Can we stop asking for CarPlay now? "The next generation of Apple CarPlay will take over all of the screens, sensors and gauges in a car..."

[White Shadow]

That was my point originally, I guess it wasn't clear. You were saying you wouldn't buy an Apple device because of how the SMS was handled with your team. So Apple lost you as a potential customer, this is a counterpoint to it being an anticompetitive practice which is what the case is about.

Well, maybe I wasn't being clear. I'm an Android guys since forever. Never wanted an iPhone for other reasons not stated here. For example, as a car guy, there's stuff I can do on an Android that isn't possible on an iPhone. For example, my car is modified and tuned. I can do program switching on my phone, but couldn't do that if I had an iPhone because it's not supported. Same thing with coding cars....can't do it on iPhone because it's not supported. Android can do all that kind of stuff and more. So yeah, I'm never going to switch to iPhone because of my own specific use case.

Sponsored

 

[White Shadow]

Pretty sure they'll just put MOST of their resources in getting the current UI adopted to R2 instead of giving us the features we crave. You know, the features that Carplay has...

Rivian, if you're reading, we don't want Carplay, we just want all the features that would have came with it. If you want to cheap out and totally understandable if resources are thin, then just embed carplay somewhere as an optional thing.

But CP/AA enables 3rd party apps to integrate with the car. CP/AA itself doesn't do anything really. It seems what you're really asking Rivian to do is to allow all the 3rd party apps that you can get with CP/AA on the Rivian UI. Similar to how Tesla allows Netflix and YouTube in it's vehicles. Just realize that CP/AA allows a whole lot more and can even screen mirror your phone, which makes the possibilities pretty much endless.

 

[djsider2]

But CP/AA enables 3rd party apps to integrate with the car. CP/AA itself doesn't do anything really. It seems what you're really asking Rivian to do is to allow all the 3rd party apps that you can get with CP/AA on the Rivian UI. Similar to how Tesla allows Netflix and YouTube in it's vehicles. Just realize that CP/AA allows a whole lot more and can even screen mirror your phone, which makes the possibilities pretty much endless.

exactly. CP would be great. Ppl on here is complaining about “my looks” but don’t realize how much more functionality it provides.

However, I’m fine settling for no CP if they give me a few more direct integrations.

 

[IGR]

If anyone is still wondering if having AA/CP is useful, I recommend looking at this thread:
No cell, wifi, hotspot or GPS
and this: "Vehicle Offline" showing in app
and this: Lost all internet

This impacts Rivian's navigation. Would be avoided if there was a choice.

 

[djsider2]

If anyone is still wondering if having AA/CP is useful, I recommend looking at this thread:
No cell, wifi, hotspot or GPS
and this: "Vehicle Offline" showing in app
and this: Lost all internet

This impacts Rivian's navigation. Would be avoided if there was a choice.

I want AA/CP but they could just let us use our hotspots too...

 

[srnyoung]

I view green bubble people as inferior because the green indicates they had the poor judgement to use Android, not because of the bubbles themselves.

That's funny, I think of "blue bubble people" as actual droids who have are happy to follow the crowd and have never had a unique thought of their own.

 

[IGR]

I want AA/CP but they could just let us use our hotspots too...

I think there is a greater issue here, even when I connect to my phone's hotspot while parked, navigation still has trouble calculating routing, and car still appears offline.

 

[beaker]

That's funny, I think of "blue bubble people" as actual droids who have are happy to follow the crowd and have never had a unique thought of their own.

How would you know what colors their bubbles are if you're not on iMessage?

 

[Zoidz]

And this is why Apple sucks ass.

But you don’t know if that statement in the suit is fact, do you? Just because it is in the suit does not mean it is true. It’s currently hearsay.

 

[trez63]

The latest rivian map update has absolutely been atrocious. Now more than ever I want CarPlay.

 

[Hillbilly]

But you don’t know if that statement in the suit is fact, do you? Just because it is in the suit does not mean it is true. It’s currently hearsay.

It says Apple told automakers that. It should be expected that a claim like that will have evidence to support it.

Besides, all claims are merely allegations until proven. It doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[Zoidz]

It says Apple told automakers that. It should be expected that a claim like that will have evidence to support it.

Besides, all claims are merely allegations until proven. It doesn't mean it's not true.

All one has to do is look at previous DOJ tech related suits to find allegations with no evidence or supporting documents.

 

[tcole]

I read through most of the DOJ complaint and in general I find it pretty weird.

A lot of the facts are just wrong, which makes me call into question the entire thing. One of the first ones that really stood out was the DOJ claiming the Microsoft anti-trust case caused Microsoft to allow iTunes, which then led to Apple's success with the iPod.

This is a really self congratulatory claim on the part of the DOJ and it's wrong. There is quite a lot of public record about the internal debate at Apple about even doing iTunes on windows. IIRC, Steve Jobs was against it, but his team convinced him to do it.

Also Microsoft did have various restrictions on what PC manufactures could bundle with a new PC (until the DOJ put a stop to some of that) they didn't stop anyone from downloading whatever software they wanted. iTunes was bundled on some HP computers for a time, but most of it's success was due to the iPod being so good and people installing it themselves.

So the DOJ has their facts wrong here to make a self-serving story.

I think they have their facts wrong about CarPlay too. It's not going to force a takeover of all the screens, but that is an option.

In general I think the DOJs case is that they want the iPhone to be like Windows. Their mind-set is stuck in the late 90s, but technology has moved on.

The case really seems more about vendor lock in than being a monopoly. While Apple holds ~58% of the US market it’s only taking about ~25% of the world market. Even at 58%, that’s not exactly a monopoly that prevents competition from others.

The big anti-competitive issue with Apple is the App Store because it’s a gateway for access to it’s platform and they charge a massively burdensome tax to have access to it. Then they take a big percentage of any purchases you make for add-ons through the app or for any subscriptions. I forget the exact terms there but it’s still a hugely burdensome cut of a developers gross margins.

The App Store certainly presents some challenges for developers and I do think it could be run much better. The thing is, a lot of their terms are very similar to what happens with Video Game consoles. The iPhone is really much more like a Video Game console than a PC, but the DOJ wants to make it like a PC.

Sony, Xbox, and even Steam all charge a similar rate, around 30% for developers to sell on their platforms.

That actually makes their case. Apple is the dominate/closed system. Android doesn't intentionally send degraded messages. There's a universal RCS protocol that allows anyone to communicate with rich messaging. Apple intentionally won't adopt it to stay dominant. Therefore, it's monopolistic.

I think Apple's issue with RCS is the standard doesn't have encryption built in. Google has built their own extension to the standard that works with Android. But Apple doesn't want to jump on Googles bandwagon. They are trying to get the standards body to add encryption with a standard that everyone can use. Until that happens, unfortunately iMessage drops to the lowest common denominator, SMS/MMS.

Well, maybe I wasn't being clear. I'm an Android guys since forever. Never wanted an iPhone for other reasons not stated here. For example, as a car guy, there's stuff I can do on an Android that isn't possible on an iPhone. For example, my car is modified and tuned. I can do program switching on my phone, but couldn't do that if I had an iPhone because it's not supported. Same thing with coding cars....can't do it on iPhone because it's not supported. Android can do all that kind of stuff and more. So yeah, I'm never going to switch to iPhone because of my own specific use case.

And this is the other thing here. The smart phone market as it is today is pretty healthy IMO. There are two very different philosophies at play, neither one is totally dominant. Android is much more open. People who want to tinker, who want all the different possibilities have that. With lots of devices to chose from.

Apple is closed and highly integrated. People who want that (myself included) can have it.

I think the DOJ is trying to force Apple to be more like Android, or even more like a Windows PC. Which is not what I personally want. I think if the DOJ wins, Apple products will be worse.

The other issue issue with this suit is the smartphone market is well into the flat part of the innovation S curve and the industry is moving on to things like AI/LLMs and AR (think VisionPro). So by the time this case shakes out we'll probably see a new winer in whatever the next tech platform is. No one cares about the Windows monopoly anymore. We won't care about this smartphone stuff either because something new will be on the rise.

 

[Deadfish]

My questions is - Do auto makers have to implement all those features? If so it's not backwards compatible. Why doesn't Rivian and GM and all the others just say - this is what we will support, and we won't turn over the car to the phone.

 

[Gen(R3)Xer]

Or, to some, Apple's UI is more important than a Rivian UI
Or, Rivian has sold you as user data to Alexa and to Spotify
Or, do people have a choice to use their phone & apps in the car they choose to purchase?
Or are they required to replace their playlists, maps, apps and choices with new non-choices made for them by their car manufacturer without any compensation by that manufacturer?

People here are passionate about RIvian. There are some 100k users in that market. I'm one of them. Based on data seen here, about 58% of the US market is Apple phone users. I'd suggest that 58% of the current Rivian market are also Apple iPhone users. But support by Rivian to use their chosen handset other than as a BT phone connection. Seems obvious that there is bias but not from Apple, from the car manufacturer, Rivian.

-RJ


Don't forget that Google didn't want Apple Watch to connect well with Android phones.

https://www.indiatoday.in/technolog...ect-apple-watch-to-android-2517972-2024-03-22

-RJ

Don’t forget RJ is a big fan of Apple and Tesla. Can’t we all just get along?

Sponsored