Apple CarPlay and Android for R1T / R1S?

[GaryL]

I’m thinking that the infotainment system people at Rivian are more automotive oriented and familiar with automotive QNX with a couple graphic designers added to the team

I take it that Rivian's infotainment system is based on QNX?

Sponsored

 

[hola29]

I think, as suggested above, CarPlay is easily legacy SW in that timeframe for folks with cheap/old cars. We’ll see.

It negatively benefits Rivian and their mission to prioritize CarPlay over their integrated system.

And they are sold out so some consumer are interested in an integrated system.

And yes, Rivian wants to sell subscriptions. Look at Apple’s services revenue growth. They do too.

Regardless, hoping to see Rivian with best in class tightly integrated HW/SW platform in the coming years.

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.

 

[astonius]

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.

I would ask you the reverse question: why is Rivian in the minority by denying customers a nearly-ubiquitous gateway implemented by almost every other auto manufacturer to their preferred apps and services today? That last point is important. You can claim all you want that Rivian is going to build something amazing over time, but that does nothing to help those of us who do not want to use the limited blessed services Rivian has selected to support right now. If Rivian was truly confident they could build something better than CP/AA then including these platforms would not eat into their supposed revenue streams, because if their offering is clearly better everyone will use the native Rivian system and disregard CP/AA completely.

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

This is legitimately laughable.

1. "Better and better" is not only incredibly generic, but entirely subjective.
2. Smartphone software is much more agile than automotive infotainment. You're talking as if smartphones are static technology. In fact the opposite is clearly more true and will be for the foreseeable future.
3. The larger market for smartphones creates a breadth of developers and customers that Rivian will never compare to, no matter how successful they are. Rivian is never going to have billions of users.
4. It's not "just as a phone." If that were the case we wouldn't even be discussing CP/AA.
5. Which hardware do we upgrade more often -- our phones or our car infotainment systems? Of course it's the former, and all of those hardware and software improvements translate directly to a projection setup. I'd be willing to bet Rivian's latest infotainment hardware is probably not as powerful as the latest iPhone is today, and that gap will only continue to grow.

 

[hola29]

lol...they are building for the next 10 years. No today. Today you get a V1.0. If you don't like V1.0 products that need to mature, IMO, you have zero business buying a Rivian.

As to building for the next 10 years, CarPlay is a detractor, a net negative, to accomplish that mission. Having tightly integrated HW/SW platform for Rivian DOES accomplish that mission. A 3rd party OS, with 4th party apps, with 3rd & 4th party terms of use, 3rd party approvals, 3rd and 4th party updates? Please. If you can't see that as a bad business decision for a tech company building their own stack this convo is not going anywhere.

Smartphone software is Phone software with an interface slapped on it. They may add CarPlay in the future, but for the foreseeable future prioritizing their proprietary stack makes far more business sense. It's difficult for me see how that's not obvious...

I would ask you the reverse question: why is Rivian in the minority by denying customers a nearly-ubiquitous gateway implemented by almost every other auto manufacturer to their preferred apps and services today? That last point is important. You can claim all you want that Rivian is going to build something amazing over time, but that does nothing to help those of us who do not want to use the limited blessed services Rivian has selected to support right now. If Rivian was truly confident they could build something better than CP/AA then including these platforms would not eat into their supposed revenue streams, because if their offering is clearly better everyone will use the native Rivian system and disregard CP/AA completely.



This is legitimately laughable.

1. "Better and better" is not only incredibly generic, but entirely subjective.
2. Smartphone software is much more agile than automotive infotainment. You're talking as if smartphones are static technology. In fact the opposite is clearly more true and will be for the foreseeable future.
3. The larger market for smartphones creates a breadth of developers and customers that Rivian will never compare to, no matter how successful they are. Rivian is never going to have billions of users.
4. It's not "just as a phone." If that were the case we wouldn't even be discussing CP/AA.
5. Which hardware do we upgrade more often -- our phones or our car infotainment systems? Of course it's the former, and all of those hardware and software improvements translate directly to a projection setup. I'd be willing to bet Rivian's latest infotainment hardware is probably not as powerful as the latest iPhone is today, and that gap will only continue to grow.

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

It's difficult for me see how that's not obvious...

For the rest of us, it's difficult to see how you're so oblivious.

You want to gobble up junk. Some of us want something better. If you want junk then that doesn't bother me. But why does it bother you that I don't want junk?

THAT is the insanity. Anyone against CarPlay is just an asshole. You could easily ignore it and not use it. But for those that want it, not having it is terrible. So for you to be so oppressive is nothing more than a dick move.

 

[astonius]

lol...they are building for the next 10 years. No today. Today you get a V1.0. If you don't like V1.0 products that need to mature, IMO, you have zero business buying a Rivian.

As to building for the next 10 years, CarPlay is a detractor, a net negative, to accomplish that mission. Having tightly integrated HW/SW platform for Rivian DOES accomplish that mission. A 3rd party OS, with 4th party apps, with 3rd & 4th party terms of use, 3rd party approvals? Please. If you can't see that as a bad business decision for a tech company building their own stack this convo is not going anywhere.

Smartphone software is Phone software with an interface slapped on it. They may add CarPlay in the future, but for the foreseeable future prioritizing their proprietary stack makes far more business sense. It's difficult for me see how that's not obvious...

CarPlay does not preclude Rivian from creating their own tightly-integrated platform. How many times do we have to remind you of this? It's not an either/or.

And there is no debate about it. Rivian will not be able to compete with the breadth of offerings on a closed, limited reach system. Maybe you don't care about that, but many of us do.

 

[hola29]

I guess we'll find out

CarPlay does not preclude Rivian from creating their own tightly-integrated platform. How many times do we have to remind you of this? It's not an either/or.

And there is no debate about it. Rivian will not be able to compete with the breadth of offerings on a closed, limited reach system. Maybe you don't care about that, but many of us do.

 

[hola29]

Haha! I guess you'll learn to live without it. Maybe you tone and language will improve with the experience

For the rest of us, it's difficult to see how you're so oblivious.

You want to gobble up junk. Some of us want something better. If you want junk then that doesn't bother me. But why does it bother you that I don't want junk?

THAT is the insanity. Anyone against CarPlay is just an asshole. You could easily ignore it and not use it. But for those that want it, not having it is terrible. So for you to be so oppressive is nothing more than a dick move.

 

[OldGoat]

All I know is I'm glad I'm not Emily. I figure the Customer Service reps are pretty busy trying to learn the product, understand the rollout, etc. Likely the group is understaffed and overwhelmed. Yet here I (Emily) have to waste almost 10 minutes of my day trying to settle a pissing match on the internet. No new info revealed, just a waste of a scarce resource.

 

[astonius]

All I know is I'm glad I'm not Emily. I figure the Customer Service reps are pretty busy trying to learn the product, understand the rollout, etc. Likely the group is understaffed and overwhelmed. Yet here I (Emily) have to waste almost 10 minutes of my day trying to settle a pissing match on the internet. No new info revealed, just a waste of a scarce resource.

Yeah, so scarce. I had to wait almost 30 seconds! Clearly demand for Rivian chat agents is through the roof...

Rivian has had $1k of my money for two and a half years now with nothing delivered. They can listen to customer feedback for a few minutes. That's the entire point of customer service.

 

[OldGoat]

Yeah, so scarce. I had to wait almost 30 seconds! Clearly demand for Rivian chat agents is through the roof...

So that makes it a good use of her time as well as the people who she had to reach out to for answers?

 

[Dbeglor]

For the rest of us, it's difficult to see how you're so oblivious.

You want to gobble up junk. Some of us want something better. If you want junk then that doesn't bother me. But why does it bother you that I don't want junk?

THAT is the insanity. Anyone against CarPlay is just an asshole. You could easily ignore it and not use it. But for those that want it, not having it is terrible. So for you to be so oppressive is nothing more than a dick move.

I don't think that is the point. I can't speak for them, but personally my perspective is that allowing access to Carplay hinders the ability for Rivian to achieve what it could have otherwise without it.

Allowing a large number of owners to use apple/google maps slows down the pace of innovation in ADAS, which could threaten Rivian's existence if they don't keep up in that arena.

Offering Carplay creates less incentive for them to continue innovating their own product, if people are content with an app that will eventually not be supported. Why would they devote resources to making anything better in their system if a solution is readily available via CP/AA? Would Apple or Google ever let you run the other's OS on their device when they are devoting a lot of resources into their own software? What you're basically saying is that Rivian should not aspire to be a tech company, and just stay in their lane of making cars. Well, sorry, but they are a tech company that makes cars as the delivery mechanism for their software. Any automaker that doesn't adopt that path is going to have a hard road ahead.

Option A: build a hunk of metal that delivers the same experience as all our competitors. Differentiate ourselves by paying a ton for marketing and branding to trick people into thinking it's different.
Option B: set ourselves apart by creating something unique and having a direct connection to our customers user experience while most competitors make a commodity product.

Giving up and relying on the crutch of CP/AA will be one of several reasons automakers go out of business in the long run.

 

[astonius]

So that makes it a good use of her time as well as the people who she had to reach out to for answers?

Of course it does. Do you never give companies you patronize feedback on their products? Why else would customer service exist? Are you really that dense?

 

[OldGoat]

Of course it does. Do you never give companies you patronize feedback on their products? Why else would customer service exist? Are you really that dense?

Clearly, you are far brighter than I...you win!

 

[hola29]

Again, correct insight.

To say nothing of the inability for in-app user interface tracking, bugs, issues, etc. It makes it significantly more complex w/ no upside for Rivian. They want to start a new paradigm not follow an old one because people got used to it. That is in fact how companies fail.

Folks outside of software are not going to see that. You lose the customer in CarPlay and as for data you are at Apple's and 4th party Apps mercy.

It just does not make sense for Rivian in the short term. Maybe they add it, but I can see why they don't in giant red flashing letters in the short term.

This convo has jumped the shark. I hope Rivian is successful differentiating themselves HW, SW, and branding. Going to be a long journey - rooting from them execute and improve.

I don't think that is the point. I can't speak for them, but personally my perspective is that allowing access to Carplay hinders the ability for Rivian to achieve what it could have otherwise without it.

Allowing a large number of owners to use apple/google maps slows down the pace of innovation in ADAS, which could threaten Rivian's existence if they don't keep up in that arena.

Offering Carplay creates less incentive for them to continue innovating their own product, if people are content with an app that will eventually not be supported. Why would they devote resources to making anything better in their system if a solution is readily available via CP/AA? Would Apple or Google ever let you run the other's OS on their device when they are devoting a lot of resources into their own software? What you're basically saying is that Rivian should not aspire to be a tech company, and just stay in their lane of making cars. Well, sorry, but they are a tech company that makes cars as the delivery mechanism for their software. Any automaker that doesn't adopt that path is going to have a hard road ahead.

Option A: build a hunk of metal that delivers the same experience as all our competitors. Differentiate ourselves by paying a ton for marketing and branding to trick people into thinking it's different.
Option B: set ourselves apart by creating something unique and having a direct connection to our customers user experience while most competitors make a commodity product.

Giving up and relying on the crutch of CP/AA will be one of several reasons automakers go out of business in the long run.

Sponsored