Apple announced two new partners for its next-gen CarPlay platform this week – Porsche and Aston Martin. The latter, a historical story but facing a historical technological challenge (remember Lagonda?) A sports car brand that would benefit greatly from using someone else’s software, makes sense. But Porsche? This was a surprise to me, especially given the company’s long-standing reputation for engineering its own solutions and its recent announcement of the Android-powered Macan. But I think Porsche knows something that much of the industry isn’t yet ready to accept: that Apple’s software can create much more value for Porsche cars than Porsche could create on its own. Other automakers should start living in this reality rather than chasing the fantasy that they are software companies, if only we give them 10 or 20 years to figure it out.
The advent of CarPlay and Android Auto
First, let’s set some historical context – I think it’s essential to this discussion. Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are almost concurrent, with Auto launching in Hyundai, GM, and Honda starting in 2015. CarPlay technically preceded it; It was launched on the Ferrari FF in 2014 (Yes, CarPlay debuted on a Ferrari), but it also saw widespread adoption in 2015 with major automakers. Slowly but surely, even rebellious luxury brands like BMW and Mercedes have joined in on these predictable smartphone interfaces — and their customers have almost certainly asked for it, fearing they’ll switch to someone else who gives them what they want. Today it’s hard to find a new car (at least in North America or Western Europe) without CarPlay and Android Auto support other than a Tesla or Rivian.
CarPlay and Android Auto were an exchange of value for automakers. Google and Apple will learn a lot about how people behave when interacting with in-car infotainment systems (touch points, navigation guidance, voice commands, and more). At the same time, automakers will gain advanced connectivity and integration with popular mapping and voice services. This was a nominally fair arrangement, especially considering how late many OEMs were with their on-vehicle software in the mid-2000s. The only major downside to the projector, for users, was lag, which is especially evident when connected via a more convenient wireless method.
That some manufacturers like General Motors are now rejecting their tech giant partners is not surprising; Predictable situations were always a trade-off, and their impact on the business was predictable. It will be much harder to convince customers to pay for things (e.g. mobile data connection, mapping, live streaming) that they previously got for free via these predictable interfaces, taking something away from people – even something they would likely be content without. – It always goes down badly. In other words: Google and Apple have their foot in the door (connectors in the USB port?), and it’s going to be hard to kick them out.
However, by 2018, most OEMs had signed up to the smartphone display compromise, not finding a better solution (and a real risk of losing sales if they didn’t jump on the bandwagon). This brings us to the present day.
A new era: rejecting projection
Today, automakers face a choice: move forward with integration expectations and give up some revenue that may or may not be there, or take a page from GM book (not very popular). And creating a walled garden ecosystem, even if it is built on top of it Android car operating system from Google. But from the consumer’s point of view, this choice seems very arbitrary.
Overall, smartphone integration into a car is no less desirable today than it was eight years ago when CarPlay and Android Auto launched (unless you drive a Tesla or Rivian). Smartphones remain ubiquitous and become more capable with each passing year. Although the rate of innovation is stagnant, the average lifespan of a smartphone in a person’s pocket is as well far Less than the car they drive. There is no reason to believe that will change in the next decade. The technology we carry will, for the foreseeable future, be more capable than the technology that carries us. This is the crux of the in-car display issue, and it’s a battle automakers can’t win. But some seem determined to fight anyway.
GM’s decision to ditch CarPlay speaks loudly to what many automakers are quietly thinking: “We never should have let these tech companies into our software stack. Tesla had the right idea all along.” Overall, there’s an excellent argument to be made Presented here, because engineering software-defined vehicles (SDV) like Tesla’s is clearly the wave of the future. But the argument GM is making now – that developing an SDV platform represents an excellent opportunity to knock Google and Apple out of its cars and grab the Band-Aid – comes too late and with little conviction. The only way forward is for automakers to adopt a “best of both worlds” approach: highly integrated SDV architecture with predictable user interfaces.
Tesla mirage
I’m not a Tesla apologist, and I think Tesla gets too much credit for some things. But it also only goes so far a little The media is credited with giving birth to a revolutionary software technology that has transcended an entire industry (i.e. the world’s first software-defined vehicles).
Even without Android Auto or CarPlay, Tesla is still generally known as the world leader in vehicle software — and rightly so. No one has really caught up with him, and it’s been over a decade. Rivian is always a step or two behind, while the rest of the industry comes in third. Still, everyone He wants to be a Tesla. This is very evident when you look at GM’s software strategy in Ultium vehicles, Mercedes-Benz’s MB operating system, or even the constant slow train wreck that is Volkswagen’s Cariad division. There’s a race to be “next” Tesla in automotive software, and it seems…no one is winning. Or even driving the course.
But using a platform like Android Automotive to build a closed SDV ecosystem like Tesla’s and hoping to replicate its success is, frankly, incredibly arrogant. These automakers are chasing mirages. Tesla is much more than just an SDV platform; It’s a lifestyle brand, a shipping network, Application developerLightning marketing engine in a bottle with an incredible first mover advantage. As much as Samsung has never been the “next” iPhone, however The point corresponding to the iPhone, other automakers should become Tesla’s counterpoint in this new SDV world — not try to become them. This means embracing technology partnerships (i.e. showcases), not avoiding them.
Faustian bargain (century)
Apple designs the world’s most popular consumer software. It is actively courting manufacturers to put this software on their cars. This seems like a no-brainer, and for some companies it clearly is. That campaign And achieve tangible results, with brands such as Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar-Land Rover, Audi, Porsche, Ford, Volvo, Honda and Nissan-Renault Alliance as partners for the next generation of CarPlay. We don’t know to what degree these manufacturers will embrace this software (for example, if they will use Apple’s full suite of tools). However, if the models released as part of Porsche and Aston Martin’s announcements this week are any indication, it seems clear that Apple is the guiding hand in this relationship. This is as it should be.
Legacy automakers have proven completely incapable of designing high-performance, usable software. They have proven unable to replicate this program in time. They have proven unable to develop it without major errors. They have proven unable to deliver value beyond that offered by a company like Apple (or Google) across its ecosystem – and they will almost certainly never develop such a capability.
As much as the vision of a future of software-defined vehicles holds great promise, that promise will only be successfully realized by companies that collaborate extensively to integrate these platforms with external technology partners. Tesla is a unique car — and an amazing one at that — but it shouldn’t serve as a model. The sooner automakers realize this fact and stop chasing fake revenue for subscriptions no one wants, the sooner we can all stop avoiding decent cars ruined by terrible software bugs.
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links to earn income. more.