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.
I don’t really have an opinion on inclusion of AA/ACP but I can also see how in this day and age, it is a valid concern for would be owners. Familiarity and known functionality is an ever increasing issue. I love technology and digital everything but the current UX designs are clear examples of indulgence rather than intelligence or practicality.
I’m a UX designer myself (not in auto industry) and I can tell you that the desire to design cool and cute things is very, very strong in this field. Ease of use, clarity and understanding is not very high on the list. Wow factor is what matters most. And I’m in 100% agreement about the state of UX in modern crop of cars. More and more of them put in TV-sized screens where the majority of the interface is taken up by useless crap (like an image of their car) or empty space, while the actual controls and vital gauges are relegated to the secondary citizen status. Tesla is perhaps the earliest and biggest offender that comes to mind but others like Rivian are not far behind.
I drive a decade-old Ford with what was commonly regarded as a crap system: MFT. You know what? I think it’s one of the better systems available. Sure it’s a bit sluggish and navigation is adequate at best, but I personally love it because it has and does almost everything I want and nothing I don’t. It’s not perfect but it blends with the dashboard, the buttons are easy to hit, the main screen shows everything that is important to me during the drive. And all that on a barely 8″ screen. I hardly ever interact with it, because I really don’t have to. That, to me is fucking genius design. It’s not snappy, flashy, either particularly pretty or cute, it just is a nice implementation of technology that actually complements the car as oppose to taking it over.
So while in my current car I don’t really miss AA/ACP all that much (not a deal-breaker anyway), it’s easy for me to swallow because I just chuck it to something my old car simply does not support. I can live without it much like those owning even older cars can live without any screens at all. But the new ones? I’m not so sure. People expect technology but things are getting more and more complex.
Large screens opened the Pandora’s box of opportunity to be “adventurous”. You can potentially cram so much functionality in there at a fraction of the cost of physical controls. But it’s both overwhelming and really badly implemented. By now I may be an old man yelling at cloud, no longer keeping up with the Joneses but it seems to me even the Joneses have a problem keeping up with themselves.
Yes! Preach brother!
I’ve long contended that Stellantis had it correct with redundant controls in the way or touchscreen AND buttons/knobs. You get to choose whichever you’re more comfortable with. It’s not like adding those features to the touchscreen is a huge expense.
I’m a tactile driver. The more things I can control without taking my eyes off the road, the happier I am. This is why I like things such as HUDs. They put info I need closer to where I’m supposed to be looking.
I’m in the camp of “let my use my phone UX”. I like that I can pull up a route on my android phone, and when I plug it into my car, the route is just THERE. Ready to go. I’m not trying to enter it into some bullshit baked-in Nav program that thinks it can one-up google maps or Waze.
The music I can deal. But the nav has to nav the way I want it to. Which is pre-planning on my phone, and just already being there when I plug into my car.
It took 3 menu changes to turn on my cooled seats in my Charger.
My last experience in a Charger was late 2017 as a rental. No cooled seats, but the heated seats had redundant controls, as did the HVAC and radio. I was content with that.
Things I want in my screen:
Music
Nav
backup camera.
charging controls/efficiency info
some settings, but not controls
Things I do not want in a screen
door locks
hood/hatch/glovebox release
hvac of any type
window/sunroof controls
drive modes
ride settings
Why have permanent “buttons” on a screen? why not just make a damn button that does that thing? My 2020 bolt EV has most HVAC as physical controls but a few things on the screen, very frustrating. After only 16K miles on the car the screen is already slow to respond, at least slower than I expect.
I do not demand android auto/carplay, but they are the easiest way for me to get my stuff to the car. after this comment, I am going to sit at my desk and enter my destination into my phone, select the audiobook i want to listen to, get in my car, plug in my phone and go. My phones interface is just better. I can type an address better, have more apps (does rivian have a libby app? other random podcast apps? some but not all i assume).
I want my car dumb, and my phone smart.
Cars should not have touchscreens – at all. I will never own or drive a vehicle with one.
The same interface is nice to have. But the more important thing for me is that I don’t have to re-enter or sync everything that’s already in my phone. And I can take all that with me to my wife’s car when I drive that.
What concerns me about the OEM systems is what happens when they decide to stop supporting them? Because surely that will happen eventually – then you’ll be stuck with either dated maps or apps (Google maps, Spotify etc) that no longer work. I feel like Car play and Android Auto get around this by allowing the car to simply be a screen to project whatever your phone is displaying… Though I do wonder if in the future something will happen (some change in input tech, for example) that will make older Car Play/Android Auto systems obsolete too.
And how terrible they’ll look in 20 years. Bugatti is 100% right in minimizing that nonsense.
Navigation has been around long enough that we’ve already seen this happen. Can you imagine trying to get a new CD to update your GPS, or something that only works on 3G?
3G has been shut off almost everywhere so there is no connectivity for those vehicles.
That was exactly my point
This touches on one of the most overlooked parts of this uninformed tirade. That on the car side, Carplay/Auto is software–that needs to be updated. That will all depend on a decision by someone with a profit motive. If they decide they are tired of supporting a car’s infotainment, they’ll just terminate support and you’ll be left at whatever version was last updated. Bugs, security vulnerabilities and all.
This is why the article about this is sadly misguided. This isn’t about some hubris on the part of Rivian or even Tesla. The reason they do this is because once you get into bed with Apple/Google you are stuck with any decisions they make. THEY will decide what goes on in in your cars, not the manufacturer. THEY will decide if they don’t want to support various features or integrations. THEY will gobble up all that delicious revenue from telemetry and driver surveillance.
I don’t care for any company doing creepy spying crap on my car, that should be protected and privileged data. Until that magical day comes (it won’t) I don’t feel the least bit bad about Apple/Google being evicted from cars. The interfaces they use mean so little to me.
The best interface for your touch screen would be one that doesn’t work at all when you’re moving and incorporates zero necessary functions therein.
I will go back to sleep now because I’m obviously dreaming.
This is exactly why I abhor integrated infotainment. A car’s entertainment and vehicle controls should be fully divorced, if they need screens for both, then install one for each. The DIN standard makes it so a 1985 Scirocco with a $140 Walmart head unit is more up to date than a 2019 M5, because unlike the M5, it has wireless Apple Carplay and Android Auto. I know it’s a few dollars cheaper per car to use just one screen and probably makes it look more “modern” at the dealership, but it just sucks for the end user after a couple years.
If you have to use a GUI interface to open the frunk, or adjust the HVAC vents, or turn on the wipers – you’re doing it wrong. That’s just asinine.
It took me a few days to get used to the new Chevy user interface on the Chevy Blazer EV without carplay but is perfect to me. My notifications are less on the screen, I keep more focused on the driving experience, I can press a button and say what I want (Climate adjustments, random questions), where I want to go, etc. I can send an address to the car from my phone in seconds. It came included with Spotify, Youtube Music, Waze and Google Maps, more apps will be included and are available to download but that’s all I need.
Where I will probably miss Apple carplay is on a rental car since you havent drove the car before, you just want to plug your phone and go.
And does this wonderful Chevy system require a subscription at some point? Because that’s the real reason they are doing away with CarPlay, to force you to subscribe to the same content via the automaker instead.
After 8 years. You can also share internet from your phone, if you have unlimited data on your phone this will help.
Are you sure that works? According to what I was seeing while researching an Equinox EV, the App Access plan is required to use the infotainment apps and that plan only comes free for 3 years.
There’s a thread on the Equinox EV forum where someone compiled all the data that is known about the various subscription plans (and there is a lot that is unclear/unknown at this point, including whether the 8 year connected plan actually includes the app access that only shows a three year plan otherwise).
I agree with every word in this article.
I love Rivian and think that Scaringe has been doing an admirable job (although they do need to make a profit at some point) but not having CP/AA is just asinine. What’s worse is that he acknowledges that he’s heard the pushback and just doesn’t seem to care.
While I’m not in the market for nor could I afford a Rivian, I won’t get a vehicle without CarPlay. It’s funny, on the Ridgeline forums there will be an occasional post with questions about the vehicle’s native navigation software. The comments are almost universally, “why are you using the nav? Just use Google Maps/Waze/Apple Maps!
“if you’re in CarPlay and want to open the
front trunkFRUNK, you have to leave the application and go to another interface” Or, Mr. CEO, you could have a dedicated button or latch. Now pay me my $25,000 for consulting you. If I have to leave an application to perform a basic car function, the car has failed me.so i only use google maps and spotify 99% of the time i’m driving. sometimes i may need to switch to apple maps or waze. if my car just ran the aps natively that would be fine. but what i do NOT want to do is get a seperate cell phone plan for my car!! i guess in a 90,000 tivian that is less of an issue you can afford to fork over $50 month for a car data plan.
but if i have to tether my car to my phone to share data you might as well continue to use carplay/android auto. side benefit is your car doesn’t have to worry about constant software updates as apple and the driver will handle everything.
How about neither.
I think Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are too finicky to rely on and offer little that I don’t already have in the car. ….but, I’m glad they are there if I want to use them. I also like that my car has a dedicated phone spot on the bottom center of dash to place your phone in portrait view, at a perfect angle to view. It’s so nicely done that I occasionally forget to grab my phone because it looks like part of the car.
How is ACP “finicky”? It’s always worked fine for me. And the interface is the same across all 3 of our vehicles by using it. Don’t have to learn the interface on 3 different manufacturers cars for what I use 99% of the time, which is nav and music.
I wonder if any car company will just say screw it and not even develop a UI “experience” aside from the basic controls and just use CarPlay/Android Auto. I would think this would help cut down on development costs and would certainly give the people what they want.
“Here is our new car. Its great. It runs, it drives, it cools your butt and might even massage you if you talk sweet to it. Just hook up your phone and don’t have to deal with us getting in the way of that.”
There are a couple of cars, not much I’m afraid and mostly cheap cars, but Ferrari decided to take this approach too, where there is no infotainment system installed on the dashboard just a dedicated holder for your phone and you need to download the carmaker App and it will connect you to the car and let you use it’s features meanwhile you can use your everyday navigation app, your music app and so forth. So basically you don’t need to learn almost nothing new, you have always the latest and strongest hardware. I believe that’s the best way to approach this problem. With folding phones coming out from almost all the manufacturer you can have now 9 inch of phone screen and it’s very certain that those phones are getting bigger and bigger with their respective screen size so you don’t have to give up with this concept almost nothing but you can gain a lot of comfort.
Peruvian-Dutch fusion cuisine? What would that even be? Deep fried guinea pig with hagelslag? Heel mooi!
He’s not wrong: I actually applaud the little guy (funny enough, rivian and tesla) standing up to the digital bully.
no one is saying out loud what the real problem likely is: Data rights and Money. Knowing apple (now charging FIFTY percent fees to run Meta ads via their instagram app) they will have a trojan horse inside these cars, and car bosses said no thanks, even though will upset a few ios diehards.
Jason, you gotta give Scaringe credit for understanding a basic product demand issue, like giving a customer their apple carplay. So him gaslighting us about holistics is only partially true – he is just keeping his mouth shut avoiding to antagonize a litigious $3.5TN gorilla.
And yes you’re right about the damn glove box switch but this is not what this is about, it’s just their own bad UX design and cost cutting.
How can a button that took software to write the functionality for, an id on the network you have to test and work with, a module to receive a signal to then trigger an electronic mechanism that you then need to provide power to, be cost cutting compared to just a mechanical latch?
edit – I may have read your comment the wrong way and thought the “bad UX design and cost cutting” applied to the latch, and not everything but the latch in the article.
Hmm, actually I am under the impression that all the extreme button deletion manufacturers do is cost saving related. Is that not the case? I feel the same as you since an actuator + latch can’t be cheaper than a latch but wasn’t there something about the actual control plus wiring vs physical parts tooling, labor to install etc?
I think it really depends on what it is you’re replacing… For example the temp dial on my RX8 is a potentiometer that then goes to a microcontroller that then tells the blend door how much to open via a servo or stepper motor. You could just as easily send a signal to the microcontroller from software and remove the knob + things like power and bulbs to illuminate it at night and save some money. The power windows appear to be 100% analog so if you already need to send 12V to the regulator, already need to send 12V to the switch even if it’s only for illumination it should be cheaper to run a wire from the switch to the regulator compared to wiring the switch to a body control module, the control module then signals the module attached to the regulator, and that then tells it to go up or down. If I had more “advanced” windows however that pop down 1/2 an inch when you open or close the door, allows you to open or close them all from a key fob, etc. You likely already have an addressable module located in each door so replacing the switches with a touch screen or replacing 4 individual switches with a single capacitive sensor would be cheaper as you already have addressable modules managing this.
Precisely. That was VW’s (one example) aha moment after seeing Tesla’s extreme bus simplification. The trend is showing signs of reversing (like EU’s recent safety legislation) but until full coming back to senses we will still have things like Cybertruck’s drive selector. BTW that particular type of controller deletion is definitely saving tons of money.
To clarify: the glove box digital control is clearly an upgrade driven by desire to make simple things appear elevated in a product. Like “look at us, went the extra length to be classy”. Can’t possibly have a pedestrian button like a 1995 Geo. But the majority of digitalization is driven by savings.
That’s what you get when you let Steve-O dictate the features of a car
Man this is dumb.
I agree with the main point for sure, most people don’t want this and don’t want needless change (though there is a fair amount of people who do want to play around with the new UI).
A little bit on top: car makers, to this point in history, lose interest in their software almost immediately and let it die a slow and miserable death. Maybe this is changing as touchscreens have come to dominate things. But my experience in cars only about 5-7 years old is the UI/UX is terrible and outdated and doesn’t work well. The kicker is in cars that old which have CarPlay/Android Auto: it doesn’t matter because you are using your phone anyway.
On top of that is the fact that why would Spotify want to develop a hundred different apps for automakers? So the automaker has to roll out its own? So you will have to wait until the app you use is selected to be developed by Rivian? Not holding my breath.
Also: HVAC controls in a touchscreen? Wtf?! What are we thinking? Can’t wait for those motors to die 7 years from now.
there is a 0% chance any automaker is going to use anything but linux or android base for their car infotainments so almost every automaker would use the same version of the apps.
Good UX is timeless and ageless.
When Subaru has you beat on ergonomics, you know you’ve failed.
Rivian’s UX team honestly sounds like they’ve lost the plot like the rest of the tech industry. UX is about compromise and empathizing with the user, not cartoon trucks and touchscreen gloveboxes. The number one reason users buy the product is to fricking drive somewhere and the product is absolutely getting in the way of that. And yes, I’ve been doing this long enough to know what I’m doing, but not long enough to have my soul sucked out.
It drives me crazy to see screen real estate wasted like that. Rivian could easily give people what they want and run CarPlay on half of the display or let people jump back and forth like Subaru and every other manufacturer does in their cars.
Could I be wrong about all this? Sure, but I love being wrong- it’s an even more effective learning experience than being right. Hopefully Rivian feels the same way.
Oh I can imagine there are MANY people on Rivian’s UX team who’ve got the plot. But they know better than to speak up against leadership that thinks it knows best.
A real and valid point. All evil needs to prevail is for good people to do nothing.
“UX is about compromise and empathizing with the user, not cartoon trucks and touchscreen gloveboxes.”
+1 rending of garments and gnashing of teeth for the truth of this and the fact that this has somehow become a radical take (though a welcome one in these parts) on interacting with things.
You’re making a good point on the wrong basis.
People do care about holistically harmonious UXes in the sense that it feels really jarring when the UX isn’t holistically harmonious. Flipping between the car’s OS look and feel and a different app is weird. So from that perspective the dude is right. And that’s also Apple’s argument and philosophy about their own UX, from the digital to the packaging to the ads and stores.
The problem here is that independently of all that, Rivian’s UX sucks. It’s holistically harmonious doodoo. The solution is for Rivian to make a better UX. Adding car play or whatever is a band aid.
Yup
I just want a good holistic analogue experience.
Torch, Nooooooooo!
Ok, I’ll give you the vent control – it’s stupid and I wish I had regular physical controls.
But here’s the thing – I want my car to have a personality. Even if it is essentially a giant computer with a battery the mass of a small moon, I want it to be it’s own thing. And while I’m an Apple person, I do not want me car to suddenly be “transportation which is quick and capable but also basically an iphone with motors”
Apple is way, way ahead on UX, no doubt. And Rivian’s interface needs, to put it mildly, a lot of work. But different is good, right? Though imperfect, especially if it’s getting better along the way?
UX conventions exist for a reason, lad. Different is good, but only if it’s *good.*
I have one, and I genuinely like the UI. Have used Carplay extensively in other cars, and it’s fine, but again – I’m driving an Apple Car at that point. Rivian’s needs work, but I would classify it as Good, with the potential to become Really Good.
It’s important to point out that my bias against Apple is largely focused on EVs. Having it in the Miata is great, because there are a lot of other things that make that car wonderful without just being a computer on wheels.
I’m glad to hear it! Seriously though- what’s it like adjusting the HVAC and air direction while you’re driving? How many taps does it take? Is that part of the screen in your field of vision while you’re looking at the road?
It’s terribly distracting on my Subaru and even that has manual vents and a dedicated area of the screen for HVAC.
Apple is not that far “ahead” – just pushing minimalism to the extreme. Their UX has not really changed since the iphone launch, and I think legacy is starting to show its limits.
> But here’s the thing – I want my car to have a personality.
The stereo is the thing that puts out music, the navigation is the thing that gives you directions. The body, interior, suspension, steering, motor, and optionally the transmission are the thing that gives the car personality. The only reason anyone’s conflating what’s on the screen with the personality of the car is because they didn’t put enough of it anywhere else.
I’m with Torch on this – my car’s got enough personality when I’m driving it that the last thing I want is to have to figure out where some very clever dick put the button or dial I’m looking for. I don’t want a holistic digital experience, I want a very tactile physical experience and it’d be nice to have some tunes and a map.
Is this what enthusiasts think gives cars personality now? The infotainment screen?
You really hit the nail on the head with all of this. A car would have to be *really* effing amazing to make up for the lack of wireless Carplay for me. It’s the first non-mechanical dealbreaker for me with cars. This guy talks about holistic harmony, but doesn’t notice that it’s their own stupid UX that’s ruining the harmony.
He’s so out of touch, and hubris is a great word to describe it. It’s almost unbelievable that he voluntarily talks about opening the frunk from a menu. If I were him, I’d never mention that, out of sheer embarrassment. But I guess it’s better than mentioning the HVAC direction screen. Boy I’d hate to have to sell these things.
And man, that screen that’s just all wasted space with a picture of the car you’re driving. It’s almost like they only added controls begrudgingly, at the last minute. Also, it’s amusing to me that it’s 2:59am in the screenshot.
Someone got paid to make that screen.
almost time to put the 8 track boombox back in the back seat