Cars add all this software and soft-button shit and then angle to lock it all behind subscriptions anyway.
What's the point when you can just use a phone anyway? Just rip it all out, save a packet on software development and partner with Brodit to add a nice stock phone holder for an extra 5 euros in wholesale BOM costs.
Well presumably they do it to make money. And they definitely arent going to get rid of the screen. Used for backup camera and other stuff. Backup cameras are required by law in the US on new cars.
Due to safety and emissions regulations we just cant have a dead simple car even as a niche option.
They could charge for the screen and give the option to use a connected phone as screen instead. To use that phone you'd have to install the car manufacturer's app which could leech data from the user whether it was anywhere near the car or not.
Another alternative would be to use the dashboard screen - where the speedometer etc. used to be - to show the backup camera image, the speedometer isn't really needed when backing up anyway.
I like the approach Slate has taken - basically, bring your own device, then connect to the vehicle with our app. I'm not super confident that Slate will last as a company, and leaving subscription money on the table might be one reason they don't last. But I like this approach and I wish more companies would do it.
It's not in production but I read that Slate, the modular EV startup, is explicitly not putting any screens and letting out your own device on the console. Seems like the obvious way to do it.
I recently purchased a used car, but one of the criteria was to not have all of this subscription/telemetry nonsense. The in dash head unit is new enough to have bluetooth connectivity, but no navigation or anything. It wanted to sync my contacts, but at least gave me the option of not doing that. I'm assuming it was to be used for displaying the caller's name instead of just the number on the display, but anytime someone asks to sync contacts it is a hard no on principle. As you said, just use the phone. Being in the holder I can see it before the in-dash display anyways.
My partner replaced her 11 year BMW 5 GT with a new X4 last month. The nav is slow (probably updates the view twice a second) and out of date. I think it needs new roads updating via a USB stick.
The Android Auto and Carplay integration are fantastic though - silky smooth (better than the phone they're coming from) and always up to date.
Built-in navigation is more important and useful for long trips in an EV, where you want the nav to have detailed information on how much battery charge you have left and incorporate charging stops along your trip.
That's basically Tesla's secret sauce, their charger network + in-car nav makes taking trips in an EV pretty easy.
Android Auto and CarPlay are starting to incorporate these features though for cars that support sending those stats to the phone.
Depending on data quality in the area you need, one of the many apps that use OpenStreetMap data can be a good backup option. Where I am in the US it is plenty reliable enough for highway driving.
Yes, I'm aware. And that's my default minimum starting place which works until you realize that google maps routed you through a private gated road and you need to readjust and reroute while out of cell-range. Or a large section of the road is passable only on foot or perhaps with a quad, but certainly not even a 4wd truck. Or it's convinced that you should simply "turn left!" off a cliff numerous times.
All of which happened to me just last week here in rural CA.
May I suggest caching/downloading your map data? Google Maps for example will allow you to cache areas. I used it when traveling cross country. Super duper valuable.
That's surprising, I have a '23 X6, and the built-in navigation is actually really nice. The maps have more detailed information than both Google and Apple Maps in many areas. I also haven't observed any lag/stuttering, but perhaps the hardware is worse or something on newer models.
Anyway, for me at least, the benefit of the built-in nav is not about routing, which is basically always worse than Google/Apple at this point, but about having detailed, offline maps. In my experience, offline Google/Apple maps are less detailed, and you have to download them in advance.
I use all three, depending on my needs at the time - each of them have their strengths. I prefer Google/Apple maps for day to day routing and things like that, but if I'm somewhere with poor signal, I use the native maps to navigate, because they are just more reliable.
It's all subjective though, and probably highly specific to location.
It’s awful if the vendor makes it awful. Know that this is deliberate lack of investment and not that it’s impossible. To my knowledge, there’s a few companies doing it right:
Tesla, whose nav is pretty great and responsive
Rivian, who appears to have copied a lot of the Tesla UI elements (and, has lots of former Tesla employees) and the snappiness and great nav is part of that.
Any car using Android automotive (different from Android auto) such as the Polestar lineup. Basically gives you an Android tablet with Google Maps, so nav is great, and it seems to be all held to a certain level of responsiveness.
Haven’t been on a Tesla recently but I really disliked the navigation system of the one we rented a while back. Small buttons, and common settings buried in multiple menu layers. What I like about Apple CarPlay and Android auto is that the UI is pretty consistent because it’s driven by the device I have with me.
I’d suggest that’s just a case of what you’re used to. I never use CarPlay except when I get a rental and every time I use it there’s a learning curve to relearn how it works. Just like any new UI honestly. As for Tesla nav in particular, I can’t really think of any nav elements “buried” in the UI except disabling toll routes or something. But that’s a sub-menu on almost any nav software, so not unusual.
The thing that is not subjective though: the UI is responsive and the map data isn’t extremely outdated. Those are the two primary problems with “bad” nav implementations.
Also the reverse -- CarPlay knows where I have been, where I have searched, locations people have texted to me, locations in my calendar, etc. It's nice to not have to type in the address every time I want to go somewhere new.
Not quite as seamless, but for anything like that where you’re headed to a destination, you can always send the location to these various UIs. Tesla and Rivian support sending addresses to their cars via their apps (through the share functionality, so it’s basically 2 clicks).
For the calendar point, Tesla actually offers calendar integration and automatic navigation (if you enable it) to events that have locations near your current time. I don’t use it since my calendar isn’t heavily populated, but I could see that being super useful for certain people.
Its better than many alternatives, though. Try using built in nav in many cars. I tried using it in a Hyundai rental when CarPlay was having trouble connecting and it was so truly terrible. It was so unusable I spent the extra 10 mins just trying to fix my CarPlay connection.
I would never buy a car that doesn’t have CarPlay integration. I’ve rented a Tesla enough times to know that their infotainment system is a reason not to get it.
The built in navigation is a backup to preferred options like Waze, Google Maps, etc. via android/apple auto. You use those in normal situations and fallback to the car's navigation when you have to. It's not really competing with those nav solutions in my opinion.
Navigation does cost money though. Even maintaining a basic map.
One thing I would love to see is more industry collaborations to make software. The nav system of Honda/Toyota/Ford is never going to be a differentiator on the core product. Chip in resources to get a core platform that each vendor can cosmetically tweak.
Of course, this never happens, because humans. Yet I still dream.
My 2012 VW Passat’s system was the most responsive and dead-on accurate GPS I’ve ever used in a car or a phone. The only thing that beats it are handheld dedicated GPS units designed for ships and rescue workers.
That said, the maps got out of date and couldn’t be updated without a $200 SD card, which was annoying.
I have no idea about Android, but my understanding is for wired CarPlay a GPS in the dash is optional and for wireless CarPlay its required. The thinking is you can use a larger, better placed antennae. If you're using wireless CarPlay you may have your phone hidden away.
I’ve always wondered why manufacturers don’t just bump the sticker up by whatever the estimated LTV of these subscriptions would be. If you want to buy a new F-150, there’s functionally no difference between paying e.g. $52,500 instead of $51,250 and as a bonus Ford gets to avoid headlines like this.
Maybe the long-term goal is to push more people toward direct leasing?
Because they dream of doing what all the streaming services do, what comcast does, get people to use their service, push everyone to enable autopay, and then quietly triple the price and hope no one notices. That's the goal of all of this.
Same reason Basic Starter Economy Lite airfares exist: to rank higher in lists. Once they have you in the sales funnel and don't have price competition anymore, they can start upselling you on things you're missing.
> Probably because the LTV is at least an order of magnitude more than you are estimating.
This subscription costs $140 per year; even accounting for price increases over time, if someone has calculated that its 10-year LTV exceeds $14,000 then I think they need to go back and review the spreadsheet.
Or what various advertising companies (and the advertisers) would pay to know where you shop.
Connect what gas you buy, what grocery or gym you go to, what restaurants you eat at with your name, address, and probably ip. And note this is significantly facilitated if they have a direct billing relationship with the driver: that's how they're getting clean phone, name, ip (gotta login to put that card in), etc.
> the amount you're paying for the subscription is only a fraction of what they can get for your data.
This doesn’t clarify it at all for me because this model already works without the bother of subscriptions. They’re generating the data either way, regardless of whether the customer is paying $140 per year or $1,400 up front.
I think the real reason is probably closer to “we want to be able to add recurring subscription revenue to our 10-K” than it is to “we want a better pretext under which to mine consumer data.”
This doesn’t clarify it at all for me because this model already works without the bother of subscriptions
Not if you're using CarPlay, it doesn't.
The automakers' best move is to incentivize drivers to use the company's nav system instead of their own phone, but instead they're penalizing them. That's the part I don't get.
I understand what you mean; what I’m saying is that they can still disable CarPlay and upcharge buyers for navigation and harvest the data to resell without bringing subscriptions into the picture.
It’s the foundational decision to make this an optional subscription instead of just pricing it into the sticker from the jump that I’m having trouble wrapping my head around.
I haven’t bought a car in a hot minute but those options usually also included different in-dash displays, etc. If Ford standardized the hardware, eliminated the option, and bumped the sticker, nobody would bat an eye and they would capture that revenue from every buyer, not only the ones who choose to subscribe.
It feels like such an obvious win that I know I must be missing something, I just don’t know what it could be.
If I'm using a navigation system to actively guide me somewhere I usually use CarPlay.
If I'm just using it to display where I currently am and let me see the nearby roads sometimes I use CarPlay and sometimes the built-in Hyundai system.
CarPlay has a nicer looking map, but when not actively navigating it updates the display noticeably slower when I'm turning.
CarPlay's compass sucks--it just shows the heading as N, NW, W, SW, S, SE, E, or NE. Hyundai's does the more traditional spinning indicator that points North and has way better resolution. It's way better when I'm driving in some twisty place and am trying to understand my orientation--I can see at a glance rather than having to read CarPlay's text direction and translate in my head to a visualization.
CarPlay is quite a bit better at labeling streets. It usually names the side streets I pass. Hyundai tends to only name the bigger ones, and when it does the typography is less readable than CarPlay's. CarPlay is also more likely to show buildings.
Hyundai's colors are better at night.
Hyundai shows traffic lights, whereas CarPlay only shows them when actively navigating. I prefer to see them even when passively navigating.
The car is an EV and I think the Hyundai nav system has some features to help with finding chargers, but I haven't looked into that. I've got 48A @ 240V (11.5 kW) charging at home and in the nearly 6 months I've had the car I've never charged anywhere but home.
I do on occasion, because the navigation gets thrown onto the HUD of our Ioniq 5. That said, our new camper van (ProMaster chassis) apparently interfaces with CarPlay, and so the navigation gets put on the dashboard (no HUD) without using the built-in nav. That seems to be the optimal solution for me, interface with what I'm going to use anyway. But that doesn't pull in those sweet subscription dollars, I guess.
My older Toyota has a DVD for its maps and works without any comms — I use it all the time (and even pay to update the maps from OEM every few years).
I would LOVE to be able to use my modern Toyota's navigation system; unfortunately, this requires you to connect a modern cell phone (cannot use without it) which I don't own.
So for my new vehicle I instead purchased a stand-alone GPS unit ($60) which comes with lifetime map updates.
Well Tesla's built-in navigation is the best solution I've ever seen by far. Much, much better than any phone. But then you have to drive a fascistmobile. And they charge for it now. I'll keep my 2017 Tesla until it falls apart, with its free-data-for-life.
An important thing to note when buying a car that includes subscription services is exactly what those subscriptions are for.
For example if the maps, traffic info, alerts, etc depend on a subscription there are couple ways it can go.
1. The subscription is actually for that data and the alert services. The car's systems only accepts those sources and so if you do not subscribe when the trial ends those stop working.
2. The data and services can be accessed on the internet for no cost (you made need a free account with the car maker's site). The subscription is for cellular internet service for the car.
In case #2 it might be that the car is only capable of using that cellular connection for internet access and so you will need to subscribe if you want things to keep working.
Some cars however can use a WiFi connection instead of their cellular connection for internet access. If your phone includes a WiFi hotspot you may be able to set the car to use that and then maps, traffic, and alerts might keep working without needing a subscription.
Also many cars will let you update data by downloading it on your computer and putting it on a USB drive and then uploading to the car from the US drive. You won't get traffic info and alerts that way, but at least you can keep maps from becoming obsolete.
Having recently bought a new car after last buying a car at the end of 2005, dealing with subscriptions was by far the most annoying change since the last time. Just getting information on what depending on subscriptions and what my options were if I didn't keep the subscription was a pain for nearly every car.
I have mixed feelings about subscriptions - in some cases, they can actually be good for customers (mainly power users, whose usage is subsidized by other subscribers).
I have 4000 songs on my Spotify. That would be $4k on iTunes. With Spotify being $11/month, it would take me 30 years of Spotify usage to break even with the iTunes model if I never bought another song. For every additional song I listen to, that subscription becomes worth even more.
With cars, I hope 1) customers have the option to pay up front 2) it allows for cheaper production with assembly efficiencies 3) it lets people granularly pick which options are on their car, as opposed to being stuck with whatever options come with a given trim package 4) there are always non-subscription cars around to keep manufacturers from rent-seeking behavior.
I haven’t bought a car in a long time, so I don’t know if any of those are true.
I see why Fords ceo does not like Apple CarPlay Ultra. You can control everything from your phone or a tablet.
“CarPlay Ultra is Apple's advanced, next-generation CarPlay system that deeply integrates your iPhone with a vehicle's entire infotainment system, including the driver's instrument cluster. It extends the familiar iOS interface to all the screens in your car, allowing for comprehensive control of vehicle functions like climate, radio, drive modes, and vehicle settings directly from the familiar CarPlay interface.”
I have zero doubt that the car companies will do their best to make it effectively impossible to "own" your own car, in the same way you can no longer truly "buy" software.
Subscription is hugely more profitable than a one time purchase even if the latter equates a multi year long subscription. It provides the company with customer personal information and proof of engagement, it is more easily sold (it's like a purchase with a loan) and other advantages.
This makes sense. Navigation maps cost $$$ to maintain. Subaru has been charging for built-in navigation for years (it comes free for 3 years with most purchases) with the expectation that most people won't renew when the free period expires. The navigation is very good as whatever service they use is able to account for construction and other map changes significantly faster than Google does. But the UI is really slow.
The alternative is to use CarPlay/Android Auto and the navigation app of your choice for free. (Until like Toyota Ford starts requiring a subscription to use CP or AA. They had planned to do this several years ago but decided not to after backlash.)
Another alternative is to store maps on the head unit, and provide a subscription for downloading map updates. That's how all of the cars in my house (Porsche, BMW) work for nav, and it works perfectly fine. Stop paying? Then you get to keep using the last update you downloaded for the rest of time.
Hard agree. Maps, I don't care plus I understand, it's an ongoing cost and keeping old maps may actually be dangerous. Carplay, Android Auto behind subscription? Just weird. I'm not even mad, it's that weird. Like BMW buttheaters on subscription level weird.
Y'all are missing the point. Yes, the OEM nav is crap. Yes any normal person would just use Carplay or whatever. This is targeted at fleet customers for whom letting employees use carplay/phone nav is a non-starter because it causes too much hand wringing among management, insurers, etc, etc. due to some no-phone policy (as if literally every gig driver isn't using phone nav).
Yeah it's gotten better than it used to be recently (outside of Tesla and GM).
Rivian, Tesla, GM.
But within the other manufacturers it's model dependent, it's still not universal across all models. Toyota and Nissan both have a large line up without CarPlay in the base models. Same with Honda, some trims won't have it.
I'm sure I'm forgetting a few as well, though I wouldn't be surprised to see BMW back out like GM with the direction BMW wants to go with subscriptions as well.
Cars add all this software and soft-button shit and then angle to lock it all behind subscriptions anyway.
What's the point when you can just use a phone anyway? Just rip it all out, save a packet on software development and partner with Brodit to add a nice stock phone holder for an extra 5 euros in wholesale BOM costs.
Well presumably they do it to make money. And they definitely arent going to get rid of the screen. Used for backup camera and other stuff. Backup cameras are required by law in the US on new cars.
Due to safety and emissions regulations we just cant have a dead simple car even as a niche option.
They could charge for the screen and give the option to use a connected phone as screen instead. To use that phone you'd have to install the car manufacturer's app which could leech data from the user whether it was anywhere near the car or not.
Another alternative would be to use the dashboard screen - where the speedometer etc. used to be - to show the backup camera image, the speedometer isn't really needed when backing up anyway.
> Backup cameras are required by law in the US on new cars.
This didn't used to be true and I'm not sure if it is now but it is required in California, which is why they are ubiquitous. Fun fact.
I like the approach Slate has taken - basically, bring your own device, then connect to the vehicle with our app. I'm not super confident that Slate will last as a company, and leaving subscription money on the table might be one reason they don't last. But I like this approach and I wish more companies would do it.
https://www.slate.auto/
It's not in production but I read that Slate, the modular EV startup, is explicitly not putting any screens and letting out your own device on the console. Seems like the obvious way to do it.
I recently purchased a used car, but one of the criteria was to not have all of this subscription/telemetry nonsense. The in dash head unit is new enough to have bluetooth connectivity, but no navigation or anything. It wanted to sync my contacts, but at least gave me the option of not doing that. I'm assuming it was to be used for displaying the caller's name instead of just the number on the display, but anytime someone asks to sync contacts it is a hard no on principle. As you said, just use the phone. Being in the holder I can see it before the in-dash display anyways.
The built-in nav is always awful anyway.
My partner replaced her 11 year BMW 5 GT with a new X4 last month. The nav is slow (probably updates the view twice a second) and out of date. I think it needs new roads updating via a USB stick.
The Android Auto and Carplay integration are fantastic though - silky smooth (better than the phone they're coming from) and always up to date.
Who ever uses those built-in things?
Built-in navigation is more important and useful for long trips in an EV, where you want the nav to have detailed information on how much battery charge you have left and incorporate charging stops along your trip.
That's basically Tesla's secret sauce, their charger network + in-car nav makes taking trips in an EV pretty easy.
Android Auto and CarPlay are starting to incorporate these features though for cars that support sending those stats to the phone.
>Who ever uses those built-in things?
I do. I use it only as a backup or corroborating source of info in situations where the maps are never quite right, but that happens quite frequently.
I spend a LOT of time out of cell-service though.
Good point. Though certainly Google Maps (through AA) lets you download the route in advance so you don't technically need data.
Depending on data quality in the area you need, one of the many apps that use OpenStreetMap data can be a good backup option. Where I am in the US it is plenty reliable enough for highway driving.
Yes, I'm aware. And that's my default minimum starting place which works until you realize that google maps routed you through a private gated road and you need to readjust and reroute while out of cell-range. Or a large section of the road is passable only on foot or perhaps with a quad, but certainly not even a 4wd truck. Or it's convinced that you should simply "turn left!" off a cliff numerous times.
All of which happened to me just last week here in rural CA.
You do when starting a trip out of service. And sadly being a T-Mobile customer that's a good chunk of CA.
Check to see if you can download more territory.
On my car, deep in the options, is a screen that shows CONUS, and lets you draw a box around the portion you want to download.
I have a box drawn around an area about twice the size of California. Hopefully your car has enough storage for that size, too.
On those occasions when I'm out of a cellular service area, the map shows a banner reading something like "No cell connection. Using downloaded maps."
May I suggest caching/downloading your map data? Google Maps for example will allow you to cache areas. I used it when traveling cross country. Super duper valuable.
That's surprising, I have a '23 X6, and the built-in navigation is actually really nice. The maps have more detailed information than both Google and Apple Maps in many areas. I also haven't observed any lag/stuttering, but perhaps the hardware is worse or something on newer models.
Anyway, for me at least, the benefit of the built-in nav is not about routing, which is basically always worse than Google/Apple at this point, but about having detailed, offline maps. In my experience, offline Google/Apple maps are less detailed, and you have to download them in advance.
I use all three, depending on my needs at the time - each of them have their strengths. I prefer Google/Apple maps for day to day routing and things like that, but if I'm somewhere with poor signal, I use the native maps to navigate, because they are just more reliable.
It's all subjective though, and probably highly specific to location.
It’s awful if the vendor makes it awful. Know that this is deliberate lack of investment and not that it’s impossible. To my knowledge, there’s a few companies doing it right:
Tesla, whose nav is pretty great and responsive
Rivian, who appears to have copied a lot of the Tesla UI elements (and, has lots of former Tesla employees) and the snappiness and great nav is part of that.
Any car using Android automotive (different from Android auto) such as the Polestar lineup. Basically gives you an Android tablet with Google Maps, so nav is great, and it seems to be all held to a certain level of responsiveness.
Haven’t been on a Tesla recently but I really disliked the navigation system of the one we rented a while back. Small buttons, and common settings buried in multiple menu layers. What I like about Apple CarPlay and Android auto is that the UI is pretty consistent because it’s driven by the device I have with me.
I’d suggest that’s just a case of what you’re used to. I never use CarPlay except when I get a rental and every time I use it there’s a learning curve to relearn how it works. Just like any new UI honestly. As for Tesla nav in particular, I can’t really think of any nav elements “buried” in the UI except disabling toll routes or something. But that’s a sub-menu on almost any nav software, so not unusual.
The thing that is not subjective though: the UI is responsive and the map data isn’t extremely outdated. Those are the two primary problems with “bad” nav implementations.
> just a case of what you’re used to
Also the reverse -- CarPlay knows where I have been, where I have searched, locations people have texted to me, locations in my calendar, etc. It's nice to not have to type in the address every time I want to go somewhere new.
Not quite as seamless, but for anything like that where you’re headed to a destination, you can always send the location to these various UIs. Tesla and Rivian support sending addresses to their cars via their apps (through the share functionality, so it’s basically 2 clicks).
For the calendar point, Tesla actually offers calendar integration and automatic navigation (if you enable it) to events that have locations near your current time. I don’t use it since my calendar isn’t heavily populated, but I could see that being super useful for certain people.
Whenever I need to use CarPlay in a rental I wanna scream. It's insane people consider this is good UX.
Its better than many alternatives, though. Try using built in nav in many cars. I tried using it in a Hyundai rental when CarPlay was having trouble connecting and it was so truly terrible. It was so unusable I spent the extra 10 mins just trying to fix my CarPlay connection.
> common settings buried in multiple menu layers
Are you sure it was Tesla?
I would never buy a car that doesn’t have CarPlay integration. I’ve rented a Tesla enough times to know that their infotainment system is a reason not to get it.
The built in navigation is a backup to preferred options like Waze, Google Maps, etc. via android/apple auto. You use those in normal situations and fallback to the car's navigation when you have to. It's not really competing with those nav solutions in my opinion.
Navigation does cost money though. Even maintaining a basic map.
One thing I would love to see is more industry collaborations to make software. The nav system of Honda/Toyota/Ford is never going to be a differentiator on the core product. Chip in resources to get a core platform that each vendor can cosmetically tweak.
Of course, this never happens, because humans. Yet I still dream.
I imagine that it serves a purpose to demand a markup given that the car provides such capability.
My 2012 VW Passat’s system was the most responsive and dead-on accurate GPS I’ve ever used in a car or a phone. The only thing that beats it are handheld dedicated GPS units designed for ships and rescue workers.
That said, the maps got out of date and couldn’t be updated without a $200 SD card, which was annoying.
I have no idea about Android, but my understanding is for wired CarPlay a GPS in the dash is optional and for wireless CarPlay its required. The thinking is you can use a larger, better placed antennae. If you're using wireless CarPlay you may have your phone hidden away.
I’ve always wondered why manufacturers don’t just bump the sticker up by whatever the estimated LTV of these subscriptions would be. If you want to buy a new F-150, there’s functionally no difference between paying e.g. $52,500 instead of $51,250 and as a bonus Ford gets to avoid headlines like this.
Maybe the long-term goal is to push more people toward direct leasing?
Because they dream of doing what all the streaming services do, what comcast does, get people to use their service, push everyone to enable autopay, and then quietly triple the price and hope no one notices. That's the goal of all of this.
Same reason Basic Starter Economy Lite airfares exist: to rank higher in lists. Once they have you in the sales funnel and don't have price competition anymore, they can start upselling you on things you're missing.
Probably because the LTV is at least an order of magnitude more than you are estimating.
GM dropped CarPlay support from some of their vehicles. They think subscription revenue is going to be at least $20 billion / year.
> Probably because the LTV is at least an order of magnitude more than you are estimating.
This subscription costs $140 per year; even accounting for price increases over time, if someone has calculated that its 10-year LTV exceeds $14,000 then I think they need to go back and review the spreadsheet.
What you're missing on the spreadsheet is that the amount you're paying for the subscription is only a fraction of what they can get for your data.
Just think of what your insurance company would be willing to pay, for instance.
If there's anything I don't understand here, it's why they are bothering to bill the end users at all.
Or what various advertising companies (and the advertisers) would pay to know where you shop.
Connect what gas you buy, what grocery or gym you go to, what restaurants you eat at with your name, address, and probably ip. And note this is significantly facilitated if they have a direct billing relationship with the driver: that's how they're getting clean phone, name, ip (gotta login to put that card in), etc.
> the amount you're paying for the subscription is only a fraction of what they can get for your data.
This doesn’t clarify it at all for me because this model already works without the bother of subscriptions. They’re generating the data either way, regardless of whether the customer is paying $140 per year or $1,400 up front.
I think the real reason is probably closer to “we want to be able to add recurring subscription revenue to our 10-K” than it is to “we want a better pretext under which to mine consumer data.”
This doesn’t clarify it at all for me because this model already works without the bother of subscriptions
Not if you're using CarPlay, it doesn't.
The automakers' best move is to incentivize drivers to use the company's nav system instead of their own phone, but instead they're penalizing them. That's the part I don't get.
I understand what you mean; what I’m saying is that they can still disable CarPlay and upcharge buyers for navigation and harvest the data to resell without bringing subscriptions into the picture.
It’s the foundational decision to make this an optional subscription instead of just pricing it into the sticker from the jump that I’m having trouble wrapping my head around.
They used to. It was a $1k option or whatever and now it's moved to subscription.
I haven’t bought a car in a hot minute but those options usually also included different in-dash displays, etc. If Ford standardized the hardware, eliminated the option, and bumped the sticker, nobody would bat an eye and they would capture that revenue from every buyer, not only the ones who choose to subscribe.
It feels like such an obvious win that I know I must be missing something, I just don’t know what it could be.
Does anyone use car navigation anymore? My car has it and I’ve used it maybe 5 times and generally use my smartphone vs that clunky nonsense.
I sometimes do.
If I'm using a navigation system to actively guide me somewhere I usually use CarPlay.
If I'm just using it to display where I currently am and let me see the nearby roads sometimes I use CarPlay and sometimes the built-in Hyundai system.
CarPlay has a nicer looking map, but when not actively navigating it updates the display noticeably slower when I'm turning.
CarPlay's compass sucks--it just shows the heading as N, NW, W, SW, S, SE, E, or NE. Hyundai's does the more traditional spinning indicator that points North and has way better resolution. It's way better when I'm driving in some twisty place and am trying to understand my orientation--I can see at a glance rather than having to read CarPlay's text direction and translate in my head to a visualization.
CarPlay is quite a bit better at labeling streets. It usually names the side streets I pass. Hyundai tends to only name the bigger ones, and when it does the typography is less readable than CarPlay's. CarPlay is also more likely to show buildings.
Hyundai's colors are better at night.
Hyundai shows traffic lights, whereas CarPlay only shows them when actively navigating. I prefer to see them even when passively navigating.
The car is an EV and I think the Hyundai nav system has some features to help with finding chargers, but I haven't looked into that. I've got 48A @ 240V (11.5 kW) charging at home and in the nearly 6 months I've had the car I've never charged anywhere but home.
I do on occasion, because the navigation gets thrown onto the HUD of our Ioniq 5. That said, our new camper van (ProMaster chassis) apparently interfaces with CarPlay, and so the navigation gets put on the dashboard (no HUD) without using the built-in nav. That seems to be the optimal solution for me, interface with what I'm going to use anyway. But that doesn't pull in those sweet subscription dollars, I guess.
My older Toyota has a DVD for its maps and works without any comms — I use it all the time (and even pay to update the maps from OEM every few years).
I would LOVE to be able to use my modern Toyota's navigation system; unfortunately, this requires you to connect a modern cell phone (cannot use without it) which I don't own.
So for my new vehicle I instead purchased a stand-alone GPS unit ($60) which comes with lifetime map updates.
Well Tesla's built-in navigation is the best solution I've ever seen by far. Much, much better than any phone. But then you have to drive a fascistmobile. And they charge for it now. I'll keep my 2017 Tesla until it falls apart, with its free-data-for-life.
An important thing to note when buying a car that includes subscription services is exactly what those subscriptions are for.
For example if the maps, traffic info, alerts, etc depend on a subscription there are couple ways it can go.
1. The subscription is actually for that data and the alert services. The car's systems only accepts those sources and so if you do not subscribe when the trial ends those stop working.
2. The data and services can be accessed on the internet for no cost (you made need a free account with the car maker's site). The subscription is for cellular internet service for the car.
In case #2 it might be that the car is only capable of using that cellular connection for internet access and so you will need to subscribe if you want things to keep working.
Some cars however can use a WiFi connection instead of their cellular connection for internet access. If your phone includes a WiFi hotspot you may be able to set the car to use that and then maps, traffic, and alerts might keep working without needing a subscription.
Also many cars will let you update data by downloading it on your computer and putting it on a USB drive and then uploading to the car from the US drive. You won't get traffic info and alerts that way, but at least you can keep maps from becoming obsolete.
Having recently bought a new car after last buying a car at the end of 2005, dealing with subscriptions was by far the most annoying change since the last time. Just getting information on what depending on subscriptions and what my options were if I didn't keep the subscription was a pain for nearly every car.
I have mixed feelings about subscriptions - in some cases, they can actually be good for customers (mainly power users, whose usage is subsidized by other subscribers).
I have 4000 songs on my Spotify. That would be $4k on iTunes. With Spotify being $11/month, it would take me 30 years of Spotify usage to break even with the iTunes model if I never bought another song. For every additional song I listen to, that subscription becomes worth even more.
With cars, I hope 1) customers have the option to pay up front 2) it allows for cheaper production with assembly efficiencies 3) it lets people granularly pick which options are on their car, as opposed to being stuck with whatever options come with a given trim package 4) there are always non-subscription cars around to keep manufacturers from rent-seeking behavior.
I haven’t bought a car in a long time, so I don’t know if any of those are true.
I see why Fords ceo does not like Apple CarPlay Ultra. You can control everything from your phone or a tablet.
“CarPlay Ultra is Apple's advanced, next-generation CarPlay system that deeply integrates your iPhone with a vehicle's entire infotainment system, including the driver's instrument cluster. It extends the familiar iOS interface to all the screens in your car, allowing for comprehensive control of vehicle functions like climate, radio, drive modes, and vehicle settings directly from the familiar CarPlay interface.”
At this point, I'm just counting the days until a monthly subscription paid to the manufacturer eventually becomes required to even start the car.
You won't even need to own the car. Just pay $800 / mo indefinitely.
I have zero doubt that the car companies will do their best to make it effectively impossible to "own" your own car, in the same way you can no longer truly "buy" software.
I believe that’s called a lease.
Except you'll still have to outright buy the car first and pay a subscription to use it.
Literally happens right now for remote start
Subscriptions are irresistibly lucrative for businesses. Expect more products and services to be subscription only in the future.
Subscription is hugely more profitable than a one time purchase even if the latter equates a multi year long subscription. It provides the company with customer personal information and proof of engagement, it is more easily sold (it's like a purchase with a loan) and other advantages.
Their one year trial ran out and now further use of nav requires a subscription. It was like this when they bought the truck.
Ford locking me away from buying their product.
Honestly, there's a dozen other reasons I have no intention of owning a Ford.
This makes sense. Navigation maps cost $$$ to maintain. Subaru has been charging for built-in navigation for years (it comes free for 3 years with most purchases) with the expectation that most people won't renew when the free period expires. The navigation is very good as whatever service they use is able to account for construction and other map changes significantly faster than Google does. But the UI is really slow.
The alternative is to use CarPlay/Android Auto and the navigation app of your choice for free. (Until like Toyota Ford starts requiring a subscription to use CP or AA. They had planned to do this several years ago but decided not to after backlash.)
Another alternative is to store maps on the head unit, and provide a subscription for downloading map updates. That's how all of the cars in my house (Porsche, BMW) work for nav, and it works perfectly fine. Stop paying? Then you get to keep using the last update you downloaded for the rest of time.
Hard agree. Maps, I don't care plus I understand, it's an ongoing cost and keeping old maps may actually be dangerous. Carplay, Android Auto behind subscription? Just weird. I'm not even mad, it's that weird. Like BMW buttheaters on subscription level weird.
Toyota want a subscription for AA/CP? For something with a one-time development cost and nothing ongoing after?
Wow.
Wait, what? You can develop software one time and never need to follow up with updates or nothing ongoing after? Sign me up
Really? It's a rounding error. Both are essentially video mirroring protocols with some bidirectional stuff for speed / fuel level etc.
Compare that to the effort made to do your own satnav, or integrate an existing one, then get back to me.
Cars should be a peripheral to phones. Just some buttons, speakers, and maybe a screen that the phone makes use of.
Y'all are missing the point. Yes, the OEM nav is crap. Yes any normal person would just use Carplay or whatever. This is targeted at fleet customers for whom letting employees use carplay/phone nav is a non-starter because it causes too much hand wringing among management, insurers, etc, etc. due to some no-phone policy (as if literally every gig driver isn't using phone nav).
And this is why people demand CarPlay, and why automakers continue to refuse to put CarPlay/Android Auto support in their vehicles.
I will never buy a vehicle that doesn't support it, nor would I ever buy one that locks it behind a subscription.
If I need to I'll keep older cars alive to avoid the enshittification. Older vehicles are easier to repair and maintain anyway.
> why automakers continue to refuse to put CarPlay/Android Auto support in their vehicles.
Most aren't refusing, and only GM is attempting to backtrack on support right?
Even some of the fancy pants all technology automakers are putting it in their cars, like Lucid: https://lucidmotors.com/knowledge/vehicles/air/lucid-air-in-...
Yeah it's gotten better than it used to be recently (outside of Tesla and GM).
Rivian, Tesla, GM.
But within the other manufacturers it's model dependent, it's still not universal across all models. Toyota and Nissan both have a large line up without CarPlay in the base models. Same with Honda, some trims won't have it.
I'm sure I'm forgetting a few as well, though I wouldn't be surprised to see BMW back out like GM with the direction BMW wants to go with subscriptions as well.
What cars dont support it?
> now I can't use the basic map navigation unless I pay $120CAD per year,
Ford stand to make hundreds of dollars a year from this.