>according to GM, the company can create an even better experience for drivers by dropping Apple and making its own software
History has shown that most (especially legacy) car manufacturers make crappy software. I simply don't believe that GM will make exceptional infotainment software and additionally there's no doubt they will charge some subscription fee for parts of the software. It will not be up to the same standard as Tesla or Rivian's software where I can partially accept this argument.
I love CarPlay and my phone already has all the features I need in the car in terms of music, maps, responding to messages, etc. CarPlay is a requirement for me when looking at a car (even rentals).
CarPlay has its pros and cons. I drive a Mazda and have rented enough GM and Ford vehicles to say that all of their software is consistently terrible. It's like every rectangle on the screen is built by a different team, all of whom hate each other. Different fonts, different modes of interaction, buttons that do nothing, error messages that complain about other parts of the software. So CarPlay is much better than any of those.
But at the same time I don't really use CarPlay for all that much. Music, maps, that's about it. And I also want to use the screen for some features that CarPlay doesn't handle, like checking backup or side cameras. In theory you could do even more, like if I have some engine problem why does it alert me with a few words in a tiny amount of UI in some random spot? It could give me a full explanation of what's going wrong, tell me whether it's in warranty, and offer me to schedule an appointment, right there from the screen in my car.
I haven't driven a Tesla or a Rivian so I don't know how good their software is. But it does seem like there's an opportunity to build some actually-good software here that a generic platform like CarPlay can't really do.
I think it's a shame, because the Bolt was the only adequate attempt at an affordable EV in the American market. The Nissan Leaf had the first mover disadvantage of having a unique charging port and not quite enough range for quite a while, the Model 3 never quite got cheap enough and has so much locked behind trim features that it feels nickel-and-dimey, and pretty much nobody else bothered trying to get sub-30k.
So in order to use a Level 1/2 NACS charger, you have to plug into the J1772 port via an adapter, instead of the NACS port. Wow, lazy engineering at its finest:
That's probably not that big a deal. I can count the number of times I've used a public slow charger in my last 4 years of EV ownership on one hand. Slow charging basically only makes sense at home, where you're leaving your car charging overnight (where you'll obviously have your own car's charging cable).
Out and about, it makes a lot more sense to use a DC fast charger, where having a port that will fit the charging stations matters a lot more.
> Want to fiddle with the temperature? Ask Siri to do it. It’s an Apple lover’s dream and a car company’s worst nightmare.
The last thing I want is to have a feature that doesn't work well and that leads to finger-pointing between Apple and the car maker. And considering how lousy Siri is in general, I would expect this feature to not work well.
And here I am, still just using an aux cable and a mount for my phone. I won't buy a car without an aux, nor a phone without a headphone jack. It all just simply works.
Maybe I'm an outlier here (but I don't think so...) in that CarPlay is an absolute non-negotiable. I don't care (and don't really want...) it to handle climate control, but music, podcasts, weather, messaging, phone, and navigation? Heck yes. The built-in systems are bollocks and 99% of the planet has already committed to Android or Apple for these features in the rest of their outside-the-car life, so the dumbest thing any auto manufacturer could do is push against the tide.
I don't want any ties to a phone manufacturer or OS, honestly. I'll have my car a lot longer than I have my phone. Just give me decent sound and an charge/aux connection. The rest I can do on my phone with a mount.
> I'll have my car a lot longer than I have my phone
Doesn't that make CarPlay/Android Auto a good thing? Provided the car supports both platforms, it means you can change phones during your car's lifespan without having to worry about losing features, and you get new phones as your phone upgrades without having to change your car.
I don't know, what if a third mobile OS is developed and gains traction (or is just one that I prefer) but it isn't supported by the car. What if future releases of iOS or Android are incompatible with a 10-year-old version of CarPlay or Android Auto?
CarPlay and Android Auto were engineered from the start to be as agnostic to the car's hardware as possible. Your car's stereo is really just a dumb screen (i.e. just a display and input/output interface) with the phone doing most of the rendering + a few other things (i.e. providing some car instrumentation, like fuel remaining, if the manufacturer enables it) - the hardware requirements aren't really strict from a performance standpoint (minus CarPlay Ultra, and even then, that's just a tighter integration).
How about Android but implemented by the car company? (Literally using apps like Google Maps but the main app menu is the car company's skin). I believe this is in effect what GM is doing? That satisfies your argument of using Android or Apple.
Yeah but that problem happens with companies like Tesla as well given their oldest cars are dog slow now on the latest OS. I have heard some reports of more bugs being introduced on the oldest models because of less QA (not fully sure though)
The only way out of that is to ignore the infotainment and use your own device like with an AUX port.
Not just push against connecting your own phone, but also charging you for the features your phone could already provide (for free or for a cost you're already paying as a phone user). GM with $10/month data plans, and Toyota (per the article) with $200/year plans to access navigation.
They might try. But nobody is going to pay for a sub par experience.
Some executives will get a big bonus for pushing this out, and later another for reverting back.
I won’t buy a car that does not have CarPlay. And I know many who are the same. My phone is a centerpiece of my life (gahh I hate saying that), my car however is not.
I love CarPlay, but I do feel like I'm risking my family's life when it fails to connect and I'm left fiddling with it while driving. It seems like what GM's doing would at least eliminate that risk factor.
Implementation still varies between car to car. Example: Mach-e interrupts the song playing and takes many seconds before it resumes. Sometimes this leads to multiple driving instructions preventing the song from resuming for a long time.
Other implementations (looking at you Hyundai) crash requiring you to pull over, disconnect the phone, reboot the infotainment and then re-enter your navigation destination.
The best implementation is no carplay: instead use an AUX port and mount the phone on the dash.
Second best is Tesla's custom navigation. They do something other car companies should: use one of the million speakers in the car to focus on navigation directions while allowing audio content to continue playing on all the other speakers. Such a simple idea but so good.
> ...use one of the million speakers in the car to focus on navigation directions while allowing audio content to continue playing on all the other speakers.
My previous-gen Kia Sedona does this as well (at least when using the built-in maps).
My phone is much smaller and harder to read than my car's screen. Also, my phone overheats when I'm driving in the hot sun, which causes it to dim the screen. I've had a dash-mounted phone for many years; Carplay has been much better for me (though yes, it has occasionally crashed).
I’ve spent a lot of time with both, and hands down the wired one is far more flakey. Granted I think that’s more a Mazda software issue, but a solid 10% of the time I get “CarPlay failed” and the only way to fix it is to turn the car on and off. Never once had an issue with wireless in a Hyundai.
In my Mazda the wired CarPlay also seems to fail a lot. But whenever I rent a car with wireless CarPlay it's been fine. Take this one anecdote for what it's worth.
How about no. I don't want to pull over and "reboot" the car (like I had to with the Mach-E). My daily for 15 years has been a 2006 Mazda 3 with an added AUX port and a magsafe phone holder on my dash. No software crashes, no nonsense.
I’m pissed that Google has sneakily, forcefully won the in-car battle with Android Automotive.
Android users win regardless in this fight - even though they won’t have Android Auto anymore, they can “just” use the built in Google suite on AAOS/Google Automotive and have their native Android apps on the car itself.
Apple loses out end to end in the automotive industry at this point with vendors both ditching Carplay and abandoning Carplay Ultra in their vehicles while praising how great Google in the car is.
I really don’t want to have to have a Google Account in my car (not even a ‘burner’), but it looks like that’s the direction so many are gonna push us, it’s not even funny.
I wonder if Apple’s doomed car project distracted them from creating a viable CarPlay strategy with OEMs. CarPlay Ultra looked like the salvageable part of that failure and it was too late then.
How detached can top management be from Reality? This move would only make sense if you are the top tier car manufacturer and not if you are just a distant third nobody cares about anymore.
Total clickbait because there are plenty of other manufacturers that still support it: Audi, Honda, Ford, Mercedes, Hyundai, Kia, and their affiliated brands. GM creates mostly shit products, so fuck them. Generally, car manufacturers are continuing to get ever more entitled and shittier like they're following the private equity playbook.
>according to GM, the company can create an even better experience for drivers by dropping Apple and making its own software
History has shown that most (especially legacy) car manufacturers make crappy software. I simply don't believe that GM will make exceptional infotainment software and additionally there's no doubt they will charge some subscription fee for parts of the software. It will not be up to the same standard as Tesla or Rivian's software where I can partially accept this argument.
I love CarPlay and my phone already has all the features I need in the car in terms of music, maps, responding to messages, etc. CarPlay is a requirement for me when looking at a car (even rentals).
CarPlay has its pros and cons. I drive a Mazda and have rented enough GM and Ford vehicles to say that all of their software is consistently terrible. It's like every rectangle on the screen is built by a different team, all of whom hate each other. Different fonts, different modes of interaction, buttons that do nothing, error messages that complain about other parts of the software. So CarPlay is much better than any of those.
But at the same time I don't really use CarPlay for all that much. Music, maps, that's about it. And I also want to use the screen for some features that CarPlay doesn't handle, like checking backup or side cameras. In theory you could do even more, like if I have some engine problem why does it alert me with a few words in a tiny amount of UI in some random spot? It could give me a full explanation of what's going wrong, tell me whether it's in warranty, and offer me to schedule an appointment, right there from the screen in my car.
I haven't driven a Tesla or a Rivian so I don't know how good their software is. But it does seem like there's an opportunity to build some actually-good software here that a generic platform like CarPlay can't really do.
As if there weren’t already enough reasons to not buy a GM.
I think it's a shame, because the Bolt was the only adequate attempt at an affordable EV in the American market. The Nissan Leaf had the first mover disadvantage of having a unique charging port and not quite enough range for quite a while, the Model 3 never quite got cheap enough and has so much locked behind trim features that it feels nickel-and-dimey, and pretty much nobody else bothered trying to get sub-30k.
The redesigned 2026 Leaf looks pretty impressive, TBH.
I find it weird that the 2026 Leaf has 2 charging ports.
So in order to use a Level 1/2 NACS charger, you have to plug into the J1772 port via an adapter, instead of the NACS port. Wow, lazy engineering at its finest:
https://insideevs.com/news/762582/nissan-leaf-j1772-nacs-slo...
That's probably not that big a deal. I can count the number of times I've used a public slow charger in my last 4 years of EV ownership on one hand. Slow charging basically only makes sense at home, where you're leaving your car charging overnight (where you'll obviously have your own car's charging cable).
Out and about, it makes a lot more sense to use a DC fast charger, where having a port that will fit the charging stations matters a lot more.
Still too expensive.
> Want to fiddle with the temperature? Ask Siri to do it. It’s an Apple lover’s dream and a car company’s worst nightmare.
The last thing I want is to have a feature that doesn't work well and that leads to finger-pointing between Apple and the car maker. And considering how lousy Siri is in general, I would expect this feature to not work well.
And here I am, still just using an aux cable and a mount for my phone. I won't buy a car without an aux, nor a phone without a headphone jack. It all just simply works.
Maybe I'm an outlier here (but I don't think so...) in that CarPlay is an absolute non-negotiable. I don't care (and don't really want...) it to handle climate control, but music, podcasts, weather, messaging, phone, and navigation? Heck yes. The built-in systems are bollocks and 99% of the planet has already committed to Android or Apple for these features in the rest of their outside-the-car life, so the dumbest thing any auto manufacturer could do is push against the tide.
I don't want any ties to a phone manufacturer or OS, honestly. I'll have my car a lot longer than I have my phone. Just give me decent sound and an charge/aux connection. The rest I can do on my phone with a mount.
> I'll have my car a lot longer than I have my phone
Doesn't that make CarPlay/Android Auto a good thing? Provided the car supports both platforms, it means you can change phones during your car's lifespan without having to worry about losing features, and you get new phones as your phone upgrades without having to change your car.
I don't know, what if a third mobile OS is developed and gains traction (or is just one that I prefer) but it isn't supported by the car. What if future releases of iOS or Android are incompatible with a 10-year-old version of CarPlay or Android Auto?
I'd just prefer to minimize dependencies.
CarPlay and Android Auto were engineered from the start to be as agnostic to the car's hardware as possible. Your car's stereo is really just a dumb screen (i.e. just a display and input/output interface) with the phone doing most of the rendering + a few other things (i.e. providing some car instrumentation, like fuel remaining, if the manufacturer enables it) - the hardware requirements aren't really strict from a performance standpoint (minus CarPlay Ultra, and even then, that's just a tighter integration).
Kind of a waste of the nice big screen built into the car, then. Are you just going to use it as a backup camera?
There aren't any. Just don't use carplay/android auto and you just have the manufacturer supplied interface.
That's true, as long as they give me an aux port.
How about Android but implemented by the car company? (Literally using apps like Google Maps but the main app menu is the car company's skin). I believe this is in effect what GM is doing? That satisfies your argument of using Android or Apple.
The problem is that the car companies (like appliance companies) don't give a shit about building quality software.
So they will abandon it and your car (which has a lifetime of 10+ years) will have software that stopped being patched 3 years into it.
And so you'll have a crypto-node on wheels. Hell no please.
Yeah but that problem happens with companies like Tesla as well given their oldest cars are dog slow now on the latest OS. I have heard some reports of more bugs being introduced on the oldest models because of less QA (not fully sure though)
The only way out of that is to ignore the infotainment and use your own device like with an AUX port.
Not just push against connecting your own phone, but also charging you for the features your phone could already provide (for free or for a cost you're already paying as a phone user). GM with $10/month data plans, and Toyota (per the article) with $200/year plans to access navigation.
They might try. But nobody is going to pay for a sub par experience.
Some executives will get a big bonus for pushing this out, and later another for reverting back.
I won’t buy a car that does not have CarPlay. And I know many who are the same. My phone is a centerpiece of my life (gahh I hate saying that), my car however is not.
I really like it on rental cars.
Enjoy my money while you still can, car manufacturers.
I love CarPlay, but I do feel like I'm risking my family's life when it fails to connect and I'm left fiddling with it while driving. It seems like what GM's doing would at least eliminate that risk factor.
Wired CarPlay FTW
Implementation still varies between car to car. Example: Mach-e interrupts the song playing and takes many seconds before it resumes. Sometimes this leads to multiple driving instructions preventing the song from resuming for a long time.
Other implementations (looking at you Hyundai) crash requiring you to pull over, disconnect the phone, reboot the infotainment and then re-enter your navigation destination.
The best implementation is no carplay: instead use an AUX port and mount the phone on the dash.
Second best is Tesla's custom navigation. They do something other car companies should: use one of the million speakers in the car to focus on navigation directions while allowing audio content to continue playing on all the other speakers. Such a simple idea but so good.
> ...use one of the million speakers in the car to focus on navigation directions while allowing audio content to continue playing on all the other speakers.
My previous-gen Kia Sedona does this as well (at least when using the built-in maps).
My phone is much smaller and harder to read than my car's screen. Also, my phone overheats when I'm driving in the hot sun, which causes it to dim the screen. I've had a dash-mounted phone for many years; Carplay has been much better for me (though yes, it has occasionally crashed).
I’ve spent a lot of time with both, and hands down the wired one is far more flakey. Granted I think that’s more a Mazda software issue, but a solid 10% of the time I get “CarPlay failed” and the only way to fix it is to turn the car on and off. Never once had an issue with wireless in a Hyundai.
In my Mazda the wired CarPlay also seems to fail a lot. But whenever I rent a car with wireless CarPlay it's been fine. Take this one anecdote for what it's worth.
My Mazda’s wired carplay has never once failed so…take this one anecdote for what it’s worth.
> I do feel like I'm risking my family's life when it fails to connect and I'm left fiddling with it while driving.
Wireless connectivity may be frustrating (though I've never had connectivity issues plugged in to the USB port), but this is a really bizarre framing.
Just pull over.
How about no. I don't want to pull over and "reboot" the car (like I had to with the Mach-E). My daily for 15 years has been a 2006 Mazda 3 with an added AUX port and a magsafe phone holder on my dash. No software crashes, no nonsense.
> I don't want to pull over and "reboot" the car (like I had to with the Mach-E).
Next time, try holding Volume down+forward buttons.
That being said, Ford makes great vehicles, but terrible software. My car has so many stupid bugs (all just annoyances).
I’m pissed that Google has sneakily, forcefully won the in-car battle with Android Automotive.
Android users win regardless in this fight - even though they won’t have Android Auto anymore, they can “just” use the built in Google suite on AAOS/Google Automotive and have their native Android apps on the car itself.
Apple loses out end to end in the automotive industry at this point with vendors both ditching Carplay and abandoning Carplay Ultra in their vehicles while praising how great Google in the car is.
I really don’t want to have to have a Google Account in my car (not even a ‘burner’), but it looks like that’s the direction so many are gonna push us, it’s not even funny.
I wonder if Apple’s doomed car project distracted them from creating a viable CarPlay strategy with OEMs. CarPlay Ultra looked like the salvageable part of that failure and it was too late then.
How detached can top management be from Reality? This move would only make sense if you are the top tier car manufacturer and not if you are just a distant third nobody cares about anymore.
I wish them the best of luck.
Related:
GM will ditch Apple CarPlay and Android Auto on all its cars, not just EVs
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45676304
GM's services revenue is $5B (thru Q3) and growing. Compared to Tesla's $20B/year.
Of course they drop Carplay. Sadly, I expect all the large OEMs to do the same.
https://archive.ph/svYSz
Total clickbait because there are plenty of other manufacturers that still support it: Audi, Honda, Ford, Mercedes, Hyundai, Kia, and their affiliated brands. GM creates mostly shit products, so fuck them. Generally, car manufacturers are continuing to get ever more entitled and shittier like they're following the private equity playbook.
Also, CarPlay Ultra: https://www.macrumors.com/2025/10/09/carplay-ultra-committed...