I will vote with my wallet. No CarPlay, no purchase by me.

 

Ditto.

 

I will vote with my wallet. No CarPlay, no purchase by me.

Ditto.

It won't affect my future EV buying choice, but I still think GM is making a terrible mistake. With all the software problems they are currently having with the Blazer EV, this is an opportunity to reverse course. Bring back the option of being able to use AA/CP as part of the software fixes. It will give buyers confidence that at least something will work. 🤔

 

Considering how upset people are about this, I think this might be a good thing!

If there are that many people who won't by a car that doesn't have then, then that means my 2017 Bolt resale value is probably going up... Maybe hundreds (Android fans) or even Thousands (iPhone users) of dollars!!!

Woo Hoo!!!

;-)

 

I’m not signing up for a subscription model, which is absolutely what this is about. I keep my cars for a very long time and will not trust a car company to (1) keep a promise not to charge fees and (2) keep the software up to date and functioning as long as I want to keep the car.

 

Carplay is underwelming IMHO. tried it many times but like the GM native apps much better. granted you pay for it.

 

Onstar is outrageously expensive.

 

Just look at what Tesla charges for Premium Connectivity vs OnStar Premium Connectivity: GM honestly thinks their service is worth $49.99 a month? vs Tesla's $9/month?

Really gives you a glimpse of how GM sees themselves and their (ancient) OnStar system. I know Tesla doesn't have AA/Carplay, and I cant comment on how much better or worse their system might be, but I will give them a thumbs on on their pricing model. It's actually reasonable, and if I was driving around in a Tesla, I'd probably spring for it.

vs OnStar and what feels like signing up for a shady gym membership. Nobody wants to have to call and talk on the phone to get a (better) deal, just offer fair pricing up front. Lack of AA/Carplay is why I didn't follow though with a Blazer EV purchase, worked out extra great for me since most of them seem to be duds from the factory anyway.

 

I predict this backfires on GM and they ultimately reinstate CarPlay

 

GM has proven conclusively that they simply cannot write decent software, while Apple and Google are obviously really good at it. I love my '23 Bolt EUV but it will probably be the last GM car that I ever purchase because it will probably be the last GM car that supports CarPlay, which is something that I use every day. Ford seems to be on the right track on this: by supporting Ford's SYNC, Apple CarPlay, and Android Auto. That way you will nail the entire buying market. Why exclude a huge number of potential customers?

 

GM is not writing the code, or at least not all of it. They are joining the Eclipse Foundation which is a group that produces open source code. The Ultium system is meant to integrate Google maps, etc, so there isn't a lot that can go wrong. I reserve judgement until there are cars to actually experience.

 

Apple CarPlay has worked perfectly on my 23' Chevy Bolt EUV. We also have a 24' Subaru Outback that we use CarPlay on. Never had any issues on either car.
Will never ever get a car without CarPlay. Chevy can keep their subscription based model. The disastrous rollout of the Chevy Blazer EV has proven that they can not do software. As of this time (Jan 31), the stop sell order for the Blazer EV is still in place.

 

Apple CarPlay has worked perfectly on my 23' Chevy Bolt EUV. We also have a 24' Subaru Outback that we use CarPlay on. Never had any issues on either car.

Ditto. Well, there have been a few times when I get in the car and CarPlay doesn’t seem to want to connect, but with just a little fuss (like unlocking the iPhone or just giving it a little more time), I get it going. Not a safety issue at all since I’m still in Park. If has never crapped out while I’m driving, which is more than can be said of the new GM system.

 

There are cars to actually experience how well this works, and the cars needed to be pulled from the market. I’m sure that will be corrected, but still does not address concerns about long term cost or support. CarPlay works fine in my Bolt, and the closed system has some issues in my rental Tesla because it didn’t access Waze, which has better traffic than google. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

 

Others, like me, will also vote with their wallets, and if it’s a good car for a good price, then they may buy it anyway. I don’t care at all about Carplay. The infotainment system has never had anything to do with my decision on what car to buy.

Some people seem to be making a lot of noise about GM dropping CP and AA, buy I suspect there is another large group out there that doesn’t care, not even enough to bother commenting on it.

Others, like me, will also vote with their wallets, and if it’s a good car for a good price, then they may buy it anyway. I don’t care at all about Carplay. The infotainment system has never had anything to do with my decision on what car to buy.

Some people seem to be making a lot of noise about GM dropping CP and AA, buy I suspect there is another large group out there that doesn’t care, not even enough to bother commenting on it.

Many of the potential buyers who "don't care" will buy, or have already bought, Teslas.

 

Which isn't a bad thing, don't you agree ? Everyone does with his own money what they want. Some are so judgemental...

 

Friday I test drove a Lyriq EV and a Tesla Model Y. For my use case my Apple CarPlay was far superior to either one of those entertainment systems. I will only have cars with CarPlay.

Others may love GM's new system (if it ever works) or Teslas system. It is your money - get what works for you.

 

At least with the Lyriq, you can still use CarPlay, and I believe it's wireless on all trims.

Link to screenshot. I don't know why it says site maintenance.

Site Maintenance

 

Never used Carplay because I refuse to turn on Siri. I don't want my phone listening to everything I say around it and then pelting me with targeted ads. Just wait until I say something innocent that sounds like a bomb threat and then I wind up on some government watch list. Bluetooth audio is good enough.

 

Well, Apple sells privacy. I have used CarPlay for years and have never had the slightest indication that Apple has ever monetized anything that my phone could possibly hear. I am told that the Hey Siri! Recognition preamble is done locally on your iPhone, not by a server, for what it’s worth, in addition. That said, I freely admit that I am not an expert on computer security so I recognize the potential for abuse of privacy by unscrupulous companies and do not criticize folks who disagree with my experiences.

 

I guess I am an outlier here, but I see AA/CP as a band aid until OEMs can make a proper system.

For some background, I have a 2017 Bolt which is hardwired AA/CP, I have used rental cars with wired and wireless AA, and I have a Rivian with no AA/CP support. I was originally hesitant to consider the Rivian being they don't support AA, but after using it for a few months I now won't consider a car that relies on AA for such basic functionality.

Here are some problems I have had with AA

• Every 1-2 months it takes me multiple tries to connect AA to my car. Sometimes I have to re-enable it, sometimes I have to reset my phone/car, sometimes it just doesn't auto-pop up for some reason.
• AA has stopped working mid-drive on several occasions (usually related to loose USB connection)
• I was using a rental car with wireless AA, and unbeknownst to me my phone stopped charging and the battery died at a critical junction in my trip
• My phone complained about moisture in my USB port which prevented me from using AA until it dried out

For future proof concerns, Who is to say Google/Apple won't change something in AA/CP that will break compatibility with my Bolt? Or that Google won't kill AA off? Or that my next phone will even have a USB port? Having AA/CP doesn't mean a car is future proof because nothing is future proof.

As far as subscriptions go, OEMs will naturally have to be competitive with that pricing just like MSRP pricing. And yes, it feels like a cash grab. But if nothing else, a subscription is an incentive for OEMs to build reliable cars and to support them longer vs my '17 Bolt which will never see another update.

 

OEMs don’t have to be competitive. Once they sell the car they have you by the short and curlies. The ONLY time a buyer has leverage is before the sale.

 

I don't feel that it's necessary to pay more every month for a function in a vehicle that comes built-in to my smartphone for zero incremental cost.

 

My wife swears she has talked about something within hearing of my Amazon Echo Show, and the next time she was browsing on a computer there were ads based on what she had been saying. I've disabled the mic on my Show, but I honestly don't know if it's still listening in stealth mode.

 

My only experience is with Apple. Cannot vouch for the others.

 

There are two fundamental things going wrong at GM, both of them due to the fact that decisions are being made by accountants, not designers and engineers.

1. OnStar is a fundamentally broken business model. The service is ridiculously expensive for what it offers because it is ridiculously expensive to provide. And no product or service can succeed if it's starting point is "cost plus" pricing. It has to start from customer value and then figure out a way to deliver that value in a way that costs less than customers are willing to pay. When OnStar debuted, it was worth a premium price to some buyers. But these days, it has largely been superseded by smartphones, often providing the same services for free. Maybe there is an opportunity to provide some of the unique OnStar features as software/car integration via the customer's own smartphone; but as a standalone service it is just too expensive to deliver. At this point GM is desperately trying to invent additional services to justify OnStar, but most of the ideas they are kicking around are either things a phone already does; or things that might happen once in a lifetime ("suppose you had a heart attack while driving, and the car sensed that, and brought the vehicle to a safe stop automatically" - I kid you not.)

2. GM thinks that the customer's Next Best Alternative (or NBA, as marketing people say) if AA/CP integration is unavailable is to pay for their subscription service. It isn't. Their NBA is to use their phone in a holder or air vent mount; or to buy a different car entirely. Customers are simply not going to pay for an inferior GM service over what their Smartphone provides; or a duplicate of what their phone provides; or even a superior service if the familiar one on the phone is "good enough". And GM's curated selection of apps is never going to compare to the AA/CP stores. GM thinks that the tail is wagging the dog here.

GM's entire thinking around software value-add is upside-down. They need to be thinking "our customers have smartphones; what can we do to leverage that at low cost to us and high value to them?". And they aren't.

 

There are two fundamental things going wrong at GM, both of them due to the fact that decisions are being made by accountants, not designers and engineers.

1. OnStar is a fundamentally broken business model. The service is ridiculously expensive for what it offers because it is ridiculously expensive to provide. And no product or service can succeed if it's starting point is "cost plus" pricing. It has to start from customer value and then figure out a way to deliver that value in a way that costs less than customers are willing to pay. When OnStar debuted, it was worth a premium price to some buyers. But these days, it has largely been superseded by smartphones, often providing the same services for free. Maybe there is an opportunity to provide some of the unique OnStar features as software/car integration via the customer's own smartphone; but as a standalone service it is just too expensive to deliver. At this point GM is desperately trying to invent additional services to justify OnStar, but most of the ideas they are kicking around are either things a phone already does; or things that might happen once in a lifetime ("suppose you had a heart attack while driving, and the car sensed that, and brought the vehicle to a safe stop automatically" - I kid you not.)

2. GM thinks that the customer's Next Best Alternative (or NBA, as marketing people say) if AA/CP integration is unavailable is to pay for their subscription service. It isn't. Their NBA is to use their phone in a holder or air vent mount; or to buy a different car entirely. Customers are simply not going to pay for an inferior GM service over what their Smartphone provides; or a duplicate of what their phone provides; or even a superior service if the familiar one on the phone is "good enough". And GM's curated selection of apps is never going to compare to the AA/CP stores. GM thinks that the tail is wagging the dog here.

GM's entire thinking around software value-add is upside-down. They need to be thinking "our customers have smartphones; what can we do to leverage that at low cost to us and high value to them?". And they aren't.

Thomas Murphy, whose tenure as GM CEO in the seventies was between the great Ed Cole and the quite lackluster Roger Smith, is essentially only remembered for the following quote: "General Motors is not in the business of making cars. It is in the business of making money."

While all businesses do that (and, frankly, cannot survive otherwise), it's the way and to the extreme which can quite negatively impact their bottom line. GM has, historically, had a very bad habit of doing exactly that, ultimately resulting in a 2009 bankruptcy filing. The abandonment of CP/AA on new Ultium vehicles is a calculated gamble and I'm not sure that GM is going about it the right way.

I like Mary Barra but wonder about her input on this decision.

 

But these days, it has largely been superseded by smartphones, often providing the same services for free. Maybe there is an opportunity to provide some of the unique OnStar features as software/car integration via the customer's own smartphone; but as a standalone service it is just too expensive to deliver.

OnStar now includes this with their plans. It can be used by up to 7 people on their phones.

1. OnStar is a fundamentally broken business model. The service is ridiculously expensive for what it offers because it is ridiculously expensive to provide.

OnStar is adding some features at no cost for the first 8 years starting with all 2025 model year GM vehicles.

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2024/02/more-onstar-features-now-standard-on-all-2025-gm-vehicles/

Note: I'm not defending OnStar and won't try to dissuade anyone who thinks it's terrible. So, I'm not going to get into a debate about it. I just wanted to mention a few OnStar changes that many may not be aware of, FWIW.

 

It can be used by up to 7 people on their phones.

I could have used this when I was by myself and fell off the roof last year at my Mom's house to repair some wind damage to the roof vent. Had many thoughts running thru my mind as I laid there stunned after the ladder departed when it slipped on the deck from the rain. Oh wait, now I remember that I had forgotten my cell phone in the house. Guess it wouldn't have worked. That and I barely get cell service there.

Luckily I survived the approximate eight foot drop and didn't need medical attention. Bruised my ego about as much as it did my body though.