We’ve talked about GM’s decision to reject the use of wildly popular mobile phone projection systems, like Apple’s CarPlay and Android Auto, on car infotainment systems before, and we thought it was a pretty terrible decision. But, since then, I’ve had the opportunity to read this in-depth interview between The Verge’s Decoder podcast and GM’s big man for software, Baris Cetinok, who has a title that feels downright royal in its length: Senior Vice President of Software and Services Product Management, Program Management and Design. After reading the interview and getting a bit more insight into Cetinok’s reasoning and GM’s stated goals and design philosophy, I realized I really should reconsider my position. I now think it’s a misguided and maybe a bit arrogant of a decision. I better explain.
First, I should note that I think Cetinok is an extremely accomplished person, and seems like an extremely intelligent person. There’s a reason he has the impressive position he does. He’s worked at Microsoft and Amazon and Apple – he spent about a decade at Apple. The man clearly knows his stuff. He came to GM a few months after they made their decision to reject the use of CarPlay and Android Auto, so we can’t pin that decision on him. This could be just the hand he was dealt, and he’s making the best of it.
That said, what I have a problem with is the reasoning used to justify why GM doesn’t want people to have, essentially, the software they actually want in cars. There’s an element of truth to the reasoning given, but I think that the approach to that core bit of insightful accuracy is being interpreted in precisely the opposite way that actually makes sense. Here’s what I mean; this is an excerpt from the interview, emphasis mine:
[Decoder]: Why drop CarPlay and Android Auto from GM vehicles?
[Cetinok]: Because there was a belief and a hypothesis, which I genuinely believe in, that we are best positioned and owe it to our customers to create the most deeply integrated experience that you can create with the vehicle. We are not shipping devices with just monitors; we’re not a monitor company. We’re building beautifully designed, complete thoughts and complete convictions. We say, “This car is designed to do the following things awesomely.” This is Silverado, this is what it stands for and this is what it does. Let’s get to it.
When you want to create something so seamless, it’s hard to think about getting into a car and going, “Okay, so I’m doing highway trailering, but let me flip to a totally different user interface to pick my podcast. By the way, it’s a single app-obsessed interface — it’s still hard to believe. So I pick my podcast, flip back to trailering. Oh, now I can also do Super Cruise trailering. Let me manage that. Then, wait, we’re now getting into potentially Level 3, Level 4 autonomy levels that should be deeply integrated with talking to the map where the lanes lie. But wait a minute, the map that I’m using doesn’t really talk to my car.”
As a product person, you’ll never do that to yourself because it’s literally like, “Oh my God, I made my life so hard to create amazingly seamless experiences.” At some point, you need to make that bold decision and say, “I am not going to try to accommodate and figure out how to make all of these work. I’m going to just burn the bridges and burn the ships and commit.” We are going to create a deeply vertical, harmonious experience that works across the vehicle that is optimized for my vehicle.
Okay, that’s a big chunk, but I think it’s all needed to see where Cerinok is coming from. There’s a couple of things I want to point out here, but the key part is this concept of “seamlessness.” Cerinok describes the process of using native car applications on the screen, like trailering, and then having to switch to, say, CarPlay to pick a podcast, and then switch back for other car-related functions. That’s not seamless. And seamlessness implies that one of these interfaces is the “interloper,” is the one breaking the seamlessness of the user experience. It’s clear that Cerinok believes that the car’s native UX is the baseline experience, and its CarPlay or Android Auto that’s interrupting.
The problem is he has this completely backwards.
A seamless experience is absolutely a good thing! The problem is that a car’s UX does not get to be the baseline of that seamless experience, because people live most of their lives outside of cars. There’s a bit of carmaker arrogance happening here in the assumption that the car experience is what needs to be seamless. It doesn’t. It’s just not important. What is important is keeping seamless the user experience the person driving the car has been experiencing all day: their phone.
On an average day, people spend, what, an hour or so in their cars? Two hours? Out of, say 16 plus hours of wakefulness? So why should the one-eighth of wakeful, interactive time be the one that gets to be the default interface? It shouldn’t, nobody wants that! People want to continue with the interface and experience they’ve been using all day long, seamlessly in their cars. If someone texted them an address, they want to be able to poke one finger at it and directions appear. They want to continue with the same music playlists they’ve been listening to all day. They want the same reminders to pop up or whatever else they’ve already gone through the trouble of putting in their phone. They just want their shit, displayed on the car’s screen. And that’s fine.
And when Cerinok says “By the way, it’s a single app-obsessed interface — it’s still hard to believe” I don’t get what his problem is there – does anyone want to be looking at multiple applications on their center-stack screen while driving? No, fuck no! And besides, it’s not really single-app based. There’s things running in the background: music plays while you’re looking at the map, reminders appear or text message notifications show up to be read. There’s multiple things going on, but you sure as hell don’t need to be looking at them all.
I also don’t really get the examples Cerinok picked when he described the issues of lack of seamlessness. A trailering app? Why would that need to be constantly on-screen while driving? Shouldn’t most of that software be working invisibly behind the scenes to keep the trailer stable? Same with Super Cruise and the autonomy levels he mentioned: what’s the on-screen UX for those? For the Level 4 autonomy he mentions there, the car is doing all of the work of driving (in a constrained area). So why not look at something else on that screen?
This is also a good reason to keep certain car controls, like lights and wipers and HVAC stuff and opening the damn glovebox, off of screens. Not everything needs to be crammed into a menu on a GUI.
Cerinok has the general right idea that people would prefer a seamless user experience overall. Of course they would. Nobody is really all that eager to learn a whole new interface when they already have a perfectly good one they’re already using all day long. GM – and every other carmaker – needs to accept that fundamentally, no one really gives a shit about a carmaker’s home-grown UX. They just want something simple and intuitive and for all of the stuff they already use their phone for – navigation, messaging, phone, music, podcasts, texting, email, whatever – they just want to keep using the same thing they use nonstop as it is.
I know there’s an ego kick there, the realization that no one really cares about the careful and beautiful car-specific UX that teams of talented designers and engineers have crafted, but that’s just how it is. I’m sorry. If there’s car-specific data that needs to be communicated to the driver, the best bet is to find a way to pass that data through the UX the people already are using. It can be done, but carmakers like GM first need to accept that when it comes to on-screen UX, no one cares about what they think.
So, seamlessness is great. It just that nobody wants GM or any other carmaker to be the ones to decide what that is.
Sorry about that! Best get used to it.
Rivian Is Wrong About Not Supporting Apple CarPlay, As Is Everyone Who Agrees With Them
Apple Wants To Make CarPlay Required For Every Screen In Your Car: Federal Lawsuit
Nobody Believes GM Can Do Better Than Apple CarPlay
Add the largest marine companies to the list. They’re doing the same thing.
The powers that be want “CuRaTed ExPeRiEncEs”, not what, you know, actual consumers actually want. Which is Carplay.
Nobody wants to get into a vehicle, whether it’s a boat or a car, and have to figure out their idiotic ‘UNiQuE” operating system. I’ve tried dudes, but nobody listens to me. In fact, they are doubling down on screens, more screens, and even more screens, which is…. you know… not what I want, or anything my friends want when they are on the water, but the people making all the decisions cannot be questioned, regardless of the mountain of evidence and feedback that people don’t want this crap.
Incidentally, this is why older vehicles are better. Popped out the stereo in my Astro van, installed a CarPlay Pioneer deck, BAM. Car has a modern OS, easy to use, does everything I want.
I will never understand why each OEM doesn’t make it’s own APP, and just have that be the curated experience. Build WITHIN the iOS/Android architecture, instead of trying to do better than they do.
There is an extremely simple solution. With the large screens these days you can do like Ram does and have CarPlay/AA in one half of the screen and your native applications in the rest of the screen. Win/win and you get everything you want.
It’s a pretty bad state of things for GM when Stellantis has their shit more together than GM…
Forgive my conspiratorial mind. Actually don’t. Here is the question that needs to be asked.
Does the car owner, that GM owes all of its being to, have to purchase a separate mobile wifi subscription from GM in order to make its integrated infotainment system work?
If wifi is included, then, I can very importantly get directions on screen, not to mention make hands free phone calls, safely receive texts (audibly) and play my Amazon/ Apple/music/podcasts worry free. And that would a great thing as I’m currently data limited with my current cell phone plan (I really need to update!)
But if I have to pay GM to make phone calls and for wifi to map my route, receive texts and be entertained, then GM’s decision to in-house its infotainment is thoroughly diabolical!
Calls and texts go through your phone via BT. But for the integrated apps you have to have a connection. The EVs come with 8 years of built in connection. After that you have to pay.
To answer your question…..”diabolical”.
Don’t worry though, I’m sure GM will continue to support the software for years and years and years, not leaving you with an un-upgradeable vehicle in the future. /s
This is disappointing, Torch… Normally Autopian expands my mind with the opinion of an expert. This is not that. You got duped by GM. They have considered your view, they started their conversation by explicitly refuting it:
GM wants to re-invent the “monitor” (CarPlay/Android Auto). It would be trivial to make an app for iPhone/Android that shows everything you would need to know about your new
surveillance devicefine GM automobile.They see what Google is doing and they want in. They want to integrate your data seamlessly into all the other data they are slurping up so they have a better product to sell to companies. Otherwise why would they be hiring huge teams of engineers to replicate what Apple and Google have already done so well?
I’d go one step further and say that they want a seamless, all inclusive, product that they can use to expand offerings that they present to you while you are captively driving the vehicle. Selling data is only so profitable. Tapping into a source of revenue directly keeps giving and giving.
Don’t call GM out as the only ‘opportunist’ in the room. Other manufacturers do this or would do this in a NY minute if they were in the same position.
100% agreed.
No, he’s correct. Or rather, there is a way of thinking about this where he is correct. The car’s native UX can perform all the functions of a phone, but almost all phones – in the absence of a dedicated app – don’t know anything about how to perform car functions. One of these things can do everything, one can only do it’s own thing. That makes the latter the interloper.
Overall, I generally agree with what he’s saying, though I once didn’t and had to come around to that way of thinking through long experience. I used to believe the ‘standardization’ of CP/AA was the pinnacle of vehicle UX design, but after living with mfr custom units for years and then getting a CP/AA aftermarket unit I discovered I prefer a well-designed custom UX over CP/AA so I don’t have to futz around with my phone at all when I’m in the car.
That bold bit is the key. Most mfr UX aren’t well-designed. If they are well-designed then my car is just another one of my devices that I’ve got set up just the way I like and it does everything I want it to and I use exactly how I want and I’m happy with it. So what if it’s not my phone?
The evidence suggests this guy is the one that can make a well-designed UX. I say let him have at it and not hamstring him by insisting on using the one-size-fits-all kludges of CP/AA.
So let’s say you get a text from someone with an address, or are sitting in your living room looking at your maps app on your phone. How do you get that address into the car? You have to manually input it when you get to the car, or copy the address and then move it to the “brand” app (GMC, Chevy), then input it, then select get directions and then select send to vehicle.
That’s just one example, but having lived with this GM software, it’s absolutely horrible. Just give me CarPlay. I’m at the point I might just slap an ipad on top of my infotainment system.
Agreed. I think the idea is right, but the recent auto industry has, by and large, proven itself to be really bad at designing interfaces of any kind. Lots of touch screen interaction for basic tasks like HVAC controls (or even a glove box!) do not give me confidence that they can pull this off.
Disagree. If I get in your car, it will still take me a long time to get used to it, and even then, I am going to want WAZE over whatever dumb nav system the OEM has.
GM has Waze integration, but you have to download the app on the car. Not sure how you get the address from Waze on your phone to Waze on the car, other than manually inputting it.
I’d just say that these objections are subject to the point I’d made about the custom system being “well-designed”. (good voice integration, robust app sets/stores, app development that doesn’t seem a race to hit 80/20 QC and then move on to the next thing, free-flowing PAN connectivity, etc) I agree, everything out there currently sucks for one reason or six others and CP/AA is the best option atm. My position was that I’ve had enough experience comparing OEM non-suckage and CP/AA to have come to the conclusion that I agree with this guy that it’s possible for someone to get it right such that the custom UX would be far better than CP/AA, and it seems like this particular guy has the cred to suggest that he could be that someone who can get it right.
The issue with taking a while to get to know a new custom system and familiarity with CP/AA was openly acknowledged in the interview, but it was pointed out, rightly I think, that CP/AA is only ideal in those situations where you were with the in-car system temporarily, like being a guest or in a rental. For long term living with the car – ownership/lease – then the custom UX has the potential to be the better route. Yes, it takes a while to learn, but this is true of any of our sophisticated devices. The phone you love took a while to get comfortable with as well. We all know that this is part of the cost of the advanced tech we acquire, and if we’re going to be living with the device for years on end we accept this cost willingly in exchange for the long-term satisfaction at the end of the learning period.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the TL:DR is;
GM: wants to replace the overlap between using your phone and vehicle with just the vehicle.
Torch: Ha! Good luck…
Correct.
You are correct that people just want a seamless experience for their phone that they use much more than their vehicles.
But this is all just to get data. Being a “monitor” for a phone doesn’t get them data. Making you use their maps app, knowing exactly what store you GPS’d to in a shopping center, logging into spotify in your vehicle, getting access to your contacts, is all data. All companies care about now is data on consumers. Whatever product they make is just designed to get data on you.
That’s just more corporate bullshit that he’s spewing (or, more accurately, probably being forced to spew).
To wit, Android Auto on my Fords integrates just fine with the onboard UX. Whether I’m using my phone’s nav or the one in the car, turn by turn directions show on my digital instrument cluster all the same.
Anything car-specific I need to adjust is in a separate menu in the instrument cluster, NOT the infotainment screen.
Cars, being the rolling computers they are, are pretty smart and can do a lot of different things all at the same time. Much like those annoying rear seat reminders in cars, this all smacks of GM insulting the consumer’s ability to do the same.
But, I don’t give two fucks about tech in a car
I do as long as its doing something I like.
Better gas mileage? Yes.
Lower NVH? Yes!
Better quality audio? Oh yes!
Easier navigation? Yes!
More readily accessible information I want at my fingertips? real time and average MPG, tire temp and pressure, oil temp and pressure, actual error codes, not just CEL and info on what they mean and how to fix them, 360 view, real time traffic, accurate, up to date navigation with text I can actually read? Yes
Electric glove box and fuel filler door? Oh god no!
Seat/mirror/etc control by app? Oh HELL NO!
Well you get the idea.
You don’t delete Android Auto & CarPlay unless and until you have something that seamlessly works with everything on the driver’s phone. Something that is at least equal in quality and GM is just getting to where their software mostly works for driving. Arrogant and won’t get my next purchase if I were to buy something that they currently sell.
Surely GM is making an iOS and android app for users to communicate with their car. They are also making a custom OS for in car UX. My understanding is that, at least Apple CarPlay apps, ARE iOS apps. So, are they not just making more work for themselves in having to maintain an iOS app AND the custom OS when they could just make the iOS/CarPlay app do all that was described here?
What I mean is: In the GM app on CarPlay exist the functions this guy is explaining; in trailer tow mode you can choose a podcast (but to Jason’s point, who the fuck is going to ACTUALLY do that?)
Ok I find myself in agreement with most of the comments saying this is a bad idea and that most everyone wants CP/AA. But honest question here for any that might know:
Do these GM vehicles have some way to use the phones cell network connection for their built-in apps? Or is it required I set up another service line for my car? If the latter, I think this is a huge disadvantage and reason people will reject it. If GM is actually selling that line or getting some sort of commission from VZ/AT&T/TMO then that gives us insight into the real reason for this.
No one except the truly dumb are going to pay twice for something like this.
GM vehicles use their own mobile connection and it is already sold as a separate service (several actually). I recommend reading the entire transcript or listening to the recording. It is very insightful and this is addressed later on where Nilay tries to pin down if GM is angling for additional service revenue here a la OnStar.
That’s pretty much what I thought. I just don’t know how any manufacturer can look at the capability we currently have to allow our existing phone connection and think we would be willing to pay for an additional line.
It’s not 1995 and OnStar isn’t coming back. Once we have a better way to use one connection, I’m not going back to needing separate connections for everything. What are they thinking?
I can’t help but think it’s the Board of Directors. They see SaaS margins and say “Do that or else.” Meanwhile SaaS margins come from the utility it provides people and businesses and the utility of car comes from the fact it moves you from point a to point b, NOT that you can access a podcast from your trailer tow screen (WTF that sounds so ridiculous when I say it.)
It’s a good point. And it alludes to what Torch mentioned when he said that we only live in our cars a few hours of the day.
GM and others have a very myopic view of how we use cars and only consider the time spent in the vehicle. If you want seamlessness, make it seamless with my whole life not just those few hours.
Right, they misconstrued the requirement of seamless.
IMO the seamless idea is a marketing gimmick. It’s in the guys title; “Product Management.” He’s not a software designer nor a technologist. I think it’s all a ruse to sucker people into monthly fees. Meanwhile they’re alienating customers and putting efforts into things that don’t add value to their core competency; building cars. I can’t imagine how much they are spending on the software teams for this while their flagship small block continues to collapse lifters. I don’t think people are going to give a fuck if they can pick a podcast from tow menu when they’re Silverado collapses a lifter while towing…
You have to subscribe separately, but the EV’s come with 8 years of service. But it sucks. I just use my phone for everything now. The interface is horrible.
Right, don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. This is a pure money grab and not about seamlessness.
I agree 100% with Torch.
My obvious bias here is I’ll never buy a new car, but at some point when a car is old enough for me to afford I will.
The issue with the fancy integrated ui is that as soon as the vehicle is sold the manufacturer with wipe their hands and never think about it again.
I have a 2020 Transit with Carplay/Android Auto, but it only works about 50% of the time, not because of AA/CP, but because Fords whatever it’s called frequently completely freezes and requires a hard reset (hold the seek forward and the power button for 5 seconds )
How much worse is that going to be on 10 year old GM product with everything they’re trying to include in there.
This is a software problem. Google/Apple have spent decades thinking about and perfecting software problems. GM has not proven they can be trusted here.
I’m more utilitarian in my wants for a vehicle. I want physical buttons/knobs, and a dock for my phone/tablet. I could be convinced to include a larger screen for backing up, but if that’s not a requirement put that in the rearview mirror.
The other problem with all this is that when that infotainment system breaks it’s not a put in a new $400 head unit with the latest tech problem, it’s a spend $3k for the same out of date crap that it came with when new.
If they want to integrate the features, let them create apps that integrate with AA/CP.
Believe it or not that actually is an Android Auto problem. It is so buggy and poorly implemented that integration with it is incredibly poor. I have tried for years across different mobiles including G Pixels and not a single one has been able to work successfully across a similar multitude of after-market head units from Kenwood, Alpine, & JVC and OEMs from Toyota, Ford, and GM. You can see the volume of issues on AA forums and the AA subreddit.
Meanwhile Apple CarPlay just works immediately when you plug it in. Everywhere. Sure, sometimes it crashes but it usually restarts on it’s own. And it if it doesn’t it is easy to fix by unplugging/replugging it.
I would be inclined to agree, if the radio didn’t also freeze when not using AA
I tend to agree to both sides. Torch is right about people wanting to use what they are used to, and Cetinok is also right that these projections may break the car screen usability,
Nowadays, a lot of functions are in the screens, not only things like HVAC (which is stupid to be in a screen anyway), but some other informational things. Sure, clusters are being replaced by screens too but if you add to much information there, it will be a mess.
I do believe that it should have a better integration. There are ways to do that, even today, like Android Automotive, which is different from Android Auto. That is a fully featured system that controls all car’s systems.
And because of that, I believe the reason GM has dropped the support is that they would give either Apple or Google lots of data. Data that GM itself can resale instead of probably giving for free for them. As far as I remember, and I may be wrong and that may have changed, but Carplay collect a lot of car telemetry data, and while Android Automotive would do the same, Android aulto would imply that information from phone sensors.
It doesn’t makes sense for Apple and Google to have this data logged while providing an interface, but makes sense when considering their data brokering and advertising business.
So, in my opinion, it is about money, not usability.
I dabbled a few years in mobile industry, and Cetinok’s statement of “I’m going to just burn the bridges and burn the ships and commit” gives me flashbacks to 2011. At the beginning of that year, the Nokia CEO at that time, Stephen Elop, sent out an internal memo about abandoning the “burning plattform” that was their own Symbian OS and hedge their bets on Windows Mobile (and not Android). This turned out to be the wrong choice and some of the reason for the downfall of Nokia, but it hindsight it was probably the right thing to move away from their own uncompetitive OS. I’m curious why GM would like to go in the opposite direction, and I have a hard time understanding whether this is based on real needs and how it improves the UX? SW development is a completely different cup of tea than HW development so I sure hope GM know the implications of the choice they’ve made and the commitments they’ve signed up for.
More integrated = more distracting
Talking to your car takes more attention than pushing an easy-to-reach button.
I don’t agree with this position.
The interface with the car’s functions should be the primary interface. You’re in a car and you need to operate that car so that interface should supersede all others.
You don’t NEED a phone to operate the car, so it is supplemental. Your phone will enrich the experience by providing entertainment, messaging and mapping.
I agree with GMs approach on this. However, I do believe that there is a way to also satisfy the customer without being dogmatic–that approach never works.
Since our cars are full of screens anymore, devote one to a phone mirror. Leave the primary interface for car functions. Stop trying to pretend that the two platforms will ever really merge. The concept that Cerinok is completely correct on is that they are separate and will never really merge. Your phone will not displace the functions that your car has to control. You can’t expect Google/Apple to create some type of interface that can integrate with all of the different automakers implementation of features and the wide variety of those features. That’s not at all cost effective and is a fool’s errand.
A lot of this is just that many people are just head in heels in love with their phone and their lives revolve around it. That is never going to change, but trying to tell automakers that their systems should be made secondary to phones is an absurd notion.
I will NEVER understand the people who say thing like “I won’t buy a car without Carplay” or something like that. Of my four cars, one has it. I used it a few times because it was a novelty. However, when I’m in the other three, I never pine to mess with my phone. My phone is for music, directions and occasional calls; none of which require me to really look at the phone. I’m not important enough to need anything that can’t be accomplished with a phone call if there’s a need.
I won’t buy a car w/out Carplay because Waze is helpful for my commute. Because Google Maps is helpful for long distance travel, or finding a gas station. Because I want to listen to a podcast or audiobook. Because I want to hear the text that my boss or my kid’s school sent me. My car’s native systems can’t do any of those things for shit.
Plus, the apps Carplay gives access to are updated and maintained for reliably than a native system can be. The used market is full of cars having GPS systems that are badly outdated with limited(at best) means to updated them.
This is such a huge point that often gets missed, thanks
CarPlay is easier to use than any software developed by the automaker itself, and it’s less distracting than all the unnecessary graphics those custom interfaces use. It’s really that simple.
Aren’t cars already built with primary driving controls directly in front of the driver with secondary control centrally located to be shared with passengers?
When I get in my 2021 car I have all my map history, my play lists, my podcasts, every single thing I want. When I get in my 2003 I have the same thing. 1999, same stuff. All because it’s in my pocket not the car, and AA head units are pretty affordable now. That’s what AA really gets me, and I will never buy a car I can’t use it in as long as I have a choice.
Jason, I think you nailed it. I’m in my car for 15 minutes at a time. I just want whatever I’m doing on my phone to work on the car for that brief period. I’ll pick whatever app I like for whatever it is I like to do and my car shouldn’t be some huge adjustment in the flow of my day.
At the same time, why can’t they offer both? Is allowing Android Auto really such a huge lift? My guess is because then people won’t pay for whatever subscription GM is trying to sell. Luckily, we just bought new cars (both with Android Auto) in the last 3 years so it’ll be a long time before we need to worry about it.
Having driven several different makes of rental cars while shopping for a new one, and having experienced different integrations of CarPlay I can say that I was shocked at the differences in implementations between makes—and in some cases, models from the same make. It’s all about how the manufacturer integrates the system. We went with a Honda, who could have done much better with CarPlay in my CR-V. That being said, I wouldn’t buy a car without it.
If you just want a car to be an appliance, then have at it… but I don’t think that makes cars cool.
The thing about an appliance is it just WORKS. Which is exactly what you want here. You don’t need the excitement of being locked in your car with a car that won’t start, no HVAC and a glove box that won’t stay closed because the software crapped out.
not comparing buttons to screens, I’m comparing Apple Screens to OEM Screens
So am I.
so what would be different? This isnt a conversation about UX screens vs physical buttons. Just Apple CarPlay vs. OEM software.
What would be different? The level of integration. Car play isn’t going to be opening your glove box or unlocking your doors.
I know, I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing here. No worries, this is kind of a dumb thing anyways.
What’s an app here? For a car, I think the instrument cluster, sound system, HVAC, and maps are different apps. We multitask a computer more in the car than on our computers.
I with you Mr. Smathers. But, I think about 90% of the rest of world isn’t.
Radio on, window down, pedal to the medal. Otherwise, it better not get in my way.
But if the car just mirrors and uses all the apps and services and subscriptions you already have and paid for on your phone, then how will they get you to pay for all those same things again to use in the car? If your answer is “they can’t” then you know EXACTLY why they are doing it this way.
NIH to the max. Typical Dee-troit.