Apple CarPlay and Android for R1T / R1S?

[SoCal Rob]

The notion that Rivian can ever sell enough vehicles to remotely be a high priority development target is silly. There are over a billion iPhones in active use. Rivian is unlikely to ever sell 0.1% of that, or have 0.01% of that in active use. Plus, even if developers want to make apps, they currently can’t.

You hit on what I think is a key issue here. For the foreseeable future, assuming 3rd party development is even possible, Rivian won’t have enough active devices/vehicles for a developer to bother with unless Rivian commissions the work. By going it alone Rivian will at best be trailing in whatever popular app springs up.

For the anti-AA/CP folks, even if Rivian supports everything we want today, when something new comes along Rivian will be way behind with support for the app compared to AA/CP. As just one example, from my perspective WebEx and GoToMeeting were both popular options for virtual meetings. Then Zoom blew up during the pandemic and their CarPlay app allows people to participate in meetings with basic call controls if their vehicle has CP. Carmakers with AA/CP support don’t have to devote resources to support whatever crops up, and can focus on core vehicle functions instead.

Allowing AA/CP to run in a window means that supporting the latest popular app is somebody else’s problem. Rivian can refine and improve the important stuff while keeping ALL of their customers happier. Philosophically or intellectually opposed to screen projection? Don’t use it. Have a desire or need? Enable it and connect.

Sponsored

 

[hola29]

That's all well and good. They may choose to add it in the future, but if I was running the company I would agree with Elon and RJ (and Steve @ Apple as well most other successful tech companies). You launch with a limited set of functionality and build from there. Try to keep the ecosystem simple/standardized to start, with users generally following very few golden paths/user stories. Rivian should prioritize THEIR mapping solution which includes range from the batteries, potentially grade, weather, who knows, and improve it via data from usage and feedback.

Same with all their software. Will they expand it? Very likely. Will they partner with other software providers in the future? Very likely. Will we see additional apps? My guess is yes. Will they include CarPlay or AA? Maybe. Would I prefer a native fully integrated experience that improves over time vs. a projection system? Largely yes.

Your Zoom example is a good one. We have a 1.0 company, with a 1.0 products, that they are working on in real-time. Having all the features everyone wants out the gate is not how technology works. You prioritize, develop, launch, collect data, iterate. I actually think using other technologies and having drivers using all sorts of apps from others, OS platform included, is a net negative for the Rivian team in terms of honing *their* platform. The decision not to include CarPlay/AA is incredibly obvious to me...

I would argue that because car buyers may not be tech forward, they don't really understand the process of how software works, and make no mistake Rivian is also a software company. Why people like CarPlay/AA - most car software was static, disconnected, and poorly design for a long time. That has definitely changed. I don't think a lot of the commenters here have every launched an actual released tech product, so its foreign...

Lucid is including CarPlay. Glad they are providing another option for modern EV cars.

You hit on what I think is a key issue here. For the foreseeable future, assuming 3rd party development is even possible, Rivian won’t have enough active devices/vehicles for a developer to bother with unless Rivian commissions the work. By going it alone Rivian will at best be trailing in whatever popular app springs up.

For the anti-AA/CP folks, even if Rivian supports everything we want today, when something new comes along Rivian will be way behind with support for the app compared to AA/CP. As just one example, from my perspective WebEx and GoToMeeting were both popular options for virtual meetings. Then Zoom blew up during the pandemic and their CarPlay app allows people to participate in meetings with basic call controls if their vehicle has CP. Carmakers with AA/CP support don’t have to devote resources to support whatever crops up, and can focus on core vehicle functions instead.

Allowing AA/CP to run in a window means that supporting the latest popular app is somebody else’s problem. Rivian can refine and improve the important stuff while keeping ALL of their customers happier. Philosophically or intellectually opposed to screen projection? Don’t use it. Have a desire or need? Enable it and connect.

 

[Obioban]

I know Rivian has said not happening, not happening at launch , maybe later, or screen is too big for it...Or any other number of things but just wanted to share this image. This is the Mach-E screen, which is really large running CarPlay. It can be done it is all about software, I think it is a miss by Rivian, especially since Lucid support CarPlay as well. I hope they deliver it later, but it won't stop me from getting my R1S. Just food for thought.

I don't think it's a screen size issue.

i4 has a large, wide screen (plus a second carplay display between the gauges):

Bronco has a large 4:3 screen:

 

[Obioban]

Rivian should prioritize THEIR mapping solution which includes range from the batteries, potentially grade, weather, who knows, and improve it via data from usage and feedback.

Apple Maps in CarPlay already does all of that, for car manufactures that support it.

The actual "start simple" move to be to enable CP/AA, to give a large swath of options, rapidly with minimal effort, and then build out their own system if they think they can do better. Adding AA/CP support is fast and easy and enables a TON of options/functionality.

 

[Dbeglor]

Apple Maps in CarPlay already does all of that, for car manufactures that support it.

How many actually do though? I know Audi doesn't. I think they are still searching the organization for the "IT Department" to figure out who would know how to do that. And they are arguably the market leader in technology among legacy makers. It was announced 18 months ago by Apple and I haven't seen anyone take them up on the offer.

Why? Because they don't want to share the data from the vehicle with Apple and want users to use their own system, and thus we re-enter the rabbit hole....

 

[Obioban]

How many actually do though? I know Audi doesn't. I think they are still searching the organization for the "IT Department" to figure out who would know how to do that. And they are arguably the market leader in technology among legacy makers. It was announced 18 months ago by Apple and I haven't seen anyone take them up on the offer.

Why? Because they don't want to share the data from the vehicle with Apple and want users to use their own system, and thus we re-enter the rabbit hole....

I don't follow Audi overly much (at all, really), but BMW does support it.

Data acquisition is a significant reason to prefer CarPlay. Apple is about as good as it gets for consumer privacy, of the "real" companies.

 

[SoCal Rob]

That's all well and good. They may choose to add it in the future, but if I was running the company I would agree with Elon and RJ (and Steve @ Apple as well most other successful tech companies). You launch with a limited set of functionality and build from there. Try to keep the ecosystem simple/standardized to start, with users generally following very few golden paths/user stories. Rivian should prioritize THEIR mapping solution which includes range from the batteries, potentially grade, weather, who knows, and improve it via data from usage and feedback.

Same with all their software. Will they expand it? Very likely. Will they partner with other software providers in the future? Very likely. Will we see additional apps? My guess is yes. Will they include CarPlay or AA? Maybe. Would I prefer a native fully integrated experience that improves over time vs. a projection system? Largely yes.

Your Zoom example is a good one. We have a 1.0 company, with a 1.0 products, that they are working on in real-time. Having all the features everyone wants out the gate is not how technology works. You prioritize, develop, launch, collect data, iterate. I actually think using other technologies and having drivers using all sorts of apps from others, OS platform included, is a net negative for the Rivian team in terms of honing *their* platform. The decision not to include CarPlay/AA is incredibly obvious to me...

I would argue that because car buyers may not be tech forward, they don't really understand the process of how software works, and make no mistake Rivian is also a software company. Why people like CarPlay/AA - most car software was static, disconnected, and poorly design for a long time. That has definitely changed. I don't think a lot of the commenters here have every launched an actual released tech product, so its foreign...

Lucid is including CarPlay. Glad they are providing another option for modern EV cars.

I think you’re making some assumptions about what is driving the demand for projection via AA/CP as well as assumptions about the tech friendliness of a lot of people who want it. Neither the motivation nor the users are monolithic.

For example, I think you picture people like my mom who wants CarPlay because it will allow her to easily do some core features the same way no matter which vehicle she is in. She is not at all technical and learning how to do the same things (navigate to a destination, have a text message read aloud to her) in different vehicles with different interfaces, command syntax, and capability is NEVER going to be an improvement for her no matter how much better it is. Different = bad to this type of person.

My husband, on the other hand, is a very tech savvy financial person. He sees CarPlay as a feature he could use which is offered in nearly every vehicle. Not including something as ubiquitous as CarPlay is a negative to him and gives him the perception that Rivian is not providing as much value possibly because they do not understand what an average person expects in a vehicle at a given price point.

I am an IT guy and I don’t necessarily want CarPlay… if Rivian delivers the functionality I need. With the current infotainment feature set, Rivian does not deliver the functionality I need so I’d use CarPlay as a stopgap until they deliver what I need in the Rivian interface. When looking at not having an optimized Rivian function versus having a suboptimal function (AA/CP) then having the function always wins for me. To me this isn’t a case of Rivian function versus CarPlay function, but no function versus CarPlay function. I cannot imagine a logical argument which would convince me or people like me that giving up a function so Rivian can maintain UX purity is the better path.

When you combine all of the people who need and/or want projection for any reason at any level of technical prowess, I think you’ll find that this is a much larger group than you’re addressing. When you then consider that people who don’t want to use it don’t have to, there is no downside from a customer perspective.

I cannot speak to Rivian’s motivation for not including this beyond their stated desire to have control over the UX. Most importantly, this is a topic which is not dying down when the vehicles are being reviewed. The availability of this feature is pretty much a given at any price point so its absence is noteworthy. I think the reviewers and influencers are doing a far better job of keeping this issue alive in a prominent way than any of us are here on the forum.

 

[hola29]

Again, you hit the nail on the head. A v1.0 car from a v1.0 company in a v1.1 category is not going to work for some people, probably most people. I would never recommend my mother jump in on a LE edition for lots of reasons. Nor would I recommend most projects use brand new technology stacks right off the bat.

Rivian needs to MATURE their stack, just like nearly ALL other tech focused companies, and that process often includes limited tech options until maturity. I could list all the time Apple, Google, Cisco, etc etc did that, almost unlimited examples. Its a process.

I dont think most people get that and thats fine. I also thing early adopters should at least think about that they are just that EARLY ADOPTERS of a tech product...

I too had the first iPhone, and AT&T was the only provider. But guess what? Their network was saturated and for months and months my phone basically did not work, nor my co-workers...but I valued the experience, the phone, and it helped think about alternate modes of communication for our team that ended up yielding dividends....

I think you’re making some assumptions about what is driving the demand for projection via AA/CP as well as assumptions about the tech friendliness of a lot of people who want it. Neither the motivation nor the users are monolithic.

For example, I think you picture people like my mom who wants CarPlay because it will allow her to easily do some core features the same way no matter which vehicle she is in. She is not at all technical and learning how to do the same things (navigate to a destination, have a text message read aloud to her) in different vehicles with different interfaces, command syntax, and capability is NEVER going to be an improvement for her no matter how much better it is. Different = bad to this type of person.

My husband, on the other hand, is a very tech savvy financial person. He sees CarPlay as a feature he could use which is offered in nearly every vehicle. Not including something as ubiquitous as CarPlay is a negative to him and gives him the perception that Rivian is not providing as much value possibly because they do not understand what an average person expects in a vehicle at a given price point.

I am an IT guy and I don’t necessarily want CarPlay… if Rivian delivers the functionality I need. With the current infotainment feature set, Rivian does not deliver the functionality I need so I’d use CarPlay as a stopgap until they deliver what I need in the Rivian interface. When looking at not having an optimized Rivian function versus having a suboptimal function (AA/CP) then having the function always wins for me. To me this isn’t a case of Rivian function versus CarPlay function, but no function versus CarPlay function. I cannot imagine a logical argument which would convince me or people like me that giving up a function so Rivian can maintain UX purity is the better path.

When you combine all of the people who need and/or want projection for any reason at any level of technical prowess, I think you’ll find that this is a much larger group than you’re addressing. When you then consider that people who don’t want to use it don’t have to, there is no downside from a customer perspective.

I cannot speak to Rivian’s motivation for not including this beyond their stated desire to have control over the UX. Most importantly, this is a topic which is not dying down when the vehicles are being reviewed. The availability of this feature is pretty much a given at any price point so its absence is noteworthy. I think the reviewers and influencers are doing a far better job of keeping this issue alive in a prominent way than any of us are here on the forum.

 

[hola29]

If I worked at Rivian, and heard these arguments for CarPlay on Launch Editions, sold out until who knows when, and one could not explain how CarPlay would help Rivian become a better company and market leader 5-7 years from now, I would ask that person to leave the meeting.

Again, you hit the nail on the head. A v1.0 car from a v1.0 company in a v1.1 category is not going to work for some people, probably most people. I would never recommend my mother jump in on a LE edition for lots of reasons. Nor would I recommend most projects use brand new technology stacks right off the bat.

Rivian needs to MATURE their stack, just like nearly ALL other tech focused companies, and that process often includes limited tech options until maturity. I could list all the time Apple, Google, Cisco, etc etc did that, almost unlimited examples. Its a process.

I dont think most people get that and thats fine. I also thing early adopters should at least think about that they are just that EARLY ADOPTERS of a tech product...

I too had the first iPhone, and AT&T was the only provider. But guess what? Their network was saturated and for months and months my phone basically did not work, nor my co-workers...but I valued the experience, the phone, and it helped think about alternate modes of communication for our team that ended up yielding dividends....

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

If I worked at Rivian, and heard these arguments for CarPlay on Launch Editions, sold out until who knows when, and one could not explain how CarPlay would help Rivian become a better company and market leader 5-7 years from now, I would ask that person to leave the meeting.

You'd be a bad boss, then, imo. Regardless of what Rivian ultimately does, not listening and considering the feedback is bad culture and will cause problems, in time.

 

[hola29]

I would ask. And if they felt strongly about it, the question would be how does prioritizing CarPlay for a vehicle with a proprietary integrated OS, many overlapping features that all need use/data, sold out for 2-3, help the company become better and a market leader in the next 5+ years.

I would hear anyone out. If they had a good argument great. But RJ appears to disagree with them as do I. In fact negative value.

You'd be a bad boss, then, imo. Regardless of what Rivian ultimately does, not listening and considering the feedback is bad culture and will cause problems, in time.

 

[Dbeglor]

I don't follow Audi overly much (at all, really), but BMW does support it.

Data acquisition is a significant reason to prefer CarPlay. Apple is about as good as it gets for consumer privacy, of the "real" companies.

I meant makers don't want to share vehicle data with Apple because they will want drivers to use their own Nav and aggregate data that will help them stay alive in the future.

Not to mention you lose a lot of range prediction and ADAS functionality by using nonnative navigation (slowing down for curves, turns, etc).

I've said it before, but Carplay and Android Auto will not exist long term, so it's just a band aid solution. Carplay will exist longer most likely, because Google is signing up automakers in numbers for their more evolved Android Automotive OS that Polestar uses (Ford, Hyundai, Kia, Genesis, GM, Honda). I'm still not sure why Apple hasn't tried to compete there.

 

[hola29]

Of course you are correct.

I assume apple does not want to get in lower margin game (I assume lower?), and stick to (like Rivian should) software and hardware as tightly integrated as possible.

Competing with Rivian as their SW gets better and better would be very hard to compete with just as a phone.

Rivian is going to have to play catch-up with a bunch of this, Zoom integration, Calendars, etc. so we’ll see what they prioritize.

I meant makers don't want to share vehicle data with Apple because they will want drivers to use their own Nav and aggregate data that will help them stay alive in the future.

Not to mention you lose a lot of range prediction and ADAS functionality by using nonnative navigation (slowing down for curves, turns, etc).

I've said it before, but Carplay and Android Auto will not exist long term, so it's just a band aid solution. Carplay will exist longer most likely, because Google is signing up automakers in numbers for their more evolved Android Automotive OS that Polestar uses (Ford, Hyundai, Kia, Genesis, GM, Honda). I'm still not sure why Apple hasn't tried to compete there.

 

[Dbeglor]

Of course you are correct.

I assume apple does not want to get in lower margin game (I assume lower?), and stick to (like Rivian should) software and hardware as tightly integrated as possible.

Competing with Rivian as their SW gets better and better would be very hard to compete with just as a phone.

I meant why isn't Apple trying to convince legacy makers to hand over their entire infotainment like Google has (not Carplay, a native Apple UI). Especially given they are clearly developing it for their own autonomous vehicle.

The other answer is that automakers are just getting the underlying linux based software from Google and can still apply their own brand "skin" if they want, similar to LG/Samsung phones. Apple wouldn't let them, all or nothing.

 

[ERguy]

I would hear anyone out. If they had a good argument great. But RJ appears to disagree with them as do I.

I think you give RJ too much credit. He doesn't agree with you. He simply wants to maximize profit. He realizes Rivian will make a ton of money from subscription fees if people can't use Android auto or carplay.

At this point, I see it as a disagreement between Rivian and its customers.

The overwhelming majority of car owners want the freedoms to use free apps for navigation and other driving aids.

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but facts don't care about your opinion.

The facts are clear. People don't like wasting money on subscriptions, and this will factor into purchasing decisions. It will matter much more to Rivian in a few years when they want to compete with larger automakers and people refuse to purchase Rivians due to the ridiculous proprietary systems requiring expensive subscriptions. It may not matter now since they can't produce enough vehicles yet to clear the backlog of orders, but time will change that. They will only grow their brand so much unless they find ways to offer what their customers want.

Tesla will have the same problem. They got by for a while because they had no competition. Now that the competition is about to get intense with a ton of new EVs on the market, don't be surprised if Tesla starts listening to customer feedback more. If they don't, they will lose customers to the competition.

Sponsored