It is a crazy step for GM in particular because it is not like they have any distinct advantages or differentiators as an automaker. Rivian and Tesla have specific niche appeal. I am not sure anyone is clamoring for a Chevy in the same way. Lack of Apple car play is a feature your average user will be aware of and consider when purchasing a new car.

Same here in regards to Android.

I only care about bluetooth for music and handling phone calls, don't get the point why having the actual car dashboard show phone stuff that relevant.

You might as well be making the “I’m okay with my 2004 Honda accord with a tape adapter” argument.

There is no cost reason to exclude the option. Even if I don’t use it, if I’m buying a $30-50k new vehicle it better have it, even if that’s for the sake of resale or future family members I might pass the car down to. My 2016 has it, why am I tolerating the removing of such a feature?

If you want unscientific evidence you’ll notice that the Honda Prologue (has CarPlay) outsells the Equinox EV it’s based on.

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2024/06/about-one-third-of-car-...

For what it is worth, there are lots of double DIN aftermarket AirPlay options for a C6. No need for an iPad.

Retrofitted my 2010 Tacoma beater because I can’t live without CarPlay

The number I’ve seen is that CarPlay specifically is in the top ~2 prios for 79% of new car shoppers in the US. I think there’s probably enough mass here, and GM doesn’t have the niche EV/SW cachet that Rivian and Tesla have despite lacking CarPlay so I don’t think this will go well for them.

It's basically the feature to a huge number of consumers. Various numbers I've seen place not having it as a dealbreaker for somewhere between 15% to 80% of buyers, especially the younger ones. It's more important than virtually any other feature you can name.

Nothing, this is obviously a management decision.

There aren't really any licensing fees for Android Auto. Apple charged a few dozen dollars for the right to produce a car with the integration, rather than a license as such. There's integration costs and hardware, so it's not free, but generally it's cheaper than the alternative.

Android automotive, the system GM is discussing here, is more expensive in every way than Android Auto. The reason they're switching is that Android Auto/carplay don't give GM enough additional monetization options for customers.

Make it a paid upgrade and let the market sort itself out.

Is there any public data on how much those licenses cost?

What are the chances phones in 10 years won’t be able to connect to the cars with CarPlay or Android auto from today.

Yeah exactly. My wife's Volvo runs Android as its entertainment OS, and I still choose to use Android Auto. Because my phone has my music, has the music player I like to use, etc. The car has none of these things. There is no scenario where the car's software is going to be a superior experience to plugging in your smartphone, IMO.

My Pre-Carplay car handles all of this (well, except calendar) just fine. It's all still handled on my device.

Additionally, even if Toyota were to get breached, they would not get my data

They will 100% reverse this decision. Surprising it made it past engineering strategy & leadership at a company as large as GM and that they would even float this publicly without the details... but this will be walked back.

How large companies can make it so far and still have such insane decision-making (management by instinct?) is so wild to behold.

Also, doing the communication would require cooperation from Google and Apple. Who have their competing systems, and don't want to cooperate with every car makers who wants to build their own system.

My current car is from 2003 and I'm happy with it. I'm fine with a backup camera screen, as long as I don't need Google/Apple in the mix and the controls (radio, climate, etc.) are not screen-based.