CarPlay & Android Auto have been requested many times in various threads.
Jamie recently asked for each request to be in its own thread in the Suggestion Box so that forum members can up- vote each request individually.
To up-vote CarPlay & Android Auto support, use the voting panel on the right side (or bottom depending on your device size) of this message.
Let Scout know what you want by browsing through the other Suggestion Box Threads and up-voting the requests that seem most useful to you.
The Case for CarPlay and Android Auto
Versatility and Utility.
CarPlay and Android Auto enable hundreds of apps. Many of these apps have small or niche users bases. No car company could implement and support all the functionality that is available through third party app developers.
Community.
CarPlay adds community features. One example is a feature that enables each passenger in the car to control what music will be played from their own phone. Since phones have excellent accessibility accommodations, persons with visual impairments or other accessibility needs are included. CarPlay and Android Auto also support a large community of small app development businesses. Vehicles are often shared, community devices, and with CarPlay each driver of the vehicle gets their own personally configured setup when they connect their phone.
Customizability.
CarPlay enables users to configure and customize parts of their own in-car experience. The New CarPlay makes even more customization possible, potentially even for things like the speedometer.
Security.
If car manufacturers try to implement all the features of cell phones they will find they will need hundreds of engineers just to keep the system secure and private. CarPlay has the security of the phone and the connection to the vehicle is secured by an Apple supplied authentication chip that the car manufacturer procures through Apple’s MFi program.
We are Not the product.
A major reason for not supporting CarPlay is to lock users in to a selection of integrated services. This is user hostile because it means users now have to pay for things that they have for free on their phone or they have to subscribe to multiple overlapping services. For example, podcasts have traditionally been free for anyone with an internet connection to listen to and many apps on phones allow users to freely listen to podcasts. However, Rivian drivers cannot listen to podcasts unless they subscribe to a service like Spotify, or else they need to operate their phone while driving and stream via bluetooth. Some car manufacturers plan to make many billions of dollars through subscriptions. Nobody wants to pay subscriptions for things their phone already does. For more information see:
Post in thread 'Extra, Extra....Read All About It!'
https://scoutmotors.community.forum/threads/extra-extra-read-all-about-it.172/post-3127
Hardware
The hardware built into the vehicle will eventually get old, but users will keep buying new phones that will be ever more powerful and will provide new features and an enhanced user experiences.
Future proof.
Supporting CarPlay and Android Auto future proofs the in-car experience.
People Love their Phones
Warren Buffet said, if an iPhone user had “to give up a second car or give up their iPhone, they'd give up their second car”. Integrations between the car and the phone are important to many users.
Common Objections to CarPlay
1) “It gives too much control to big tech”. Answer: The opposite is true because when car companies build their own system they can only integrate a few services from large corporations, but CarPlay and Android Auto are platforms for hundreds of apps made by small businesses and individuals that are taking on the big corporations. For example, many podcast apps are made by small teams and individuals that are locked out and can’t compete when CarPlay is not supported.
2) “Apple will take over the display and in-car experience”. Answer: The new CarPlay makes it possible for CarPlay to send app components to other displays in the vehicle. These displays are composited in layers, the manufacturers own systems are in one layer and widgets from the phone (such as driving directions) are in another layer and they are rendered so that they exist side by side. Does this mean Apple are taking over? No. Because this actually frees up the main touch screen! If the key CarPlay information is now in a few widgets on another screen (such as the one in front of the driver) the user is free to use the main touchscreen for native systems more frequently. There should probably be a physical toggle switch that toggles the main touchscreen between the vehicles native system and the connected device so that users can easily move back and forth between them. As part of the New CarPlay Apple provides design tools that vehicle manufacturers can use to make unique custom designs for things like the speedometer. These are rendered by the computer in the car, not by the phone. Some have said these design tools are too limited because they only support Apple’s fonts, but these are not normal fonts, they are highly variable fonts that are kind of like a tool for creating unique fonts, besides manufacturers can probably use their own design tools and composite anything they want into the system. Most designers would want to see a consistent look and feel across all systems so if CarPlay is supported and the user chooses it, it would make sense for the native systems and CarPlay to blend together nicely.
3) “the user would have to jump out of CarPlay to open the frunk” - Rivian CEO’s explanation for why they can’t support CarPlay. Answer: Why should someone need to use the touchscreen to open the frunk? Putting all the vehicles controls on the touchscreen is just a bad idea and the user still needs to navigate to find the control they need. All the vehicles controls should be physical buttons.
What does everyone think? What other arguments are there for or against Android Auto and CarPlay?
Jamie recently asked for each request to be in its own thread in the Suggestion Box so that forum members can up- vote each request individually.
To up-vote CarPlay & Android Auto support, use the voting panel on the right side (or bottom depending on your device size) of this message.
Let Scout know what you want by browsing through the other Suggestion Box Threads and up-voting the requests that seem most useful to you.
The Case for CarPlay and Android Auto
Versatility and Utility.
CarPlay and Android Auto enable hundreds of apps. Many of these apps have small or niche users bases. No car company could implement and support all the functionality that is available through third party app developers.
Community.
CarPlay adds community features. One example is a feature that enables each passenger in the car to control what music will be played from their own phone. Since phones have excellent accessibility accommodations, persons with visual impairments or other accessibility needs are included. CarPlay and Android Auto also support a large community of small app development businesses. Vehicles are often shared, community devices, and with CarPlay each driver of the vehicle gets their own personally configured setup when they connect their phone.
Customizability.
CarPlay enables users to configure and customize parts of their own in-car experience. The New CarPlay makes even more customization possible, potentially even for things like the speedometer.
Security.
If car manufacturers try to implement all the features of cell phones they will find they will need hundreds of engineers just to keep the system secure and private. CarPlay has the security of the phone and the connection to the vehicle is secured by an Apple supplied authentication chip that the car manufacturer procures through Apple’s MFi program.
We are Not the product.
A major reason for not supporting CarPlay is to lock users in to a selection of integrated services. This is user hostile because it means users now have to pay for things that they have for free on their phone or they have to subscribe to multiple overlapping services. For example, podcasts have traditionally been free for anyone with an internet connection to listen to and many apps on phones allow users to freely listen to podcasts. However, Rivian drivers cannot listen to podcasts unless they subscribe to a service like Spotify, or else they need to operate their phone while driving and stream via bluetooth. Some car manufacturers plan to make many billions of dollars through subscriptions. Nobody wants to pay subscriptions for things their phone already does. For more information see:
Post in thread 'Extra, Extra....Read All About It!'
https://scoutmotors.community.forum/threads/extra-extra-read-all-about-it.172/post-3127
Hardware
The hardware built into the vehicle will eventually get old, but users will keep buying new phones that will be ever more powerful and will provide new features and an enhanced user experiences.
Future proof.
Supporting CarPlay and Android Auto future proofs the in-car experience.
People Love their Phones
Warren Buffet said, if an iPhone user had “to give up a second car or give up their iPhone, they'd give up their second car”. Integrations between the car and the phone are important to many users.
Common Objections to CarPlay
1) “It gives too much control to big tech”. Answer: The opposite is true because when car companies build their own system they can only integrate a few services from large corporations, but CarPlay and Android Auto are platforms for hundreds of apps made by small businesses and individuals that are taking on the big corporations. For example, many podcast apps are made by small teams and individuals that are locked out and can’t compete when CarPlay is not supported.
2) “Apple will take over the display and in-car experience”. Answer: The new CarPlay makes it possible for CarPlay to send app components to other displays in the vehicle. These displays are composited in layers, the manufacturers own systems are in one layer and widgets from the phone (such as driving directions) are in another layer and they are rendered so that they exist side by side. Does this mean Apple are taking over? No. Because this actually frees up the main touch screen! If the key CarPlay information is now in a few widgets on another screen (such as the one in front of the driver) the user is free to use the main touchscreen for native systems more frequently. There should probably be a physical toggle switch that toggles the main touchscreen between the vehicles native system and the connected device so that users can easily move back and forth between them. As part of the New CarPlay Apple provides design tools that vehicle manufacturers can use to make unique custom designs for things like the speedometer. These are rendered by the computer in the car, not by the phone. Some have said these design tools are too limited because they only support Apple’s fonts, but these are not normal fonts, they are highly variable fonts that are kind of like a tool for creating unique fonts, besides manufacturers can probably use their own design tools and composite anything they want into the system. Most designers would want to see a consistent look and feel across all systems so if CarPlay is supported and the user chooses it, it would make sense for the native systems and CarPlay to blend together nicely.
3) “the user would have to jump out of CarPlay to open the frunk” - Rivian CEO’s explanation for why they can’t support CarPlay. Answer: Why should someone need to use the touchscreen to open the frunk? Putting all the vehicles controls on the touchscreen is just a bad idea and the user still needs to navigate to find the control they need. All the vehicles controls should be physical buttons.
What does everyone think? What other arguments are there for or against Android Auto and CarPlay?
Last edited:
Upvote
9
