A couple of days ago, Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe was on The Verge‘s “Decoder” podcast. While on there, he was asked about Rivian’s decision to not support popular in-car phone-linked infotainment systems like Apple CarPlay or Android Auto. This is a decision shared with other companies, like Tesla and GM. It’s also a decision that, upon careful consideration, I have determined to be “stupid” and “inane.” There’s a good reason many, many people want systems like CarPlay, and it’s an act of colossal hubris to just dismiss all those people under the illusion that somehow Rivian and other carmakers know better, because, let’s be honest, they don’t.
Let’s take a look at what was actually said in the podcast;
Nilay Patel/Verge: The other thing I’m curious about when it comes to demand and what people are shopping for with these cars is CarPlay. Apple is very insistent that no new car buyer will buy anything except a car with CarPlay. Tesla famously doesn’t have CarPlay. Rivian famously doesn’t have CarPlay. GM is taking it out of its EVs. Are you committed to that, that you’re just going to stick with your software and your interface? Or are you open to using Apple’s next-generation CarPlay?
RJ Scaringe: You and I talked about this before. This is a question that certainly you see a lot of buzz around on the internet. Some of our customers make some noise about this. We’ve taken the view of the digital experience in the vehicle wants to feel consistent and holistically harmonious across every touchpoint. In order to do that, the idea of having customers jump in or out of an application for which we don’t control and for which doesn’t have deep capabilities to leverage other parts of the vehicle experience… for example, if you’re in CarPlay and want to open the front trunk, you have to leave the application and go to another interface. It’s not consistent with how we think about really creating a pure product experience.
It seems Scaringe’s main point is that they want the “digital experience” in their cars to be “holistically harmonious,” meaning that they want to retain control of the user experience, and not pass UX control over to anyone else, like Apple. He also mentions that using CarPlay is a problem because if you have to – and this is his example – open the front trunk, you have to leave CarPlay and go into Rivian’s interface.
Now, there are some real problems with these arguments. First off, the opening the front trunk thing: that’s Rivian’s problem, because putting a control to open a trunk inside a menu on a touchscreen is just shitty design that nobody actually wants. You know what people will do when you ask them to open the front trunk? They’ll reach around under the left side of the dash (on LHD cars) because that’s where they’ve known hood releases have been, forever.
Putting controls that open parts of the car – hatches, doors, glove boxes – on a touchscreen interface is just idiotic, and not something anybody really wants. Who asked for that? Who decided they wanted to navigate a touchscreen UX to locate where the control to open a trunk is? That’s garbage.
And here’s the other thing – the idea that people buying cars care about anything like a holistically harmonious digital experience is absolute delusional crap. Sure, RJ Scaringe (a clearly sharp guy) cares about that, and so do his UX designers, but the people who actually want to buy and use the cars? They do not give a brace of BMs about that.
People want to use the interfaces they already use and understand. They use their phones all day long; that’s the interface they want for their car’s infotainment and navigation systems, the same interface they’ve been using all day as it is, the one that already has their preferences and seamlessly knows the address they looked up before even getting in the car and has their playlists and contacts and everything, right there, ready to go.
Nobody wants to learn some dumb new UX for their car. They just don’t care, and, why should they? Plus, let’s look at these harmonious digital experiences that RJ is talking about. Here’s a walkthrough of Rivian’s new UI/UX system:
One of the things they’re most proud of is the new look, which includes 3D cell-shaded graphics provided by Epic Games, and, yes, it does look great:
Very attractive! The cell-shaded, animated illustration sure is evocative and pretty! But is this actually a good interface? Is it so good that Rivian should prevent another sort of UX from controlling things like music and navigation and texting and other infotainment features? I’m not so sure. Let’s just take a look at this screen:
The UX is nothing to write home about here. 75% of the screen is an illustration that doesn’t do jack shit and the actual controls are just a bunch of basic text-and-icon buttons in a small panel. The text is pretty small, you’d have to really focus on this if you were to try to adjust any of these things while driving, and if there’s anything actually innovative going on here, it’s incredibly well-hidden.
Really, if this UX reminds me of anything, it’s another cell-shaded, illustrated UX concept, one you may remember. It was called Microsoft Bob.
At least in Bob the buttons were made to look like objects in the environment, instead of on some gray floating panel. But nobody liked Microsoft Bob.
The black strips on the top and bottom remain there regardless of whatever main interface is on screen, and I’d imagine that could be retained even if the main area of the screen was running Apple CarPlay or Android Auto, so things like climate controls and other always-available controls (even opening trunks, if you insist on having it on a touchscreen) should be accessible even with something not holistically harmonious on the main screen.
There’s so much hubris here, as these carmakers all are so sure they’re making incredible digital user experiences people are just thrilled to have. They’re not. Here’s another example from this Rivian video:
What we’re looking at here is actually two things: the Rivian interface for controlling the direction the HVAC vents blow and a visual reminder of how misguided and wrong it is to put some controls on a digital touchscreen.
HVAC vent direction should never be controlled on a touchscreen: the very concept is too idiotic. Simple control vanes and knobs on the vents themselves work immediately, intuitively, and can be adjusted any time at all, independently of what may be on a touchscreen. They require no additional servo motors or wiring or software. They’re a solved problem.
This interface is an abject failure, and you can tell that by this simple clue: it’s a picture of the dashboard that you’re already looking right at. The little picture of the steering wheel is inches from the actual steering wheel. They’re simulating moving physical vent controls by having you move simulated, drawn vents on the screen, when they could have eliminated all of this by just letting your same fingers move the vents directly. It’s like a joke. The people that design this and think it’s just great have no business telling anyone what UX they can or can’t use in their own cars.
I should note that Rivian is not alone with this inane idea; plenty of other carmakers do the same thing, controlling HVAC vents via the touchscreen, including Tesla, whose implementation is especially fussy and stupid:
There are a number of articles out there already defending Scaringe’s take, including one from my beloved ex-editor, Patrick George. Patrick is great, but boy do I not agree with him, here. One of Patrick’s main points is that carmakers’ software is getting better and better, and while he may certainly be right about this, it just doesn’t matter.
He uses the Mercedes-Benz Hyperscreen system as an example of how much carmaker UX systems and software have leapfrogged systems like CarPlay and Android Auto, but the honest truth is that when most people see something like this:
…the reaction isn’t one of fascination and excitement, but rather a ragged sigh of dismay at the thought of having to figure out what all of that is and what it does when all they want to do is listen to their damn Spotify playlist and get directions to that new Peruvian-Dutch fusion restaurant where they’re meeting everybody.
Patrick compares that Hyperscreen experience to CarPlay, and comes up with this conclusion:
I can’t imagine wanting to swap that experience for the same set of Apple icons I’ve seen since the Obama years.
…but his conclusion is completely wrong. People want the same set of icons they already know and understand. People want something that just works, that they already understand, that has become second nature to them. Swapping those out for some other set of unfamiliar icons that do basically the same shit in just a different, more blue-glowy way is of interest to nobody, and I suspect deep down that includes Patrick, too.
Nobody gives a shit about their car’s unique software or UX or digital experience or whatever you want to call it if they have the option of just using the system they already know, already have set up, and already are using. There’s a reason a full third of car buyers consider the lack of Android Auto or CarPlay a dealbreaker when it comes to picking a new car.
We’ve already seen how this works for years, as people will stick with the phone ecosystem they’re used to even if the other side has better hardware or features. If you started with an iPhone, you’re far more likely to stick with what you know than switch to Android, for example, even if there’s some new Android phone with a better camera or whatever.
People can come up to you and say, hey, we have a new phone with better features and battery life and smells better than your iPhone, but most iPhone people would say, ah, I don’t really care, I just want to stick with my iPhone. People are invested in what they know.
It’s absolutely fine that people treat CarPlay or Android Auto as a dealbreaker for a new car. It’s what works for them, and what they want, and for Rivian or Tesla or GM or whomever to ignore what buyers clearly want because of what essentially comes down to corporate ego is just absurd.
Nobody gives a shit about any carmaker’s unique, bespoke “digital experiences” when it comes to doing the shit they already do a thousand times a day on their phones. They just want to do it the same way, just on their car. We’re all tired, and we just want to listen to our damn podcasts, send our damn texts, get our damn directions, and if we never see any of your cell-shaded animations done in collaboration with Epic Games then I think, somehow, we’ll all live.
Now, I do need to acknowledge some things here: David Tracy, my co-founder at The Autopian, is insistent that I note that I am in no way smarter than the many, many smart people who develop UI/UX systems for carmakers, and of course he’s right about that. I worked in UI/UX for a long time myself, but that’s not what I currently do. They know what they’re doing.
But my argument isn’t that I somehow know better; it’s that the experts who make these systems do know better in many ways, but that has also blinded them to what people actually want, which is what they know.
David also thinks my main point is that people don’t like change, but that’s an oversimplification; people don’t like needless change, they don’t like change that doesn’t actually make anything better, and I think that’s the argument for the current carmaker-designed infotainment system interfaces.
Also, Tesla, the biggest-selling EV brand does not offer CarPlay or Android Auto (though there are third-party projects to do this, because people do want it) and that must mean something; clearly, not having CarPlay is not necessarily a hinderance to success.
So, they’re smart, I’m dumb, Tesla is a success despite all this, but what I say still stands, I think.
Carmakers need to just sit down and give people what they want, which is the same UX as on their phones. They’ve made that very clear. And also to remember that not everything needs to be on a damn touchscreen. No one’s touchscreen UX is so amazing that it’s better or easier than just moving a knob to change where air is blowing or pulling a lever that is always available to open a trunk.
It’s time to get a grip. No one cares about being “holistically harmonious,” so it’s time to just let that shit go and we’ll all pretend no one ever said something so embarrassing at all.
Deal? Good.
Engineers = Guys/gals in offices with no windows deciding how the world should be.
Many times they are the smartest people in the room; unfortunately, they still think that way when they enter a different room.
I believe that I will never buy a car that won’t run Carplay. I also will never buy a car whose car functions are run by Google or require a Google account login.
I also hope to never have to buy a car that doesn’t have physical (and not capacitive) controls for HVAC, mirrors, locks, gloveboxes, hood, and doors.
Also, messing with the standard set of steering column stalks is stupid. Putting turn signal buttons on the steering wheel is as stupid as replacing the steering wheel with a fixed, giant version of an iPod click wheel.
Oh, god, did I just give Elon another horrible idea?
So you’re saying one data monopoly is better than the other? Google vs Apple I mean. (Hint: maps)
Google Maps has been shown to store your data even told not to. I haven’t seen the same for Apple Maps. Yet, at least.
I do get not wanting to turn the entire car over to Apple. They seem to be getting a bit more ambitious in what they’re demanding automakers give them control over, but Apple and Google need to stay firmly in their lane. They should have control over maps and entertainment, but not touch anything else.
On the other hand, carmakers should stop with the “holistic digital experiences” and make it so you don’t have to go into the touchscreen for goddamn everything. Yeah I’m now an old man demanding buttons, while it doesn’t have a massive screen my 6 year old Hyundai has the rare luxuries of being able to turn on the steering wheel heater while wearing gloves, and being able to turn off a ton of light sources for driving at night.
The reasons they give suck because no one wants to come out and say the real reasons. I’ll bet the real issue here is twofold: Data and Fees.
Data: Apple wants the additional data from the car and they’ve probably asked for access to it. They’re on-record as saying they want to push a car-play interface to the other screens in the car, including speedo, etc. Automakers understand that that data is valuable and they can (and do) sell it. Giving Apple or Google access to it devalues their market position as the hardware manufacturer.
Fees: Apple is known for wanting to charge for everything. I bet they’ve already started trying to license carplay access to automakers and it’s a not-insignificant cost per car.
I think I’m in the minority here. As far as I’m concerned, the fewer ways in which Google or Apple or Facebook or whoever have a chance to peer into my everyday life the better.
Third reason: They can charge people for stuff. For example, GM EVs have different functions tied to OnStar. Buy the car and you get a subscription for x number of years, and then after the subscription ends – roughly after the length of a common loan – then you have to pay an OnStar subscription to keep maps.
This too
Bingo.
If they had just said that, people would have more sympathy for them
Haha just typed the same. Should’ve read yours and hit like to save time!
I think you have it a bit backwards though I’m sure Google is able to get the data either way since they’re building the tech behind half of the OEM systems like Volvo.
Apple at least for their part states they don’t collect data on you that is identifiable back to you. Take that as you will of course.
You’re onto something though, just misplacing the party you should distrust.
The auto manufacturers want to monetize everything you do in the car and we already have all the evidence we need that they are selling that data. GM just had to admit it was selling to a data broker that was selling info to insurance companies. Surprise! They used that data to jack up your rates if you had too many hard braking incidents.
If they state they want to remove Apple CarPlay it is due to them wanting the data to sell. Apple does not allow them to collect data on what you’re doing since it is a security nightmare having access to the phone. OEMs don’t like this.
Also, putting everything into the screen is just cost cutting for the most part. Not manufacturing all those buttons and switches saves a lot over millions of cars.
That’s my real issue. They claim to want control over the whole experience but they’re making interface decisions based on how to save money and monetize the interface. User experience and solving problems for how best to access features is a much lower priority, which is why I think Torch is right and David is way off here.
I mean, it’s not wrong that the UX teams are smart people, I just don’t think they’re making the decisions based on even remotely the right criteria.
I think you’re both right. They all want the data and the ability to charge for usage.
“holistically harmonious digital experience…”
Although Bluetooth is basically ubiquitous in modern cars, I still see a lot of dumbasses holding a phone to their ear whilst driving (not to mention texting), so, please, Mr. Scaringe, take that corporate bullshit and shove it up yer arse.
Who holds the phone up to their ears to text while driving?
That was an either/or comment, Mr. (probably sarcastic) Thundercock.
Yeah, RJ has a bad take. My Mach-E has Ford’s UI for controls and a nice big, reserved part of the display for CarPlay. Hate CarPlay/Android Auto? You can use Ford’s own infotainment. The main point being you have options for whatever floats your boat and Ford doesn’t judge or penalize you for choosing one over the others.
I also appreciate the Mach-E has mostly “normal” controls for everything too. Some like to whine about the HVAC and seat heat controls being part of center screen, but they’re permanently docked in that spot no matter what, and I just put it in “AUTO” and forget about it.
More importantly, the vents, glovebox, turn signals, headlights, wipers, etc all have normal handles, stalks, and knobs. They’ve also added quite a few quality of life improvements to the center display based off direct owner feedback, so it’s a better experience today than it was when I bought it.
Yes, it’s nice to still have a start button and a shifter in ours. I still feel that the huge screen is a distraction for normal controls (compared to my Mustang where I don’t have to even look at what I’m adjusting any longer), though.
Ford has a hard enough time selling Mach Es lately. Imagine if they built them like Teslas…
Yeah, but … if they added CP/AA to the screen, there wouldn’t be space for a big cartoon picture of the vehicle. And then how could you drive it?!
100% agree. I want the SAME user experience in every vehicle I get in. I’ve done a lot of travel the past few years and the first thing I do when I get the the rental isle is check if a car has carplay. – If not, it’s a hard pass.
I don’t want to learn a new user interface AND I don’t want any new apps / different apps / new users / passwords / setups. Just let my personal setup follow me. I don’t care about how the UI looks – I care about how it WORKs… how EASY and INTUITIVE it is for me.
I know Carplay. Works just fine for the little bit I use when driving (WAZE, phone calls, occasional podcasts, Amazon Music). We have 2 cars with Wireless car play and others that require the USB connection. Wireless makes it even easier 🙂
Not that I’m in the market for another GM – but I’m glad we have 2 Bolts with wireless carplay – the newer EVs without carplay are off the table for me. I’m holding out on a Maverick purchase primarily so I can order the ’25 with wireless Carplay.
Damn shame Rivian doesn’t get it. Looks like they have some nice rides coming up.
Totally agree with you. Also I genuinely thought that was Steve-O at first.
well, he is being a jackass with the carplay thing LOL
Who is a better car company CEO: Steve-O or Jon Lovitz? 😛
I definitely agree with every argument made about the integrated UI/UX features.
However…
In my 1+year of experience with android auto I can say it definitely has its flaws. We often listen to local radio, but use Android auto for navigation. You cannot change the radio station without exiting the map. It’s a huge flaw of these systems, and I do understand automakers desire to find their own integration.
The layout and use of Rivians UI is flawed with or without car play.
You can on some vehicles. But I still have knobs and buttons for everything. Which is something these manufacturers are mostly stripping away.
My experience is a mk7 e-golf. Buttons and knobs for almost everything , and the last truly good VW interior. When in car play steering wheel controls change apps, so if I was listening to Radio and switched channels, it would kick me to Spotify. It would always be nice to have the option of car play, but so far it isn’t a need for me. I generally just use Bluetooth when nav isn’t needed for Spotify.
I’d also guess if a person is cool with using a screen to move air around, they’d be comfortable not using car play.
After reading this, I wondered if I was misremembering and went and checked. My 2019 Kia Niro allows me to change radio stations with either the steering wheel controls or the knob while in maps. The thing it does that is less positive is move out of AA if I hit Mode to switch over to radio. If the radio is playing when I start AA or if I switch back, though, I can control it without switching apps.
It is a bit disappointing that the implementation of these things varies so much. I feel like I have a really good experience with it, but I know some companies sort of kneecap Android/Apple.
Thank you for this article. I agree wholeheartedly. For all the problems with the current Subaru infotainment system (my god is it slow), I appreciate that they designed the main interface to look like my iPad. It’s easy and familiar.
It seems like Rivian wants a closed ecosystem where they can control everything, not worry about interoperability, and lock in subscribers/buyers. Steve Jobs would be proud of them.
That’s what every company wants.
I seem to recall that one of the tidbits that came to light in the anti-trust case against Apple is they were threatening car manufacturers to not allow them to integrate with Car Play if they didn’t contract Apple to build their entire car UI. Apple doesn’t care about you any more than the manufacturers do. I suspect most of the people who frequent The Autopian do not prioritize vehicle UI consistency but rather being able to focus on the drive. Lots of people seem dazzled by screens screens screens, however.
“No one’s touchscreen UX is so amazing that it’s better or easier than just moving a knob to change where air is blowing or pulling a lever that is always available to open a trunk.”
This sentence is really all a car designer needs to reference, when it comes time to putting the interior together.
Save the screen for the entertainment, and backup camera. And maybe some warning messages, if you want to. Anything else is just less convenient for the end user.
People can fix this by voting with their wallets, but unfortunately I think the average person just takes their lumps and then complains about it to their friends.
I have a good friend and former colleague who has a PhD in industrial and human-factors psychology. He hates, and I mean HATES, pretty much every automotive UX because of the design nonsense of everything in a single panel and removing buttons and switches that people were already used to. Oh the fun we had griping about stupid ideas while doing industrial UX design…
One Screen to rule them all,
One Screen to find them,
One Screen to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them
One screen to light the glovebox light
One screen to turn the beams to Bright
One screen to turn the volume down
One screen to set Ride Height to Town
One screen for fiddly vent controls
One screen for damping bumps and rolls
One screen to signal turning left
One screen to scale that craggy cleft
One screen to dial 911
To fix what all the screens have done.
(with apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien, Dr. Seuss, and of course Canopysaurus)
edit: fixes to meter
Bravo!
One Screen
Two Screen
Red Screen
Blue Screen
Yes – some screens are red
And some screens are blue
Some screens are old
And some screens are new
Some screens are glad
And some screens are sad
And some screens are very, very bad
Why are the screens glad, sad, and bad?
I do not know – Go ask your Dad.
Yep, you’re spot on Torch.
This sure does feel like a case of someone purely justifying their chosen career and ego. What he should really do is move over to sales. If he can convince his bosses to buy this holistic bullshit, then he’s an excellent salesperson and wasting his obvious marketing skills. Even better, rather than really doing what he sold his bosses on, he appears to have just bought an Unreal Engine license and called it a day. Don’t forget VW got sucked into this BS too and invested heavily. Amazing.
Rivian, your wasting this man’s obvious talents.
… He is the boss.
images made by Epic, thats one way to piss off apple
I can get an Apple play Screen for my Motorcycle, I am seriously considering it. Dont underestimate the apple users
Apple MotoPlay 😛
Android Moto!
Being wrong and being full of shit are not the same thing. This guy is not wrong in his reasoning for not supporting Apple/Android, he’s full of shit. It’s all about the money.
As someone who owns many cars, I don’t even remember all the infotainment interfaces in the cars that I own. So having the same interface across the cars that support Android Auto is really helpful.
Gave em both barrels, well done! Personally, all car post 2017 or so are dead to me. IF some brave manufacturer would put out a non-software defined/ non-connected, DRIVER focused offering, I’d reconsider, but I’m not holding my breath.
I’d like big metal toggle switches for things.
And I want them to make a healthy “THWAK” sound when I flick them on or off.
I recognize that this will make them to feel cold in the winter, and blistering in the summer. But I accept it, as it’s what my mind expects when I reach for something metal in the car in those seasons.
I want my car controls to make a healthy THWAK TUAH.
Carplay has known stability problems. causing plenty of warranty issues that i have a feeling the automakers are sick of dealing with. I agree with the tablets controlling everything s being inane and stupid, but I think the Carplay issue is far more deep rooted than the excuse that JD made.
I’d be more receptive to his given reasons if they were given in good faith. However, the real reason is that sweet, sweet data that he wants to have all to himself.
There is no reason there couldn’t be a “Rivian” app that exposed car functions inside of CP/AA. I know Google is adding more of those opt in features for carmakers. But good UX isn’t actually the reason so that won’t happen.
CarPlay and AA are big on limiting the actual usefulness of apps within either ecosystem. Whether this is to actually help people focus on driving or to remove liability of someone crashing their car while playing Angry Birds remains to be seen. But even simple apps that could be useful like weather apps or an offroad inclinometer aren’t accessible through Carplay or AA.
I also wonder if Apple and Google have limitations on having there system operate as an “App” within the Rivian or Tesla system leaving a toolbar across the top or bottom to access the more integrated controls like climate controls or opening the frunk.
Another example that I don’t know the answer to is something like the new Chevy Colorado or GMC Canyon that has the headlight controls in the touch screen display. Does someone need to exit Carplay to turn on the lights? Not a big deal with auto headlights, but still a pain if you have to exit Carplay just to access those controls.