the exact demo of someone with the means and desire to own a Tesla, but if he did, he'd walk from the deal once he learned there's no AA.

Reply

[-]

Prison-Butt-Carnival@reddit

It's this and GM wants to keep the data for themselves instead of sharing with Apple / Google.

Reply

[-]

SniffUmaMuffins@reddit

The problem is that they *can’t* provide the same services that CarPlay provides. It won’t be a seamless interaction between your iPhone and your car. As it is, you can bring up directions on your phone as you’re walking to your car, and those directions will be waiting for you via CarPlay. Ditto for anything else you were doing on your phone. Your iPhone apps like podcasts, audiobooks, NPR, Spotify, Waze, iMessage, calls, they’re all seamlessly connected in CarPlay from your iPhone. No setup in the car is required other than enabling CarPlay. I can control my nav, music, messaging with Siri, same as I’m already used to. Every time your iPhone gets an iOS update, it’s updating CarPlay too.

Reply

[-]

BigJohnThomas@reddit

It’s not just about having fewer features. Talk to anyone who doesn’t know much about cars, which is practically everyone who buys a car, and the first thing they say is Apple CarPlay. They don’t know what an eco-boost is, they don’t know what a V8 is, they don’t even know the difference between all-wheel-drive and 4 x 4. But they call Apple CarPlay and android auto by name and it’s number one on their list, if not in the top five. Like GM could’ve ditched any feature in the world and it would’ve been better than this. As long as it wasn’t wheels. 90% of GM‘s sales peoples conversations are going to start with, “no sorry we don’t have CarPlay but we have something that’s a lot better“. And then the customer is going to say oh I was looking for CarPlay and they’re not gonna be able to explain it because the customer doesn’t know what they’re talking about to begin with they just want CarPlay.

Reply

[-]

AddamOrigo@reddit

I have to imagine GM’s bean counters are hoping that customers just want any entertainment system and simply won’t be that concerned whether it’s CarPlay or AA or their own thing. That, and the returns on the subscriptions/data sales need to be absurdly high, enough to cover for lost customers and the development costs. That’s the only way I can see any of the math having even a remote chance of working out for them. But as you said, CarPlay and AA are widely recognized among consumers - it’s not niche at all. I don’t know why they think the casual buyer is going to hear “No CarPlay” and think “Oh, that’s fine.” Especially in a $50k EV selling to a tech-oriented crowd.

Reply

[-]

Killbot_Wants_Hug@reddit

I mean if they charge say $20 a month then that's $240 per year in revenue, say the average car gets 15 years of subscription (the car may last longer but I'm not sure people buying cheap 15 year old cars are also paying for subscription). They make a bit over 17k on that. They might figure that earns them more than what the lost sales cost them. But I still think it's a bad strategy. Anybody with a car that has a dead OnStar button will tell you that live services end and then features become unusable. It'll probably tank their used car sales eventually, which means that total cost of ownership calculations on GM's will go up. But I think they'll cave to losing market share even in the short term.

Reply

[-]

BigJohnThomas@reddit

Well see how it goes. I guess Tesla doesnt have carplay either and I havent heard complaints about that. Looks like Tesla is adding it, funny enough.

Reply

[-]

mtd14@reddit

“We don’t care about losing some customers to competitors, we care about increasing profits. If we lose 10% of our customers but milk an extra 10% out of existing customers, we don’t have to build as many cars and increase our profits” - some team of consultants with MBAs they hired.

Reply

[-]

ChimRichaldsOBGYN@reddit

Having worked in the tech space for years. This sounds like GM bought into a contract with a software company (or they budgeted big bucks to hire a software dev arm internally) and to justify that cost they are presenting CarPlay as unsafe. In reality they’re likely banking that after two years of aches and pains and customer complaints they’re system will be in parity with Apple and Android and then they can upsell whatever *upgrades* or whatever that live in their GM ecosystem. The other option is that developing their own infotainment software system can ultimately be cheaper for them in the long run when one OS can be ported to work on all of the different cars and companies GM has under their umbrella and less of a headache with over the air updates that they want to send out. Not having to spend extra dev time to update their OS AND keep it compatible with every new version of CarPlay. If it’s the latter I get it and can at least understand it but if they’re just saying “it’s unsafe” so they can do their own thing doesn’t hold water for me.

Reply

[-]

unnamed_elder_entity@reddit

But Ford will keep building the Ford way, and send former GM owners back to GM. The electronics in my '21 Ford are finicky garbage and the sync software sucks. It's slow, buggy and limited. The nav is powered on the backend by Sirius and requires a subscription. Ford isn't keeping those for safety, it's keeping them because they can't program their way out of a paper bag. Drove a GM prior, issue free. I'll likely go back to GM when I replace the Ford.

Reply

[-]

DeeboBD@reddit

I really disagree here and I barely know anyone who prefers GMs infotainment. My brother has an 18 Colorado ZR2 and I have a 19 F-150 Lariat. GM’s built in infotainment is garbage compared to mine, and reminds me of something straight out of 2005. My brother is actually buying a new Colorado as soon as possible so he doesn’t have to deal with the changeover. He loves the truck otherwise, hates the infotainment.

Reply

[-]

unnamed_elder_entity@reddit

Ignoring all the weird electrical stuff the car does like windows that magically lose the 1-touch feature and get it back later, the infotainment system in mine is shit. Even the boot screen has a stutter in it on the startup animation. Not just mine, all of them have it in the same spot. I have roughly 2,000 music files on a properly formatted USB and the system has to re-index it on every startup. The Carplay is wired only, not wireless. The backup system takes so long to boot, half the time I am reversing before the system is ready. I don't mean rushing. Get in and start the car like a normal person and then it takes almost a minute to be ready! The Ford Nav, as I mentioned, is powered by Sirius. It was sold as a 5-year plan, but Sirius says only if I also have a music plan. The nav functions, as well as it will. But it is objectively inferior to google, garmin or waze. 2/3 of the options and features that *could* be set via the preference screen are walled behind ForScan. Sync is by far the worst infotainment system I have experience with. I have it up to date and all that, it's just trash.

Reply

[-]

SniffUmaMuffins@reddit

Yeah good point, going with CarPlay leaves less stuff for the car to screw up. I drive a VW ID.4, the native infotainment is bad, but when I’m in CarPlay mode the infotainment is terrific.

Reply

[-]

keenly_disinterested@reddit

GM's stated reasons for discontinuing AA and CP is that when it behaves unexpectedly or erratically or does not provide a desired function while driving customers will pick up their phones. Someone should explain to GM's decision makers that its own infotainment interface is far less adequate and stable than AA and/or CP, which is the PRIMARY FUCKING REASON most of its customers use AA and/or CP.

Reply

[-]

AnnieBruce@reddit

That sounds scarily like rolling your own cryptography package because it will make your software more secure. Some things are best left to specialists.

Reply

[-]

keenly_disinterested@reddit

I don't know what you mean. Perhaps my point was missed: GM's native infotainment interface is not as useful, feature-rich, or stable as Android Auto, which is why most people use AA instead.

Reply

[-]

Maximilianne@reddit

interestingly i believe this is opposite in China. The Chinese Mach-E has its own custom OS by Baidu, and not android auto or carplay, but the GM Ultiums in China (Buick E5) have apple carplay.

Reply

[-]

maybeex@reddit

China has a great firewall that blocks most applications and restrict others

Reply

[-]

Jesus_H-Christ@reddit

It's such a no-brainer to include those two systems, even if it might cost the automaker a couple bucks in licensing fees. Don't fight the customer, you'll never win.

Reply

[-]

scferro@reddit

This will be a disaster for GM. They don’t make interesting/good enough cars to get away with leaving out CarPlay.

Reply

[-]

Snap305@reddit

I'd agree. I was fully on board with Android Automotive as it is superior, (like Volvo, it is absolutely wonderful) but subscriptions to even USE the infotainment? Absolute garbage.

Reply

[-]

DangerousPrune1989@reddit

GM is removing it for $$ purposes, only. Period. If they cared about "safety" they would put breathalyzer in every car.

Reply

[-]

UseDaSchwartz@reddit

Not that I’d ever buy a GM product to begin with, this is just another reason not to buy one. CarPlay is one of the best things to ever happen in the car industry. The OS in most cars is terrible. I think this could kill their sales to car rental companies.

Reply

[-]

time-lord@reddit

The bolt euv is a fantastic little car, and I plan on swapping my 2022 for a 2025 model, if it comes with carplay.

Reply

[-]

mbcook@reddit

I’m driving one right now as a rental. I’ve driven the non-EUV model too. Given the price they’re pretty impressive little cars. But the number one thing that makes it livable, like any car, is CarPlay. Drop that and there is almost no reason to get one. Bonus points for being dumb enough that you have to compete with the used market of last year‘s model because it’s BETTER than the new one.

Reply

[-]

Lugnuts088@reddit

Both can be unsafe. Both can be safe. Depends how the meat-bag behind the wheel is utilizing their infotainment. Consumers are going to want Android Auto though so I think that will override the safety idea and to your point Ford will be better off then GM.

Reply

[-]

obeytheturtles@reddit

People on this sub are insanely overconfident about how much fiddling with shit on their dash impacts their attention. Yes, even with pHYsIcal BUTToNS. I had this exact conversation with my ex wife so many times, about how she is not "finding buttons by feel" and absolutely does an endless series of micro-glances at the console while adjusting the climate settings and radio every 5-10 seconds (I am not exaggerating). I finally filmed her doing it and showed it to here and still wouldn't accept that it was a dangerous distraction.

Reply

[-]

11_22@reddit

Lmao no wonder she’s your ex

Reply

[-]

AddamOrigo@reddit

I could almost understand the safety angle if they opted to forgo a touchscreen or infotainment altogether, but simply taking the feature they deem problematic and replacing it with a different version of said feature won’t fix anything at all

Reply

[-]

RelativeMotion1@reddit

Especially when you consider that people are *very* familiar with the icons, appearance, and use of their smartphone. Mirroring it on the dash in a way that translates easily means that it’s intuitive to an extent. Creating your own interface means people have to familiarize themselves with it, learn where to go and what buttons to press. For some, that will be easy. For others, it will lead to more distraction and frustration than CarPlay/AA. Knowing automakers, they’ll also move icons and menus around several times with updates, exacerbating it.

Reply

[-]

Slideways@reddit

> Mirroring it on the dash in a way that translates easily means that it’s intuitive to an extent. Do you think that GM's infotainment system doesn't do that?

Reply

[-]

candre23@reddit

The real point is that "safety" is a trasparantly absurd excuse for a shameless money-grab. There is no conceivable safety difference between a touchscreen displaying google maps or a spotify app that is coming from your phone vs coming from its own internal OS. The *only* difference is that GM can charge you a subscription fee for the latter. That's it.

Reply

[-]

Prison-Butt-Carnival@reddit

This has a lot less to do with safety and a whole lot more to do with data. Apply and Google demand a lot of data to use their software and GM doesn't want them to have it. GM is also looking to do more subscription services and other money generating options via their infotainment systems. My source, I know someone high up in one of the GM brands who makes a lot of brand decisions.

Reply

[-]

Simon676@reddit

That title is misleading. Android Automotive is much better than either of those two.

Reply

[-]

Twombls@reddit

Except for the little detail where you don't get to use your phone as the cellular antenna. So you have to pay way too much to connect your car to the cell networks

Reply

[-]

delebojr@reddit

Oh yeah! I tried a friends '23 Colorado and the infotainment was insane. It made my Subaru's feel so slow and useless. I just wish it had Apple Maps. Google Maps & Waze don't tell me to turn at/after stop signs like Apple Maps does.

Reply

[-]

mini4x@reddit

I'd argue non-CarPlay or AndoidAuto is more dangerous since people are going to be using their phone, instead of using the car's screen displaying their phone. Safety is NOT the reason GM wants to switch they are looking for that sweet subscription cash.

Reply

[-]

joesnowblade@reddit

I’ve been looking to get a new vehicle since April. With all the crap the dealers were pulling with over MSRP and stupid useless add on I can’t get close to a deal. One thing I won’t do is order any car with an option I have to pay for then pay a subscription to use. If they want to include the option as part of the MSRP but the subscription is optional fine. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay to buy something and then pay a fee to use it.

Reply

[-]

olov244@reddit

'the more of you wreck the more cars we move' - ford

Reply

[-]

DrTartakovsky@reddit

And I’m over here buying neither

Reply

[-]

Aidosis@reddit

Ah, I see GM is shooting for that second government bailout with poor business decisions and leadership currently at the helm.

Reply

[-]

opticalmace@reddit

Allow myself to introduce… myself

Reply

[-]

heachu@reddit

The government should make AA and carplay compulsory like the backup camera.

Reply

[-]

BudoftheBeat@reddit

Much safer to be forced to use your phone for directions and fumble around with placement. That big convenient screen with the map is so inconvenient😑

Reply

[-]

Slideways@reddit

OP, what is your experience with GM's Google-based infotainment system? Do you know how much GM is going to charge new customers for this service?

Reply

[-]

TanStarfield@reddit (OP)

Zero. Just posting the article since I found it interesting and relevant to this sub. GM will most certainly charge for many of the services that are free on Carplay and Android Auto, however. Who knows what those charges will be. And imagine things like rental cars and multiple drivers for one vehicle. Not a good experience to have to log into different vehicles to have to use your own accounts.

Reply

[-]

Slideways@reddit

I don't think anyone here has any first-hand experience, yet they all have very strong opinions.

Reply

[-]

Uptons_BJs@reddit

The funny thing is, GM pre-paid for 8 years of data for their cars right?  If LTE sticks around until 2035, at most they can get 4 years of subscription revenue. But let's be honest here, which 3rd owner buying a beater is going to actually pay?

Reply

[-]

time-lord@reddit

They'll just swap the modem to a newer one that is 5g or whatever is sold to b2b customers. That's why Subaru did when 3g went away.

Reply

[-]

brnjenkn@reddit

Guess I'll buy Ford then.

Reply

[-]

BrandanG@reddit

Oh, is it time to beat the dead horse again?

Reply

[-]

Maleficent_Lab_8291@reddit

Duality of men

Reply

[-]

AeFip@reddit

The GM Apple car play is going away for their EV's. The internal combustion vehicles are keeping it until GM goes all EV, which is 2035 by their estimates. I think everything will be OK boys.

Reply

[-]

libbylloyd1@reddit

Honestly GM is just grasping at straws here. There's no way ditching CarPlay and AA actually improves safety. Ford is right to keep supporting them.

Reply

[-]

ztimulating@reddit

Clearly GM is full of shit and has zero respect for their customers

Reply

[-]

BillionDollarLoser@reddit

I sure hope people aren't buying into the arguments any of them are making about "safety". Your [personal data can be intercepted by car companies](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/privacy-nightmare-on-wheels-every-car-brand-reviewed-by-mozilla-including-ford-volkswagen-and-toyota-flunks-privacy-test/) regardless of what system you use.

Reply

[-]

shadowofashadow@reddit

> I sure hope people aren't buying into the arguments any of them are making about "safety". They'll try anything. Some car companies tried to say that supporting right to repair increases the likelihood you'll be raped. They backpedaled on that pretty quickly and tried to brush it under the rug.

Reply

[-]

AddamOrigo@reddit

Nissan collecting data on your sex life is simultaneously an outrageous violation and hilariously on-brand

Reply

[-]

More_Information_943@reddit

I watched someone smash the throttle on a lightning off the light the other day, if you are selling that to the general public, you don't give a fuck about safety lmao.

Reply

[-]

Oni_K@reddit

Android Auto is on my must-have list of options. A car without it doesn't even go on my shopping list. Not that either Ford or GM are on my shopping list regardless.

Reply

[-]

OceanWaveSunset@reddit

> Not that either Ford or GM are on my shopping list regardless. I thought the same thing and found myself in a twin turbo Lincoln of all things. AA works fantastic on it.

Reply

[-]

Windows-XP-Home@reddit

I hate to be that guy but that isn’t a fomoco or GM interior pictured, it’s the previous gen Honda Civic.

Reply

[-]

BimmerJustin@reddit

GM is clearly lying, but Im not really sure it helps even slightly. People will forget this safety nonsense in a matter of days. In a year from now when GM cars dont have AC/AA and Ford does, and the GM window sticker says "XX service, 3 year free trial" next to every tech feature, everyone is just going to laugh at their subpar product.

Reply

[-]

Severe-Belt-5666@reddit

So is GM removing all their touchscreens from their cars?! I thought this sub didn't like the big touch screens? Did we flip on that?

Reply

[-]

Dent13@reddit

They're making their own app to replace Carplay and Android auto, that's the only thing they're changing they're definitely keeping touch screens

Reply

[-]

HelloMyMoto@reddit

They aren’t even making their own app. It seems like they are going to be using Android Automotive with a custom skin on top.

Reply

[-]

AddamOrigo@reddit

No, they’re keeping big touchscreens. They’re just not including CarPlay/Android Auto in the interface and restricting it to their own system instead.

Reply

[-]

Capable-Reaction8155@reddit

Ford it is

Reply

[-]

fretit@reddit

It's like you should wash and shouldn't wash eggs, both for safety reasons.

Reply

[-]

Signal_Upstairs8708@reddit

Ra EU t

Reply

[-]

timelessblur@reddit

Everyone knew GM was making of BS about removing car play and android auto over safety. Ford and others will slame them on it rightfully so.

Reply

[-]

BobtheReplier@reddit

So it's safer to take my eyes off the road and use my 3 inch phone screen?

Reply

[-]

One-Platypus3455@reddit

I’m sick of GM’s antics! Imagine spending Billions developing one of the best scalable EV platforms as of now, only to fuck up the software by not adding Apple CarPlay/AA, in hopes of gaining extra revenue! Mary Barra is full of hopes, dreams and unmet promises and expectations.

Reply

[-]

Requifined@reddit

Bring back analog interiors

Reply

[-]

Bcron@reddit

GM: Does away with Carplay and Android auto under the pretense of safety Also GM: Builds snubnosed monstrosity truck that has a blind spot large enough to hide a 10 year old 10 feet in front of the bumper, proceeds to slather entire fucking dashboard with touchscreen, integrates in-house Carplay alternative

Reply

[-]

donutszn@reddit

None of my cars have carplay, but I had a rental recently with it and I was much more distracted reaching out to a touch screen to mess with maps than I was just doing it from my phone real quick. Strange to me that one is illegal and the other is installed in almost every new car.

Reply

[-]

LJ_blableblibloblu@reddit

Out of the big three, GM always seems to have the worst PR and marketing.

Reply

[-]

AddamOrigo@reddit

I always wonder how Stellantis continues to survive despite its brands constantly hanging on by a spider’s thread, and then remember their domestic competition specializes in self-inflicted damage

Reply

[-]

gene_the_genesis@reddit

PSA: what

Reply

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

[-]

RunninOnMT@reddit

Ahhh. That finally explains my car, which displays apple Carplay with only HALF the screen (the other half helpfully displays a message informing me that i'm using apple carplay) BMW knew the *safest* plan was to just split the difference right down the middle.

Reply

[-]

Smitty_Oom@reddit

As with all CEO/PR statements, I don't put a ton into it. Making a comment like "yes, we are committed to AA/CP" when your largest competitor just said they are going away from it a statement that A) is a quick PR win and B) doesn't have any actual details on how long they are "committed" for.

Reply

[-]

NightFuryToni@reddit

Pretty much. Look at Samsung's constant jabs at the iPhone for headphone jacks, SD card slots and included chargers, only to follow suit right after if they figure they can make more money.

Reply

[-]

psimwork@reddit

100% Every time Apple makes a move that is anti-consumer but makes them money, Samsung gives them shit for it and then does the same damn thing on the following generation.

Reply

[-]

Smitty_Oom@reddit

Yup. Take the quick PR win, then quietly do the same thing.

Reply

[-]

natesully33@reddit

Yeah. GM said safety, Rivian said something about "maintaining the quality of the software experience", yeah right. They all want your data, want to sell things to you, or simply don't want to put the SW engineering effort in to implement and test Android Auto and CarPlay. The way various tech products don't just do what the user wants them to do combined with the PR statements corporations make about it is one of the worst things about the industry right now, IMHO. Kind of a pet peeve of mine.

Reply

[-]

Smitty_Oom@reddit

> They all want your data, want to sell things to you, or simply don't want to put the SW engineering effort in to implement and test Android Auto and CarPlay. Exactly. Pretending any of these moves are anything more than "we want to maximize our profit in any way possible" is foolish.

Reply

[-]

HOONIGAN-@reddit

GM is not doing it for safety. They are doing it to, very poorly, push their in-car subscription/data plans. Taking away relatively simple and streamlined systems that thousands of people are well accustomed to using daily in their vehicles is *not* going to make roads safer.

Reply

[-]

Mikevercetti@reddit

I will *never* buy another vehicle without Android Auto or some equivalent. I could never go back to using OEM infotainment/navigation or having to use bluetooth for music.

Reply

[-]

MKVIgti@reddit

I won’t buy a car without CarPlay. I know many feel the same way.

Reply

[-]

KidRed@reddit

Ford throwing that shade.

Reply