New CarPlay Support Email?

[CommodoreAmiga]

how can you say that the interface does not have "the functionality that you want"?

I've asked Rivian CS, multiple times, about text messaging and Apple Music. They have said, multiple times that those are NOT supported features at this time, and that they have no current plans to add them in the future.

Who's to say that it won't or can't change?

It may change. I hope it does change. But it's a bad idea to buy a vehicle on what you think may come. Buy the vehicle for what it is today. Anything tomorrow is just gravy.

Are you basing everything off of interactions with customer service reps or real world experience?

Both. Rivian CS has consistently said the features are not present, and videos and text accounts from real-world interaction with the vehicle has continued to confirm the features are not present.

And at the end of the day, if it has really "pissed" you off, then why hang on to your reservation? It sounds like you're not going to be happy with the interface, and it's obviously a sticking point- so just request a refund.

Oh so the "if you don't like it just cancel" trope. Geez. You're a peach. If you go back and re-read my post you'll see that your logical fallacy is what was frustrating.

Sponsored

 

[kylealden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Obioban]

Additionally, EVs like Rivian want to be able to include charging as part of the routing, something AA/CP don't do (at least not today). That's my understanding, anyway.

I mean, sure you can. Apple Maps supports EV routing.
https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/set-up-electric-vehicle-routing-iphc5e3a4b4b/ios

But, better yet is "A better route planner", a 3rd party app that runs in carplay specifically for that purpose:
https://abetterrouteplanner.com/

Which is really the point-- with over 1,000,000,000 iPhones in active use, there's just more compelling software for EVERYTHING. And you get it without paying for a monthly data plan for your car, and it won't stop being updated in X years when Rivian stops supporting the car or AT&T turns off the cellular network the cars modem runs on (has already happened to 2 of my cars-- the 2G modem in my e46 and the 3G modem in my i3).

CarPlay is make or break for me-- I'm not buying the truck until they at least announce it's coming. I have never purchased a Tesla primarily because of lack of carplay (that and their stance on part support).

And, I need police location from Waze to retain my driver's license

 

[Obioban]

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

These problems are already all solved by everyone that isn't Tesla.
Apps allow you to select charger types.
Apps can be aware of the cars state of charge if Rivian allows it.
Audio quality is as good as any other input, and can still be processed in the same manner as any other input
Carplay introduces no latency or quality issues-- if anything, it reduces it, as the under lying display doesn't actually have to do any of the processing anymore.
In other cars, you can still control audio playback when you switch out of carplay.
Carplay is ready to work with the binnacle display if Rivian enables it

 

[stynes]

I mean, sure you can. Apple Maps supports EV routing.
https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/set-up-electric-vehicle-routing-iphc5e3a4b4b/ios

But, better yet is "A better route planner", a 3rd party app that runs in carplay specifically for that purpose:
https://abetterrouteplanner.com/

Which is really the point-- with over 1,000,000,000 iPhones in active use, there's just more compelling software for EVERYTHING. And you get it without paying for a monthly data plan for your car, and it won't stop being updated in X years when Rivian stops supporting the car or AT&T turns off the cellular network the cars modem runs on (has already happened to 2 of my cars-- the 2G modem in my e46 and the 3G modem in my i3).

CarPlay is make or break for me-- I'm not buying the truck until they at least announce it's coming. I have never purchased a Tesla primarily because of lack of carplay (that and their stance on part support).

And, I need police location from Waze to retain my driver's license

Just to be clear - I'm not against AA/CP. I personally have it 2 of my vehicles but not the other 1. I use it for longer road trips but not daily driving. GA is a hands free state meaning you can't legally hold your phone. So I have a mount for the phone whether I'm using AA/CP or not and for daily driving, I often just click Waze from there, not plugging in to use AA/CP (I think both of my vehicles require wired, not wireless).

I had not seen the Apple EV routing integration - I have Android devices, not Apple. Good to know that it does that but I don't know that it really changes the equation that Rivian wants to be the one estimating your mileage and pointing you to your next change, not leaving it to someone else to do that. And then there's the question of - what chargers are they sending you to, can you prefer Rivian chargers, etc.

 

[Obioban]

Just to be clear - I'm not against AA/CP. I personally have it 2 of my vehicles but not the other 1. I use it for longer road trips but not daily driving. GA is a hands free state meaning you can't legally hold your phone. So I have a mount for the phone whether I'm using AA/CP or not and for daily driving, I often just click Waze from there, not plugging in to use AA/CP (I think both of my vehicles require wired, not wireless).

I had not seen the Apple EV routing integration - I have Android devices, not Apple. Good to know that it does that but I don't know that it really changes the equation that Rivian wants to be the one estimating your mileage and pointing you to your next change, not leaving it to someone else to do that. And then there's the question of - what chargers are they sending you to, can you prefer Rivian chargers, etc.

Yeah, the advent of wireless carplay is when it really came into its own. Being able to use it while leaving the phone in your pocket really decreases the effort/inconvenience of using it.

I don't particularly want to be preferentially routed to Rivian chargers. A CCS charger is a CCS charger, so me using a Rivian charger only benefits Rivian

 

[stynes]

I don't particularly want to be preferentially routed to Rivian chargers. A CCS charger is a CCS charger, so me using a Rivian charger only benefits Rivian

I'd like to be able to filter or prefer. I get a CCS charger is a CCS charger. But I also get that for those with a membership (whatever that ends up looking like?) that using a Rivian charger could be free. I've also seen significant variances between the charging speed from one location to another. This is something that to my understanding Rivian wants to better manage. They want to provide a consistent high speed charge experience. So if for me Rivian chargers are free or are typically better/more consistently working/higher speed chargers... I'd probably prefer using Rivian chargers.

 

[Obioban]

I'd like to be able to filter or prefer. I get a CCS charger is a CCS charger. But I also get that for those with a membership (whatever that ends up looking like?) that using a Rivian charger could be free. I've also seen significant variances between the charging speed from one location to another. This is something that to my understanding Rivian wants to better manage. They want to provide a consistent high speed charge experience. So if for me Rivian chargers are free or are typically better/more consistently working/higher speed chargers... I'd probably prefer using Rivian chargers.

Okay, alternate tact-- you still can. As in, having CP/AA support does not need to make the OE ICE any less good.

 

[3l3c7r1c]

I started to buy Rivian's argument that Carplay/AA can be an obstruction to have seamless experience. Say car navigation can suggest chargers based on battery condition, terrain, car load, driving habit etc. Integrated app most likely would take less resource and won't make the screen freeze/choppy. Apple Carplay sometimes become too sluggish on my 2020 Hyundai Palisade. The only two app currently I use with carplay are Google Maps and YouTube Music.

I can switch to car map, and maybe I live with playing music over bluetooth. It's not a huge dealbraker for me.

 

[kylealden]

These problems are already all solved by everyone that isn't Tesla.
Apps allow you to select charger types.

Offloading the complexity to the user

Apps can be aware of the cars state of charge if Rivian allows it.

Offloading the complexity to the user and requiring the phone to be configured and use a compatible app, and restricting the nav awareness to whatever the $VENDOR API includes.

Carplay introduces no latency or quality issues-- if anything, it reduces it, as the under lying display doesn't actually have to do any of the processing anymore.

Routing a touch input to another device, especially wirelessly, introduces inevitable latency that is necessarily worse than local processing (at least competent local processing).

In other cars, you can still control audio playback when you switch out of carplay.

In limited ways, but Rivian doesn't get to provide a fully custom UI with custom controls.

Carplay is ready to work with the binnacle display if Rivian enables it

AFAIK CarPlay has no support for windowing or projections.


Anyway, you're more or less proving my point:

No, none of those are absolute dealbreakers, and I'm sure some of you are thinking right now "so what, I can work around those / manage my own solution / manage multiple interfaces." And that's valid for you. But this is very much a "vertical integration" vs. "open ecosystem" debate and it's clear what side Rivian has chosen, and reasonably so.

 

[Obioban]

I won't buy the truck if they don't add non subscription based wireless carplay.

Carplay means two things to me:
1) I don't need to pay for a monthly data plan for my car, to use any internet features.
2) a decade (+-) from now, with Rivian stops sending updates out for the nav (or the Rivian's modem no longer functions, because the cellular network is uses has been depreciated), the feature set on the nav will remain up to date.

I buy cars and keep them for a long time, and tend to have 5-6 of them. I refuse to pay for a data plan for each car, and nothing dates a car faster than an obsolete ICE setup (which carplay avoids).

Plus, even today it doesn't have the features I want-- Apple Music and Waze for nav/police alerts .

So, if they won't add it, I'll just wait for a truck that does. AFAIK, Tesla is the ONLY company out there not offering CarPlay. Not coincidentally, I've never owned a Tesla and currently have no intention to.

Meanwhile, my 20 year old M5 and 15 year old M3s (purchased new) have wireless Carplay, giving me every ICE feature I actually care about in modern cars

No carplay guarantees tech obsolescence and means you have to pay a monthly data plan (once the free included period is over). To me, that is unacceptable.

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

AFAIK CarPlay has no support for windowing or projections.

Incorrect. Apple CarPlay supports a second screen, such as an instrument cluster. It even has an API (AP2) that can be used to put turn-by-turn directions and media information in a HUD.

Most manufacturers go with a minimum-viable implementation and ignore these features... But CarPlay does support them.

 

[kylealden]

Incorrect. Apple CarPlay supports a second screen, such as an instrument cluster. It even has an API (AP2) that can be used to put turn-by-turn directions and media information in a HUD.

Most manufacturers go with a minimum-viable implementation and ignore these features... But CarPlay does support them.

I didn't realize that - very cool and glad to hear it's more integrated. Ultimately I don't think it change the calculus for Rivian much but I certainly understand why that's not satisfying to customers who want it.

 

[Obioban]

AFAIK CarPlay has no support for windowing or projections.

Good carplay implementations have no perceptible latency. You can see it in the video below (through wireless carplay)

You can also see Carplay pop a map on the cluster, between the gauges, when he opens maps on the interactive screen in this i4 promo video (around 9:00):

 

[PoorPilot]

Bingo.

If Rivian gave me a GOOD UI to interact with Apple Music and text messaging, then I'd probably be fine. I think having CarPlay is still a good option to have -- but I wouldn't be so pissed about it if the apps *I* care about were available natively, and they provided a good experience. The frustrating part is that Rivian says they want to provide a better experience than CP, but refuse to even commit to actually building the functionality I want. How is that better?

I've asked Rivian CS, multiple times, about text messaging and Apple Music. They have said, multiple times that those are NOT supported features at this time, and that they have no current plans to add them in the future.


It may change. I hope it does change. But it's a bad idea to buy a vehicle on what you think may come. Buy the vehicle for what it is today. Anything tomorrow is just gravy.


Both. Rivian CS has consistently said the features are not present, and videos and text accounts from real-world interaction with the vehicle has continued to confirm the features are not present.


Oh so the "if you don't like it just cancel" trope. Geez. You're a peach. If you go back and re-read my post you'll see that your logical fallacy is what was frustrating.

Well, this thread has gone way off into the deep end, but I agree with you that you shouldn't buy a vehicle based on what you think may happen. However, you also stated, " I wouldn't be so pissed about it if the apps *I* care about were available natively, and they provided a good experience. The frustrating part is that Rivian says they want to provide a better experience than CP, but refuse to even commit to actually building the functionality I want." You want Rivian to include functionality that YOU want and the apps that YOU care about. It's apparent that they will not include this in the beginning, and as you stated, probably not in the future. Why even bother? Why buy something that you're already pissed about? It doesn't matter to me if you buy the car or not- I was just asking a simple question. So again, in my peachiest tone possible, if you're that upset about Rivian not including CarPlay and apparently have no plans to include it, why buy this vehicle? I would ask the same question to anyone else that is pissed about making any type of purchase, let alone a major one for the majority of people.

Sponsored