Chevy Equinox EV Forum banner

Letter to Mary Barra

2029 Views 67 Replies 16 Participants Last post by  Steverino
I've been thinking about the removal of the projection subsystem in Android Automotive for GM's upcoming EVs and sent the following to [email protected] on Sunday. What I didn't want to do was send a "whine" letter, but rather one that made product improvement suggestions that would benefit GM's bottom line while giving GM's customers more control over their vehicles.

==========
Subject: Removal of Android Auto/Apple Car Play in Ultium EVs

Dear CEO Barra,

The removal of the projection systems for Android and Apple is a mistake. Given that the cell phone industry is continuing to push for higher and higher speeds and that there is limited bandwidth available, this means that current cell phone networks will be replaced. This has occurred at least twice since OnStar was first deployed and GM United States has never offered a way to upgrade the OnStar cellular receiver/transmitter in their vehicles. GM Canada did offer to upgrade for a price the vehicles in Canada during this last network upgrade.

While I understand GM’s desire to ensure they receive telemetry for product improvement, this can be done without requiring an OnStar account. I also understand that as they currently sit, the mobile device versions of Google Maps and Apple Maps are unable to provide some of the information vehicle integrated mapping software can provide. However, rather than take away the ability to run a cell phone powered map via projection, provide this feature as an added cost item (not too much).

In fact, knowing that there is a significant portion of the population that doesn’t want to have GM, or any other automotive manufacturer, to receive telemetry from their vehicles, here’s a proposal that would bring in some more money for GM and keep everyone reasonably happy:
  • Base price includes full OnStar with navigation – If the cell network upgrades during the initial or any subsequent subscription OnStar pays to replace the cell network interface.
  • Additional cost, not more than $100 - $200 US, add the projection systems back to the vehicle. Android Automotive supports projection systems natively and GM is having to explicitly remove this feature.
  • Additional cost, $500 - $1,000 USD – removal of all telemetry from the vehicle via a special OnStar module that doesn’t contain . This gives those who don’t want any telemetry from the vehicle a way to purchase this feature.
Also, below is my list of GM cars from my first vehicle in 1985:

1985 Pontiac Fiero 2M4, traded for a Fiero GT after 8,000 miles because I didn’t trust the engine. About a month later the first media reports of Fiero 2M4 engine bay fires started showing up.
1985 Pontiac Fiero GT, traded for a Pontiac Transport when it no longer met the needs of a new parent.
1990 Pontiac Transport, traded for a Pontiac Montana after 240,000 miles when my kids got tall enough they needed higher backed seats.
2002 Pontiac Montana AWD, traded after 186,000 miles for a 2012 Chevy Cruze LS for my son’s college graduation.
2012 Chevy Cruze ECO, destroyed by hail after 103,500 miles.
2017 Chevy Volt LT, purchased partly with the insurance check from the Cruze ECO and my current vehicle.

The 2024 Equinox EV 2LT was my number one choice to replace the Volt, but with the removal of the projection system from the vehicle, it is now at the bottom of the list while I look at other options.

Sincerely,
Michael Ober
Colorado
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 5
41 - 60 of 68 Posts
But why should it be "either\or" instead of both?
$, Data, and Control.

"But it appears as though not just the Detroit Three but the automotive industry in general has made two big decisions about its future.

The first strategic determination — that the future of locomotion will be electric has been obvious for a while.

But the second — that auto companies want to shape their own, proprietary approaches to the digital essence of their vehicles, rather than farm out the chore to Silicon Valley — is only now coming into view.

This is a significant but existentially necessary about-face for the company. Just several years ago, GM joined most other automakers in welcoming CarPlay and Android Auto into its vehicles because of the familiarity and ease of use for consumers of dealing with those well known smartphone interfaces compared with GM’s pioneering OnStar and other attempts in that space."

"It makes increasing sense for automakers to attempt to recapture the binary codes in their vehicles, for a number of reasons. Consumers’ purchase decisions increasingly are based on what tech a vehicle can offer, across a range of areas, as previous differentiators such as manufacturing product quality have evened out. Automakers have invested in, maintain and grow huge workforces of thousands of people, engineers and designers and software developers alike, who are solely dedicated to leveraging digital technology in various ways to make their vehicles and brands stand out; why cede that territory to outsiders?"

"Indeed, as software becomes increasingly central to a vehicle’s value proposition, the notion of reserving an “Apple” space in a Cadillac or a Highlander seems as out of place today as the old “Intel on the inside” positioning would be in a modern PC. Today, the software is the car, and the car is the software. Why should Apple get to be what drivers identify with in any vehicle?"

"Compare these two decisions with the earlier determinations that GM and Ford made about their battery systems for EVs. GM CEO Mary Barra made the early decision for her company to develop its own battery architecture, called Ultium, which it controls even with partnerships to manufacture the batteries. And after former Ford CEO Jim Hackett proceeded with EV development on the basis of outsourcing battery design and manufacture to other companies, one of the first major things current CEO Jim Farley did was execute a 180-degree switch in strategy so that Ford will produce its own batteries."

See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
$, Data, and Control.

"But it appears as though not just the Detroit Three but the automotive industry in general has made two big decisions about its future.

The first strategic determination — that the future of locomotion will be electric has been obvious for a while.

But the second — that auto companies want to shape their own, proprietary approaches to the digital essence of their vehicles, rather than farm out the chore to Silicon Valley — is only now coming into view.

This is a significant but existentially necessary about-face for the company. Just several years ago, GM joined most other automakers in welcoming CarPlay and Android Auto into its vehicles because of the familiarity and ease of use for consumers of dealing with those well known smartphone interfaces compared with GM’s pioneering OnStar and other attempts in that space."

"It makes increasing sense for automakers to attempt to recapture the binary codes in their vehicles, for a number of reasons. Consumers’ purchase decisions increasingly are based on what tech a vehicle can offer, across a range of areas, as previous differentiators such as manufacturing product quality have evened out. Automakers have invested in, maintain and grow huge workforces of thousands of people, engineers and designers and software developers alike, who are solely dedicated to leveraging digital technology in various ways to make their vehicles and brands stand out; why cede that territory to outsiders?"

"Indeed, as software becomes increasingly central to a vehicle’s value proposition, the notion of reserving an “Apple” space in a Cadillac or a Highlander seems as out of place today as the old “Intel on the inside” positioning would be in a modern PC. Today, the software is the car, and the car is the software. Why should Apple get to be what drivers identify with in any vehicle?"

"Compare these two decisions with the earlier determinations that GM and Ford made about their battery systems for EVs. GM CEO Mary Barra made the early decision for her company to develop its own battery architecture, called Ultium, which it controls even with partnerships to manufacture the batteries. And after former Ford CEO Jim Hackett proceeded with EV development on the basis of outsourcing battery design and manufacture to other companies, one of the first major things current CEO Jim Farley did was execute a 180-degree switch in strategy so that Ford will produce its own batteries."

That still doesn't answer why not have both. If it was only for the data, they could have given the software for free, just like FAANG does for your data. It's for money, nothing else. Almost all manufacturers declared that in the near future, they're going to make 30%+ of their profits out of licensing. The jig Is up!
But why should it be "either\or" instead of both? My (aftermarket) head unit has it's own software (with gps, player, BT, etc), and when you hook your phone up, an "Android auto" button appears, you can either choose to press it and activate AA, or stay on the system the head unit came with.

I'll tell you why, because they know they can't compete. It's not like AA or ACP are going to be the same 8 years from now. Gmaps already have an option to search for chargers on route (pretty new).
See, I don't get the "can't compete" thing at all. Why on earth would they "compete" when someone else (Google, Apple) is willing to do the work for them instead? If that were enough to provide a generally satisfactory user experience, there is no reason to put work in to replicate function, and even less reason to include actual hardware parts that they have to pay for on every single vehicle. Design teams get bonuses in this industry for saving $5-10 off the cost of parts or manufacturing expense per vehicle, or shaving a pound of weight. There is NEGATIVE reason to "compete" in this space.

So whatever they gain from this has to be pretty important, and it has to be valuable NOW. Not just in some nebulous 8-years-away future for an optional subscription fee when a non-trivial number of vehicles won't even make it that far due to fleet attrition (crashes, etc) or will not subscribe because whatever it is can be lived without.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
See, I don't get the "can't compete" thing at all. Why on earth would they "compete" when someone else (Google, Apple) is willing to do the work for them instead? If that were enough to provide a generally satisfactory user experience, there is no reason to put work in to replicate function, and even less reason to include actual hardware parts that they have to pay for on every single vehicle. Design teams get bonuses in this industry for saving $5-10 off the cost of parts or manufacturing expense per vehicle, or shaving a pound of weight. There is NEGATIVE reason to "compete" in this space.

So whatever they gain from this has to be pretty important, and it has to be valuable NOW. Not just in some nebulous 8-years-away future for an optional subscription fee when a non-trivial number of vehicles won't even make it that far due to fleet attrition (crashes, etc) or will not subscribe because whatever it is can be lived without.
Especially since Android Auto and Apple Carplay are built into the Android Automotive package by Google. To remove this takes additional work on GM's part.
Especially since Android Auto and Apple Carplay are built into the Android Automotive package by Google. To remove this takes additional work on GM's part.

$. However, there are likely some control panel check boxes on the admin side, may not be that big a deal. And once set, likely nothing else to do. Perhaps someone will be able to hack something, and then were off to the races as GM issues OTA updates that kill the hack.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
See, I don't get the "can't compete" thing at all. Why on earth would they "compete" when someone else (Google, Apple) is willing to do the work for them instead? If that were enough to provide a generally satisfactory user experience, there is no reason to put work in to replicate function, and even less reason to include actual hardware parts that they have to pay for on every single vehicle. Design teams get bonuses in this industry for saving $5-10 off the cost of parts or manufacturing expense per vehicle, or shaving a pound of weight. There is NEGATIVE reason to "compete" in this space.

So whatever they gain from this has to be pretty important, and it has to be valuable NOW. Not just in some nebulous 8-years-away future for an optional subscription fee when a non-trivial number of vehicles won't even make it that far due to fleet attrition (crashes, etc) or will not subscribe because whatever it is can be lived without.
Because they get:
1. Your data.
2. Your subscription fee in the future. And who knows, maybe the 2026 will come with 0 free years, and you'll have to pay from day 1.
3. To display ads ("restaurants near you" will appear in order of who paid more to GM, charging stations that are more profitable to GM will be more recommended, etc)

But as of now, I either pay for software, or get it for "free" and they take my data and\or ads (Gmaps, Google search, YouTube, etc). Paying in order to give them my data is VERY infuriating!
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Because they get:
1. Your data.
2. Your subscription fee in the future. And who knows, maybe the 2026 will come with 0 free years, and you'll have to pay from day 1.
3. To display ads ("restaurants near you" will appear in order of who paid more to GM, charging stations that are more profitable to GM will be more recommended, etc)

But as of now, I either pay for software, or get it for "free" and they take my data and\or ads (Gmaps, Google search, YouTube, etc). Paying in order to give them my data is VERY infuriating!
1. Sounds ooo scary, but clarity on what "data" people want to protect is always ... kind of thin. Most of the useful stuff is already bundled though OnStar anyway, and rare is the loonie who wants to rip that out and replace it with something else.
2. And if it's 0 free years, the same people that won't pay for it after 8 free years won't pay for it now. The money to put the whole thing into the car is wasted then. So there's no "compete" there either. You're just driving like it's 2014 again and it didn't exist as a manufacturer-provided option.
3. That's 1 again, ain't it? Don't think Google and Apple don't do exactly the same thing, and Google probably does with the the onboard that IS going to be there too, because managing proximity-based advertising is a giant pain when you can just let Google do it and maybe get a pittance for providing the impression like websites displayed on mobile devices do.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
This is the problem when you (GM) tell people CarPlay, Android Auto will be eliminated without all the details: they will fill in the blanks with fear-based conspiracies, imagined problems, etc. It's just a natural reaction people have to fill in the information void.

The only thing I know is GM wants to make subscription money and they say they'll be as good or better than using a third party (apple, etc.) I'll need to se more details, experience the car. Even then, will we know what a potential fee will be in 8 years? Probably not.

Regarding the 8 years free, my Year 1 Volt came with 5 years free OnStar. Later years came with 3 years free.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
This is the problem when you (GM) tell people CarPlay, Android Auto will be eliminated without all the details: they will fill in the blanks with fear-based conspiracies, imagined problems, etc. It's just a natural reaction people have to fill in the information void.

The only thing I know is GM wants to make subscription money and they say they'll be as good or better than using a third party (apple, etc.) I'll need to se more details, experience the car. Even then, will we know what a potential fee will be in 8 years? Probably not.

Regarding the 8 years free, my Year 1 Volt came with 5 years free OnStar. Later years came with 3 years free.
I'm not afraid of data collection, I'm all for it. I just want the software to be free if they get it. That's the way it works with Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.

And if they think they can do it better, go ahead, give me both options, with only one year free of your system, and if it's that much better, I'll CHOOSE to pay for yours instead of using the AA\ACP.

There's no contradiction between having both systems available. I have 2 systems available on the same head unit right now, and it was only $600.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Rivian does not have carplay officially, some people have workarounds, but no Rivian doesn't support it.

I stand corrected, Rivian doesn’t have AA/ACP.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I stand corrected, Rivian doesn’t have AA/ACP.
The question is, are they charging $$$ for subscription to their software?
  • Like
Reactions: 1
They have a Rivian Membership service where you pay for what you need. I can't find the prices right now but they are experimenting with things.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Did anyone send out their intended letter?
Did anyone send out their intended letter?
This thread started with a copy/paste of the letter I sent to GM Executives. I also included their response when I received it. Bottom line is GM's executives are deaf and dumb when it comes to their customers.
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3
The question is, are they charging $$$ for subscription to their software?
"Tesla offers two tiers of connectivity in all its cars. The standard package includes navigation but uses a somewhat out-of-date navigation technology that doesn’t include live traffic information. It also lets you connect a phone for music streaming over Bluetooth. In the past, it has been free for the car’s lifetime.

Now, it will be free for the first eight years. Tesla hasn’t said what the fee in year nine would be.

An upgraded “premium connectivity” package adds features more like what most automakers have to offer, and plenty they don’t. It includes in-car Wi-Fi, navigation with live traffic updates, and access to the monthly downloads Tesla pushes out with fun in-car entertainment like karaoke and games on the car’s central touchscreen. Premium connectivity costs $9.99 per month or an annual fee of $99."

"All this might indicate that Rivian plans on turning its Membership from a one-fits-all subscription service into an online store. The new platform might include various performance-oriented upgrades for the brand’s vehicles and add in-cabin entertainment like Netflix. Apart from Tesla, BMW and Mercedes-Benz plan to offer their customers various ways to upgrade their EVs via monthly or yearly subscriptions."
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
"Tesla offers two tiers of connectivity in all its cars. The standard package includes navigation but uses a somewhat out-of-date navigation technology that doesn’t include live traffic information. It also lets you connect a phone for music streaming over Bluetooth. In the past, it has been free for the car’s lifetime.

Now, it will be free for the first eight years. Tesla hasn’t said what the fee in year nine would be.

An upgraded “premium connectivity” package adds features more like what most automakers have to offer, and plenty they don’t. It includes in-car Wi-Fi, navigation with live traffic updates, and access to the monthly downloads Tesla pushes out with fun in-car entertainment like karaoke and games on the car’s central touchscreen. Premium connectivity costs $9.99 per month or an annual fee of $99."

"All this might indicate that Rivian plans on turning its Membership from a one-fits-all subscription service into an online store. The new platform might include various performance-oriented upgrades for the brand’s vehicles and add in-cabin entertainment like Netflix. Apart from Tesla, BMW and Mercedes-Benz plan to offer their customers various ways to upgrade their EVs via monthly or yearly subscriptions."
Right now it looks as if this is almost exactly what GM is going to do but they charge $24.99 a month/$249.90 a year for the data and remote car functions. The super cruise is at least $15.00 a month more (but having just driven a car on a 7 hour road trip with it I think it might be worth it, but it takes some getting used to)
They have a Rivian Membership service where you pay for what you need. I can't find the prices right now but they are experimenting with things.
Sorry, it was stupid of me to even ask that. Of course they do. Is there a manufacturer left without a silly subscription fee?

I have an aftermarket remote start from my phone (I can have the car turned on in Canada, from Israel). I can control the AC and all locks as well. This cost me $400, $0 subscription fee. It's called EvoStart.

I'm principally against subscription fees. I even sold my PS5 and went back to PS3 because of it. I'm tired of everything being a reoccurring payment. I've cancelled my Netflix as well (I use Kodi), and now the only subscription I have left is Spotify, and that's just because my wife likes it, and the dual one cost only $2 more than the single one. I use it every day, but I find that I listen to the same 300-400 songs all the time. Yes, I'm that boring (which is why I don't care giving away any data they will ever want, I just care about paying subscription).
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I've cancelled my Netflix as well (I use Kodi),
Sounds like Plex, but how does it replace Netflix? As a a media center, where does the content come from?
Sounds like Plex, but how does it replace Netflix? As a a media center, where does the content come from?
Ha-ha! Don't ask..... 🤭
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Ha-ha! Don't ask..... 🤭
d'yah get the required amount of CanCon that way? :)
41 - 60 of 68 Posts
Top