I agree it's stupid (and there's no question this move won't survive in the long term) but there's one thing to keep in mind:
BMW's iDrive is better than CarPlay. As someone who very much likes Apple's current iOS and Mac UI, this feels absurd to say but iDrive is just that good. Of course choice always preferable, but unless CarPlay is extended to allow me to use Waze maps, I can't imagine why I'd ever use it.
Unlike CarPlay, iDrive has a well-resolved, tactile and customisable physical interface. It's just better suited for someone who's driving.
Tesla doesn't support CarPlay at all, but you don't hear about hoards of people boycotting Telsa: because their system is also better than CarPlay. (Though at least BMW gives you the option, even if they do so in a weirdly customer-hostile way.)
The only clear advantage of CarPlay is that the software is being continually updated and improved. Perhaps when your 2018 model is seven years old, the features of CarPlay in iOS 16 running on your iPhone Xs Edition would be preferred. And by then BMW will have been shamed into aborting this annual fee joke.
> Unlike CarPlay, iDrive has a well-resolved, tactile and customisable physical interface.
Several manufacturers (Audi for example) offer tactile, context-sensitive clickwheel and touchpad controls for CarPlay and Android Auto. Those function as well or better than iDrive, and have the long-term advantage of Apple and Google supporting them, against which BMW can't hope to compete. (CarPlay restricting third-party apps is definitely a huge problem though.)
> Tesla doesn't support CarPlay at all, but you don't hear about hoards of people boycotting Telsa: because their system is also better than CarPlay.
Tesla's system is not better than CarPlay with tactile controls. The reason people are not boycotting Tesla is that they are overlooking the enormous issues with their interface due to superior EV technology.
Controlling Android Auto and CarPlay with car controls is like operating a home theatre with a Logitech remote: it's great if you remember how third-party physical buttons map to the software.
The superiority of iDrive isn't readily apparent until you live with it for a few weeks and you realise how straightforward the controls are for frequent tasks, and how the quick-access buttons can turn complex UI dives into one-button macros.
I love having physical buttons for "drive home", for "open my GPS address book" button, for "stop nagivating", for "call my wife", for "show trip data" and "show program details for the current DAB radio station".
All that superiority of iDrive immediately disappears when you notice that you can't even start Podcast playback in PocketCasts on Android over it. While you can on Android Auto.
Same goes for Waze and other important services BMW will never upgrade (or will charge ludicrous amount of money and demand dealer visit to upgrade).
Are you serious? I just sold my 2016 X6 because idrive was so bad. I prefer carplay many times over. I have been a dedicated bmw owner for 15 years, but lately I’ve been thinking they’re losing their charm.
CarPlay and it’s supported apps will only get better. I can’t see how the auto industry will be able to keep up or even justify the additional expense for their info-tainment systems.
Edit: ok - I didn’t sell it only because of idrive. My driving habits and needs changed. But, it was definitely a factor in not replacing it with another bmw.
I’m completely serious. Touch screens in cars are a joke and a safety hazard. The only people who want them are bad drivers and bad gadget enthusiasts.
Now I don't know about carplay specifically, but Android auto works great even without a touchscreen, giving you the tactile feel that you want, and there is no reason why BMW can't extend the customizable physical buttons to work for functions in AA.
And Tesla does get shit for not supporting either, quite frequently. Not to "boycott" levels, but it has absolutely affected my last car purchase, and the fact that they don't support it makes me want the brand a lot less.
I installed Android Auto on my Mazda after someone on a previous HN thread convinced me to, and now I can't go back to using the native system. It makes such a huge difference, and works perfectly with the physical controls.
As far as i'm aware, there are no Mazda's directly that support android auto at this point in time.
They keep claiming they will, but they haven't made it happen yet.
(I looked at various 2018 models just last week, and if you go to various mazda forums on the internet, it's a constant topic of discussion)
The only way i'm aware of to get Android Auto on a Mazda would be to replace the head unit.
It's unofficial, from the link that the other commenter posted, but works well enough, and takes about 5 minutes to install if you have a USB drive lying around.
"Tesla does get shit for not supporting either, quite frequently."
Yup. As cool as Tesla's giant touchscreen is, the UX just doesn't compare to CarPlay.
Much of this is down to Siri, which mostly eliminates the (potentially dangerous) need to hunt around in menus/touch controls for audio and navigation functions while you're driving.
No doubt Android Auto has this same advantage. Tesla's voice controls are a joke in comparison.
It’s not just about the software getting updated. Most people have everything on their phone. It knows about the next appointment and can seamlessly open maps with the location. Same thing about my music.
While the native car interface is better, it will not survive as phone is my primary device. Also the car companies charge for their subpar navigation, updating those maps is another story altogether...
The lack of support for third-party mapping/navigation apps is what keeps me from caring about CarPlay. I'd sooner just buy an iPad mini LTE and bolt it to the center console.
Where I live even Google Maps isn't very good, and Apple Maps is a joke. Local competitors are miles ahead at car navigation. E.g. around here Google Maps doesn't seem to know about road closures (ones that have been closed for a year and a half after an earthquake) whereas local competitors will tell you "in 2 km, due to construction the road will reduce to one lane"
> Tesla doesn't support CarPlay at all, but you don't hear about hoards of people boycotting Telsa
Because that isn't mistreatment; it's just not offering a feature. Doing something in a bad way can be more objectionable than not doing it at all. It's a bit like if you were to aay, "Yes, Restaurant A's soup consistently gives people food poisoning, but you don't hear about people boycotting Restaurant B when they don't even offer soup."
It's so bizarre. There's no reasonable fiscal reason for BMW to require this. The only reason to implement something like this would be just to establish the precedent of paying a subscription to the carmaker so they can add on easy-to-pay-for additional features and one-time expenses later. Micropayments and loot boxes for your car.
BMW already has a major precedent here... after 3 years of owning one today, you pay:
$100/year for real-time advanced traffic in the nav system
$100/year for BMW Connected (send addresses and info to your car, unlock, locate etc. from your phone)
Sadly this feels like the latest attempt to increase subscription service revenue to help justify those network access fees and monetize in the serviceworld. :/
This has a clear purpose though - it exists to push people to change to a new BMW every 3 years. This is an open secret and salespeople like bringing it up.
To be fair, that that is even possible is because they installed better, larger battery packs than were initially promised in the first place. Even if the buyer never pays for the 'extra' miles, they still get the benefit of improved responsiveness and less wear and tear on the cells that the larger pack brings.
Are you telling me you wouldn't be happy to get a better engine, for the same price, than what you originally agreed to pay for?
Because to complete the analogy, the new engine would have to have better acceleration and superior durability than what you thought you were going to get, even if you never once paid for any additional performance unlocks.
They are delivering a superior battery with more capacity and performance than what you actually ordered. The only difference is that they figure to make up the difference when eventually the car is sold back to tesla and then they can "activate" the extra part of the battery of the owner didn't already pay for the extra upgrade somewhere along the way and then resell the car for much more than what they paid since the car is now a couple models better.
But maybe I didn't want to the bigger battery in my car? Maybe I would have preferred a lighter car? Or I have some other reason I wanted specifically the small battery? Do I have the option to not have the optional-upgrade-enabled battery? Do I have the option to give the car back because it's not what I ordered?
I can only find one German article about it, maybe they were just throwing ideas to see how the public would react: http://winfuture.de/news,100802.html
> Which solutions are relevant for a brand like Porsche?
> We will increasingly offer functions “on demand”. That means that the costumer can buy new functions at any time if needed – including long after buying the car and, where applicable, only temporarily. Be it as a one-off for a fee, as a flat rate or as a subscription.
> Which functions do you offer on demand?
> For example, it would be possible to combine modules from the area of autonomous driving individually. Imagine that you could use a software update to download a few more PS over-the-air at short notice if you want to head to the racetrack on the weekend – or dynamic headlights if you are headed for a long night drive.
I read it on German news, and found the original quote, in a what looks like an internal interview of Lutz Meschke, Vice President of the Executive Board and Member of the Executive Board, Finance and IT. From their own website:
> Which solutions are relevant for a brand like Porsche?
> We will increasingly offer functions “on demand”. That means that the costumer can buy new functions at any time if needed – including long after buying the car and, where applicable, only temporarily. Be it as a one-off for a fee, as a flat rate or as a subscription.
> Which functions do you offer on demand?
> For example, it would be possible to combine modules from the area of autonomous driving individually. Imagine that you could use a software update to download a few more PS over-the-air at short notice if you want to head to the racetrack on the weekend – or dynamic headlights if you are headed for a long night drive.
I could buy something for ongoing software and security support but this is steep for something designed to reduce the amount of work they have to do in that regard.
well you know... german car manufcaturers are just ignorant and greedy.
they also use big subsidizes for "EV"s/car batteries which they never really delivered.
the german governement is so deeply involved with the manufcaturers that nothing really would change anything. they basically have their marionettes to do whatever they want.
I mean just look at VW. no high level executive got any charges up until now. the latest news were around november 2017 were the "searched" for stuff, but I doubt that they will ever put anybody to jail in germany.
i mean changes are high that inside the "diesel-gate", some local german governement was directly involved. I mean "Niedersachsen" (the county) actually helds at least 20% of the Volkswagen AG. so they probably knew that something is fishy. I mean it was already pretty fishy that cars would've been emission checked with only software instead of the working old methods.
The comparison to net neutrality might be a bad one. But there's one thing that can be compared: competition. The auto industry is a paradise of competition in comparison to ISPs...
So vote with your dollar.
(Aside: screw CNET and their autoplay videos and notification requests.)
I'll tell you what I'd do if a car dealer pulled this on me. After all the normal haggling was done: "$80 a year? Fine. I plan to hang on to this car for 10 years. If you don't take an additional $800 off the price, no deal. Period"
Exactly, it's overconfidence that gets customers, bettors, investors, etc., into real trouble.
Car salesmen who last at their jobs have been through the wringer with every stripe of hostile customer, and they ain't dumb, although seeming dumb may be part of the game.
I should have done that as well. I hate paying for that fucking CarNet trash from VW., but it is the only way to pre-heat my car... which is fucking insane. I can't preheat the car by physical access to the car, no, I have to do it with a stupid fucking app that works only 50% of the time for 90 EUR a year.
It has been more than once that I actually enabled pre-heating using that fucking app from within the car. I just want the car to remain warm when I grab groceries #ultimatelazyasshole
Strange, I see that Sharan has CarNet, whereas my Alhambra doesn't (these are practically identical cars built in the same factory). Mine has a button for "preheating" on the dashboard + a small keychain remote control that has a surprisingly long range. I didn't even activate MirrorLink & AndroidAuto in it because it costs an extra 200€ or so #cheapbastard (honestly though, initially waze wasn't working with AndroidAuto, and by the time it started working I figured out I can just pin my phone to the dashboard and be done with it)
Just install a Webasto system? Sure it's expensive upfront but it always works, has a long range and it doesn't start the engine to warm up to car(it has its own diesel/petrol burner).
I certainly wish you the best of luck with that approach but I think a more successful strategy would accommodate what you think is a fair profit for the dealer.
Since the dealer doesn’t get part of that $80, it is unlikely they will reduce your price by $800 as that will reduce or even eliminate their profit. Especially BMW as I’ve seen pretty aggressive margins to keep their high volume.
I didn’t get to the point of owning two BMW motorcycles, and the means to buy a BMW car should I have the desire, by letting $80/year slide. Maybe if one has FU money, but I don’t, and I therefore care.
Let’s flip it around: I’m buying a $42K car (the 428 I’ve had my eye on), and BMW is going to nickel-and-dime me on it?
But the maintence fee actually DOES something. It replaces parts with physical wear. It’s understandable (if expensive).
The $80/yr... turns a boolean from false to true. One that much cheaper cars give away.
How would you feel if BMW decided to start charging $80/yr for heated seats? There is absolutely no reason that should have a yearly fee attached to it.
On the other hand, will you decide to not buy that 428 (and take your business to... whatever competitor) over $80/year?
Btw it's not like the BMW is the only one charging for the mobile connection in the car... it's basically another cell phone + monthly plan, they are not free.
Btw it's not like the BMW is the only one charging for the mobile connection in the car... it's basically another cell phone + monthly plan, they are not free.
CarPlay is some firmware, and whatever it costs to certify the unit through the Made for iPhone program. After that, everything comes off my phone including any data. IOW, the Pioneer head unit that has CarPlay I bought for one of our cars doesn't even have a slot for a SIM, because the phone takes care of all that.
So once the R&D is paid for, which I'm happy to pay for (with a suitable margin for BMW) once, CarPlay is essentially free of ongoing costs to the manufacturer.
Unfortunately there aren’t really any luxury manufacturers who don’t nickel and dime buyers. Come to think of it, that’s like all cars.
I would like a company that just takes the old Apple approach - you’re going to pay more, but you get everything for two different prices. Now even Apple has lower prices and then extra for stuff.
I thought Tesla would be this cool company, but they mega upcharge you. My friend signed up for the “35k” model and got $15k in options, one is entirely software based.
A bunch of us were hacking on Mazda infotainment systems a while back trying to get some more features.
The biggest limitation was that it looked like it used an older version of presto (operas old engine) as the main UI engine, and it was pretty locked down.
But even then we got some cool features worked into it and disabled some annoying ones (like the "hit okay to agree to be safe" on every start of the car).
I actually wonder if they every got Android screen mirroring working, which was the "holy grail" of what most of us wanted.
Android Auto is working, but looks like mazda locked down the USB ports so there’s some disassembly required if you’re past a certain firmware version.
Android Auto and CarPlay are supposed to be coming to recent mazda models but apparently it’s been promised a while. I’m gonna wait a year and then see what the state of that + the hack scene is but seems like interesting stuff!
“Price gouging” isn’t a thing in competitive markets (which cars are). It’s like how you’re not “price gouging” when you put your Levittown 3BR house in Palo Alto on sale for $2.5 million. BMW is just charging what they think people are willing to pay.
I agree with you, but that's the language the article used and I make it a point to let other people use the words they want to use to describe what they're trying to describe, unless the use is egregiously wrong or I can make an entertaining argument as to why they should use a different one. A lot of people would consider charging on the basis of "what the market will bear" as price gouging. So I didn't object to that so much.
That said, now that I think about it, BMWs are a luxury good, and charging what the market will bear is clearly fair game when it comes to luxuries. Competitive vs noncompetitive doesn't even need to come into play. So long as commodity automobiles are available at reasonable prices, luxury items available at higher prices are just adding diversity to the marketplace. Nothing wrong here.
So I totally agree with you that the premise of the article is bunk. Debating the philosophy of what journalists cover and why is pretty far out of my scope of knowledge, I'll admit. I think that journalism based on faulty premise is so ubiquitous that trying to fight it is all but pointless, so we need new forms of rigor to judge journalism by these days.
But back to the semantic point of debate, an analogous example in the "definition of colorful terminology shifting over time due to the original no longer being a thing" vein is how the definition of slavery shifted over time from "legitimate economic trade of human beings" to "any instance of forced labor", because the former didn't exist anymore (except in exactly one country in Africa) and slavery is just too poignant and riveting a word to just give up. I tried to fight this particular definitional shift myself until I realized it was pointless. Not everybody treats history with the same care and reverence that I do, and that's probably for the best.
Finally, what I took issue with on this article was net neutrality, not any of the other myriad problems with it, dunno really why. Perhaps it should have been their usage of 'price gouging'. For whatever reason it wasn't. I'd muse about it, but this comment is already far too long as it is.
BMW is switching from a one-time $300 to an $80 annual fee. The net neutrality comparison is your ISP charging you $5/month more just to access YouTube.
How is switching from a one-time fee to an annual fee in any way similar to charging extra for a specific website other than that they both involving charging money?
A service which is free from the creator's perspective (YouTube / CarPlay) will now carry a new fee imposed by the company which delivers the service (ISP / BMW) despite the intention of the creator.
Oh, "other manufacturers" you say? So you mean, the market is competitive and I have a choice? That, among the other reasons listed, is why it's nothing like net neutrality. Also, your #1 is an opinion.
So don't buy BMW's if it matters to you. The issue will then self correct. I guess it's easy for me to say, because beyond a BMW 2002 (which ain't got no airplay) I wouldn't even consider it.
As an owner of a 2002 I can attest to the fact it has no airplay. Or air conditioning. Or power steering. Most surprising thing about ownership: trying to explain to people the model is 2002 not the year.
It's a blast to drive. Tiny little euro engine that you have to thrash to go anywhere and incredible steering. It's a great slow car fast.
I'm certainly in BMW's demo as a young professional who loves driving, but this sort of gouging would make me shop elsewhere. It's not even about the money since compared to the price of a car it's nothing. It's a principal of ownership. I'm happy to pay ongoing fees for services that cost companies to maintain. Carplay doesn't have ongoing fees, so bmw behaving like that is crazy.
I'm guessing that if you bought a 2002 (congrats, btw; I was looking into the various flavors thinking of picking one up myself, but the old-school safety standards vs modern vehicles have me very reluctant to get anything older than a ~2012MY), you didn't give BMW much / any money.
bmw got their money way back in 1975 and it certainly didn't come from me.
It is strange to own a car that is older than I am and safety is a big part of it. I have some self imposed rules that don't get rid of the risk, but do reduce it. I won't let kids ride in the car, but adults are free to make up their own mind. I only drive it in good weather and I'm pretty obsessed about maintenance. It's also tiny, so I can give myself tons of room around other cars. Modern cars are bloated (though it's annoying to be in front of pickups since the headlights are higher than my roof)
Compared to my 2016 daily driver it would much more dangerous to actually crash, but I am convinced I am far less likely to actually have an accident. The visibility in modern cars is awful as a direct result of the thick pillars required for them to be safe. In the 2002 I can see everything; there is no blind spot for cars to hide in. It also requires huge amounts of concentration to drive. The power band (what little there is) is all up top, so you have to be in the correct gear at all times. My 2002 requires actual driving, so I'm engaged at all times. I sometimes scare myself with how little I can pay attention in my daily.
If you want the same experience in a modern car get a fiat 500 abarth. Buzzy little engine you can thrash and corners on rails.
You are right about being less likely to crash. Hagerty has stats on this. It’s for exactly the reasons you state. I daily drive a ‘67 (though not a BMW) and it’s only when not foggy / rainy, I give myself plenty of room around other drivers, I avoid left turns when I can, etc.
I work from home. Drive very little. I have a barebones wrangler with no power locks, no power windows. No airplay. No backup camera. The only amenity is AC. Is it the safest vehicle? No. But it's an old body on frame, and because of that I tend to drive slow anyway. I'm a little jealous of your 2002.
I had one of those in the 90s but with (non-working) factory AC, fun little car.
Ended up cracking the head, getting a replacement head from the junkyard that was also cracked then throwing half the engine in the trunk and selling it. Apparently they're known for cracking heads.
Not as bulletproof as the Superbeetle I replaced it with but was by far the best handling car I ever owned.
I mean, if you think that $80/year is "gouging" then you are not in their target demographics. To wit, over the price of a new car (whether BMW or Kia), the $80/year does not begin to register.
>> I'm certainly in BMW's demo
No, you are not. Carmakers target people that will actually want to buy a new car. They do not target people that drive a 2002 or whatever rustbuckets, for obvious reasons.
My 1975 bmw 2002 is my fun, weird weekend car. I bought a brand new daily driver in 2017 and bmws were among the cars I tested. I decided to get a fairly boring, reliable daily and the fun weekend car, but I seriously considered going with a single car, which would have likely been a bmw m235i. So, yes, I'm in very much in their demo.
As I said before, the actual money involved isn't what would turn me off. It could be $1/year and I'd feel the same way. It's the principal of being charged an ongoing fee for something that doesn't require it. I'm happy to pay to change fluids in car, or pay to get data over an integrated radio because those are ongoing services that require the service provider to invest in maintaining or offering a service. Having carplay continue to work after they build the car requires bmw do exactly nothing.
I have no issue with bmw charging whatever they want for people to get a leather wrapped steering wheel. They should charge obscene amounts of money if they can get people to pay. What I have a problem with is bmw charging me again next year if I bought a leather wrapped steering wheel. I already bought the feature, I own it, they can't charge me again. The fact carplay is some code and a security chip from apple doesn't make it different from a steering wheel. The concept of ownership is being eroded.
>> Having carplay continue to work after they build the car requires bmw do exactly nothing.
You seem to think that carplay can automagically connect to the internet without any cost involved.
That cannot happen. It is a cell phone basically and needs a monthly plan just like your phone. Do you have free internet on your phone? No. So, don't expect free internet in your car, either.
>It is a cell phone basically and needs a monthly plan just like your phone. Do you have free internet on your phone? No. So, don't expect free internet in your car, either.
carplay does not include an LTE radio of any kind. It's a spec to allow an iphone to display content on the screen in your car over a lightning cable. Any internet data is transferred by the iphone using the existing data plan you already pay for. There are no ongoing licensing fees from apple and no reason it would cost a car maker any money to have it keep working. carplay works perfectly fine in cars that don't have their own cell radio connections.
If you boil it all the way down carplay is like having an hdmi port in your dash that displays your phone on the car's screen. If your bluray player had an annual fee for hdmi to keep working you would be annoyed at paying that too since there is nothing about an hdmi port that it makes sense to charge an annual fee for.
I don't think you understand how this technology works, so I will try to help here.
Briefly: some car manufacturers provide a car with a cellular connection. That is, the car can connect to the mobile network, just like your cell phone can.
So now, with cellular connection, your car can show you online maps, or play online music, or whatever services Apple CarPlay, or Google whatever, or proprietary solutions can provide. Just like your cell phone.
Now, I hope this is getting clearer. Is your cell phone usage free? No. You pay Verizon or whoever, a set, monthly fee for the usage. You probably also have a cap (like, 10G data/month). The important takeaway is: the service is not free. You pay for it, usually on some kind of a monthly plan.
Now back to the car. It needs the same cellular service that your cell phone needs. Given that your cell-phone usage is not free, it is kind of obvious that your car's cellular connection is not going to be free, either.
Makes sense?
Now.
So now, we know that there are things that are one-time cost (like, when you buy a car for cash), and then there are ongoing costs. For example, your car may need regular oil changes, checkups, and maybe a monthly fee for cellular, and another monthly fee for that Sirius thing.
Some carmakers may decide to sweeten the deal that is your car buying experience, by eating up the cost for any, or some of the above. Mind you, it still costs money to e.g. do the oil change on your car; it is not free; it is just that the manufacturer has decided to pay for it. The same logic applies to Sirius and CarPlay and OnRoute or whatever.
It is important to realize that, whether it is the oil change or Apple CarPlay, these are ongoing things that the car manufacturer cannot provide themselves. Oil change is not provided by the car manufacturer. Rather, that is provided by dealerships or other independent shops. Same with cellular, car manufacturers do not own cellular networks. Rather, they will hook up your car to whoever provides the cellular.
Bottom line. Whether we are talking about the regular oil change, or CarPlay, there is a cost to it, and someone (the car owner -- who else?) will have to pay for it.
You seem to be confusing carplay with in car cell service. Carplay uses the phone's data connection and the car is just a dumb terminal displaying content from the phone.
In car cell radio should obviously have a service fee since there is an actual service. Carplay is a static, one time car feature.
Ok, so you want to get a new BMW. If it is a lease, that may be $500 or $1000 or whatever per month. That's after downpayment of $many, will be more without downpayment or trade-in or whatever you got.
BMW throws in a cellular connection ("BMW assist" or whatever they call it) for $0, for the first X years. Not sure how many.
You can also get carplay, free for the first year (I think)
But then after that, carplay will be like $80/year. That is <$7/month. How does that even register, never mind make any difference?
And what is the narrative here, like "Oh, I was looking at BMW and Audi; I bought Audi because of the BMW's price-gouging $7/month fee!".
Did that ever happen? May be, but it just does not compute. Far as I can tell, if you are concerned over $7/month, you will not be buying a new BMW or Audi. It just does not add up.
I’m not quite sure I understand the reasoning of your argument.
I certainly agree that if someone is buying a bmw they can afford an extra $7/month. But I think that the question is value as well as a sense of fairness. Just because someone has money doesn’t mean they will spend it arbitrarily for things of little value.
This does happen all the time (eg, natural water), but there is certainly a large group of people who don’t purchase based on this philosophy. This may contribute to their wealth level making them capable of buying luxury vehicles. I think so.
Arguing that people have the money to pay, therefore should pay, without evaluating the value of the item is silly and will lead to increased poverty. As the market will make more and more expensive things without value until an equilibrium is reached where the buyers can not afford it.
Do you find that you win a lot of arguments with this condescending tone?
At hand is the question of whether a buyer might reject paying $80/year to BMW USA in order for one bit to remain in the 'on' position to enable CarPlay--not provision of cellular service or anything further.
My suggestion is that not everyone says "oh, the lease is $800 a month, another $80 a year is fine." $80 is still enough that being charged $80 for a pencil, or a chicken sandwich, or whatever, would be outrageous. And leaving a bit flipped is incalculably less work effort than preparing a chicken sandwich.
FWIW: I've purchased or leased various BMWs and Audis over the last decade, and have rejected every offered subscription plan for pushbutton concierge, car wifi hotspot, etc., and have regretted paying more than $0 (on a one-time basis) for BMW's older iOS integration product.
>> My suggestion is that not everyone says "oh, the lease is $800 a month, another $80 a year is fine." $80 is still enough that being charged $80 for a pencil, or a chicken sandwich, or whatever, would be outrageous. And leaving a bit flipped is incalculably less work effort than preparing a chicken sandwich.
You are comparing apples and oranges, montlhy payments and yearly payments. "$800 a month, another $80 a year". How about being honest, "$800/month, another $7/month"?
>> FWIW: I've purchased or leased various BMWs and Audis over the last decade, and have rejected every offered subscription plan for pushbutton concierge, car wifi hotspot, etc., and have regretted paying more than $0 (on a one-time basis) for BMW's older iOS integration product.
Who cares about what you did or did not? Looks like you are here to congratulate yourself. Why would that matter to anyone other than you?
Or maybe you were stretching to get the car that you cannot afford. Who cares about adding 1% or 2% of the monthly price for something that is useful? Among people that buy luxury cars (myself included) I've not seen that. You need winter tires? Could be several thousands. Nobody blinks at $7/mo. I don't think you have been honest here.
But what's the percentage of BMW drivers are HN readers/tech savvy? I would guess pretty small. The BMW salesman will probably say "This car comes with CarPlay, you can connect your iPhone to it, it costs $80 per year. And they will either pay it because if they can afford a BMW they'll think that's cheap; or they won't pay for it and just use BMW's iDrive (will they even get rid of iDrive on CarPlay-enabled cars?).
Later BMW can say, "Hey Apple, only x% of buyers want CarPlay". Speaking of iDrive, I wonder if this decision was forced by whichever C-level-guy (or whatever level) sees iDrive as his baby project.
I've recently been looking to hack CarPlay into my 2007 BMW. There are 3rd party upgrades of the nav system, in addition to companies like Pioneer selling multimedia units that include it.
It'd be pretty pissed if BMW wanted to charge me yearly for it. Really all I want is decent maps support / siri integration that doesn't require me touching my phone.
Put a Pioneer system with CarPlay in my 2010 Porsche. I am pretty happy with it. I need to figure out a better mic, as Siri is bad enough most times, but with the top down...well....
Sorry, but this is childish thinking.This won't make a damn difference because so many other people will continue to buy. Same shit with the iPhone X. There are enough suckers that will buy it that Apple will continue to charge an ultra premium.
And on top of it, you buy a car for a variety of reasons. For example, BMW has better handling, style, etc... Some people just don't want a mercedes or audi. You can't convince enough people to jump ship and BMW will never think its because of the airplay thing anyways.
2017 flagship phones are expensive because of R&D, manufacturing, and profit margins. Samsung and Apple both roll some of their own silicon (Exynos + A-series). The iPhone X has a Samsung display, and I'm sure that they give them as bad of a deal as they can get away with, since they're their direct competitor. Though https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171108005056/en/iPh... puts the cost of the CPU at $27.50 , consider the R&D that was required to get to that part and that part cost, and the operating system, which receives continual updates for years after the device is released, which has hundreds of people working on it at Apple.
The LEGO 75192 Millennium Falcon is $800 retail and sold out everywhere. It's just plastic blocks to some people.
The reason it costs so much is because that's how much it costs to design, develop , manufacture, distribute, market, sell (Apple owns a ton of retail locations + employs many salespeople + support people that you usually get free access to), and support the hardware and software while maintaining ~20% net profit margins ( https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NASDAQ/Company/Apple-Inc/R... ).
The fact that it exists at $1000 is impressive to me given how Samsung, LG, Sony, Motorola, HTC, etc bear much less of the cost of OS development + support. http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/11/02/android-versus-ios-s... shows where some of the extra cost of an Apple device goes.
Your points are valid but they seem to imply iPhones are priced using cost-based pricing. That is obviously not true - these phones are priced using value-based pricing, which succinctly is simply “the highest you can charge based on the value the customer gets”.
> There are enough suckers that will buy it that Apple
will continue to charge an ultra premium.
and
> For example, BMW has better handling, style, etc...
Sounds like BMW is trying to extract maximum value for a brand and reputation it took them decades to garner. Where is the childish thinking again? If the fee is worth all these other things, people will pay. As well they should.
Every time I see a restaurant with a line I think of the Nash equilibrium.
If there's a line, your prices are too low. Period. If people line up to buy BMWs, the price for BMWs are too low, and they (BMW) should soak people for however much they can. What part of that is childish?
If many people stop buying BMWs, they're gonna have to adjust prices or cut component costs.
Actually the iPhone X is selling so poorly that Apple has not only cut production, they are rumored to be dropping it entirely this year. The technologies in the iPhone X will apparently be distributed across three new iPhone models.
I had kind of always assumed that the X was a special edition phone anyway, and it was going to percolate into the other models eventually anyway. And it's always good practice to take these "analyst" reports with a (massive) grain of salt.
I have an X. Did not plan on it. No way. Have a 6P for years. Went in to T-Moble to get my wife a new phone. I was thinking about getting an 8, but... then the guy said, hey it's a few bucks a month + $300 credit for your old 6P and it includes Apple care. So I got an X for what I would have paid for the 8, and I am using their money interest free. Worked out well.
Also, surprisingly I love the phone. Camera is amazing. The faceID thing does not suck.
I tend to be skeptical of such analysts, though. Not that the ultimate claim of "the iPhone X's advances and form-factor are going to be moved into all the other models" is terribly controversial -- that's pretty literally what Apple said would happen. Just that it's a person guessing, and such things have been fairly spectacularly wrong in the past.
So are they dropping “it”, by which I assume you mean the FaceId tech, or are they rolling it out to the other phones that Apple sells? Your statement contradicts itself.
Although this article is kind of stupid (viz. the irrelevant net neutrality references), it does touch on two good pieces of advice.
1. Probably don’t buy BMW unless you really have your heart set on a particular model
2. Almost every car company attempt at building infotainment systems are abominations unto God.
If at all possible, buy a car without any computer more powerful than the ECU and just use your phone or a tablet or an aftermarket “””smart””” interface.
There has never been a car infotainment system that I liked. They are all slow, expensive, ugly, never get updated, barely work in many cases, and are just a pain to use.
I got an Audi with Android auto a year or 2 ago, and it's been such a treat I never want to go back. Like this is now a required feature to cars for me. And the biggest reason is because it doesn't look like trash and is actually quick and reactive.
It was a big decision in me buying my last car. I really wanted something with CarPlay because I absolutely DID NOT want to be stuck with the OEM garbage for the next 10 years.
Now that I’ve given up on even listening to NPR on my radio, I never leave CarPlay. Works fantastically. And it’s MILES better than the terrible OEM system (which reviews said was dramatically better than the previous version. Shudder.)
> If at all possible, buy a car without any computer more powerful than the ECU and just use your phone or a tablet or an aftermarket “””smart””” interface.
That's rather the point of CarPlay. It takes the "smarts" out of the car and essentially lets your phone use the car - its touchscreen, its speakers, even its GPS receiver - as a massive peripheral device.
The truly offensive aspect of this is that the CarPlay standard is effectively fixed. There is no further maintenance or code required. BMW doesn't need to write a software update for the next version of iOS because CarPlay doesn't care about anything at that layer. All it cares about are audio and video streams to be presented and inputs to be received.
Pay $700 upfront and that value translates into the used market when you sell the car. Subscription fee, and that money goes straight to BMW Corporate.
BMWs just aren’t very good cars. Do research on reliability metrics across brands. If you want a car in the BMW range probably just get a Lexus or a Mercedes.
One of the fears among Net Neutrality advocates is that, without the Internet being regulated as a utility, ISPs will start nickel and diming you for using services for which the ISP is only the conduit. Call it the Trojan model of rent-seeking.
That may not be the most important aspect of the Net Neutrality fight for you, personally. But it is an aspect of it. And it is valid for others to be concerned about it.
And for those people to whom Net Neutrality is principally about nickel-and-dime rent-seeking, comparisons to BMW's nickel-and-dime rent-seeking are appropriate.
I don't know what the problem is here. Instead of adding $300 to the cost of the car, you now add $0, and then after year 1 you pay $80/year.
Maybe it's different in America or something, but in the UK approximately 100% of BMWs are leased, or bought with some kind of loan secured on the vehicle (I think based on estimated resale value when the period is up). So the "owner" will have the car for 2-3 years, maybe 4, then they'll chop it in for whatever's newer at the time.
With that in mind:
1 year. Old way: $300. New way: $0.
2 years. Old way: $300. New way: $80.
3 years. Old way: $300. New way: $160.
4 years. Old way: $300. New way: $240.
Cheaper!
5 years. Old way: $300. New way: $320.
OK, but I wonder how many people keep their car for this long?
It has allowed BMW to convert their cars into appliances which are renewed every three years. The program has been successful for BMW because 60% of their owners keep their cars for three years or less.
A perpetual car loan is as good as subscription revenue.
Anecdotal, but I expect to keep my car until it dies. I have a 2004 3 series that's at ~240k miles. I would just factor the $80/year for 15 years into the price of the car when shopping.
And you really think that CarPlay will be supported over 15 years and you use a supported phone for all that time? Seems, in your car usage scenario you‘re better off with a subscription you can cancel any time.
I think that goes to the argument "It doesn't cost BMW money continously, it shouldn't you". It's actually quite likely that IF it is still used in 15 years, that's because the software was updated in that time to match new capabilities/usage patterns. This incurs real cost to BMW. But I suspect that BMW would recoup that cost by selling the updates.
Exactly. This is good for BMW, and that's why they do it.
The initial keeper is happy, because it's cheaper for them. ~100% of them will lease it for <4 years, and you can consult my table to discover this.
Subsequent buyers are less happy... but, wait, fuck those guys. When N>0, the Nth owner pays owner N-1, not BMW. So previously BMW would see nothing from these transactions. And now there's a >0% chance these subsequent owners will pay them $80/year.
(Many software vendors have been trying to move to a subscription model. They want the recurring revenue. The iOS and Android video game markets have by now almost entirely switched to a free-to-play model - which is basically the same thing, just with a more compelling free sample, so they can sucker in the punters. This is basically the same!)
This might make a dent in resale values, but I assume the >0% chance of getting $80/year from future owners makes up for this. I do admit, though, that I really don't have a good feel for how this would play out.
Of course, people that buy a BMW with the intention of keeping it for >=5 years will get the shaft.... so I expect you can be sure that they've got good evidence that most keepers of a new BMW get rid of it before that point.
I recently decided to buy a Kia Forte over a Honda Civic because Honda (and the dealer) had the nerve to charge me an expensive trim level (23.5k over 20k) just to get a dashboard with Android Auto. I have no regrets, its a great little sedan!
The ability to integrate smartphone/tablet apps within the car is arguably more of a safety feature than just a "trim option" and it befuddles me why car manufacturers see it fit to charge a premium as egregious as BMW is. Knock that shit off, it adds dollars to the cost of the hardware and software development.
I'd say it should be a regulatory matter but that just means, like with rear view cameras, manufacturers will build that into the price.
If CarPlay matters to you, i'm sure there are other brands of automobile that agree with your line of thinking.
I don’t see how this is any worse than the standard practice of charging an annual fee to automatically call emergency services if the airbags deploy. (Especially since it is illegal in the US for cell phone providers to deny access to 911 due to non-payment)
Presumably the vehicle manufacturers are paying the mobile networks for the ability to call emergency services. I doubt it falls under the same rules that allow for mobile phones to always call 911.
Not least of all because the vehicles _don't_ call emergency services. They call a service center that can dispatch emergency services if they determine it's necessary.
I assume they do that so they can skirt the law about charging for 911 service.
If the car decides to call 911, and the driver is not coherent enough to say “We’re OK, and there is no need to file an accident report; don’t send anyone.” (or press a “cancel” button within 10 seconds, before 911 is dialed), then the only responsible thing for the dispatch center to do is forward the call to 911.
It would strictly be better to just call 911 directly. The current system just delays dispatch of the first responders.
Since airbag deployments are rare and expensive, and imply significant risks of injuries or third party property damage, there’s no way the false positive rate on this will cause significant trouble for the police or 911 dispatchers.
Adding a extra human to the loop can only delay the dispatch of emergency services, leading to loss of life, even for paying customers.
I can’t think of any realistic scenarios that serve as a counter argument. Can you?
I would guess the human in the loop helps to confirm first responders are dispatched. There was recently some trouble with 911 in Dallas. I would expect the human to have resources to call alternate numbers or nearby agencies in case the normal public service answering point doesn't work.
There are techniques and services to provide for availability on 800 number routing. You would still be subject to the selected carrier's ability to route your calls out of the local area. Otoh, the car could fallback to 911 if the commercial routing didn't provide positive confirmation.
That said, I don't know if they do fallback, and I don't know if there's any public reporting of availability incidents of these types of service centers like there is for 911 failures.
> I can’t think of any realistic scenarios that serve as a counter argument. Can you?
Based on what I know about PSAPs (industry term for a 911 call center) and how stale their technology is and how poorly e911 (the tech which started rolling out in the early 2000s to give your “location” to 911) works in reality, they are offering an added value over “just calling 911”. I’m happy to provide additional details if you’d like, but there’s tons of reading material if you google “911 location accuracy”.
Onstar will call emergency services if you are in a wreck, provided you have a subscription. I was really surprised that if such a safety feature exist that I would have to pay to continue that part. You cannot just buy that portion of Onstar, you have to buy a package which can average twenty a month and go higher fast
Does anyone know when all APIs will be made available to CarPlay apps so they become actually usable? The only app I ever use in a car is Waze, and without support for CarPlay I much rather run waze in the phone, than apples maps in the dashboard.
Surely they are working on this, I mean this can’t be a deliberate omission to try to keep me from using third party apps?
Apple has been VERY careful about third-party apps. When you do use one, like overcast for podcasts, it could all use a template to Apple has already premade.
This all appears to be for safety/legal reasons. Many areas seem to have laws that dictate how interfaces on infotainment system to work when someone is driving. I’m guessing apple doesn’t want to give anyone control because then they might cause the system to fall out of compliance.
So even if they allowed Waze on the platform I’m not sure would look any different from Apple Maps or support any additional functionality.
This is mostly speculation based on what I’ve heard.
> Apple has been VERY careful about third-party apps. When you do use one, like overcast for podcasts, it could all use a template to Apple has already premade.
I’m sorry, I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here?
Wow, autocorrect really did a number on that. Sorry.
Third parties can’t actually design a UI for CarPlay. It seems there are a few templates that they can make the tiniest changes to and that’s the extent of their customization.
So every podcast player and music app looks basically the same. They use the standard car playlist for you for selecting things and the standard now playing type screen for controlling play back.
Want to add extra buttons to be able to skip between chapters on a podcast? You can’t. Want to rearrange where the buttons are? You can’t. What people to be able to select a podcast by choosing from cover art instead of a list? You can’t.
Basically even the kind of apps Apple does allow our EXTREMELY restricted.
Probably because without net neutrality, ISPs can nickel and dime people, and this is a case of BMW nickel and diming the customer. IMHO, it’s a bad comparison because cars are a competitive market unlike ISPs (in many areas).
As someone who primarily bicycled for transportation during the years I lived in Los Angeles, it is my considered judgement that no group of drivers deserves to have to pay ridiculous fees more than those who drive BMWs. They are hands-down the most dangerous to everyone else on the street. It's just too bad these fees are going to BMW.
This is so incredibly stupid and seems in the long run is going to hurt BMW a lot more then it would gain in the short term. This is such a short term move.
>>>> If there's a positive to this system, and I'm admittedly stretching here, it's that you can get a car configured exactly to your needs, a car uniquely constructed to your exact specification. I imagine that's a very nice feeling indeed, though I confess I've never had the wherewithal to enjoy such a luxury myself.
I've enjoyed that luxury on the two cars that my family owns. Both were purchased with zero options. Granted, they aren't BMW's. ;-)
BMW's iDrive is better than CarPlay. As someone who very much likes Apple's current iOS and Mac UI, this feels absurd to say but iDrive is just that good. Of course choice always preferable, but unless CarPlay is extended to allow me to use Waze maps, I can't imagine why I'd ever use it.
Unlike CarPlay, iDrive has a well-resolved, tactile and customisable physical interface. It's just better suited for someone who's driving.
Tesla doesn't support CarPlay at all, but you don't hear about hoards of people boycotting Telsa: because their system is also better than CarPlay. (Though at least BMW gives you the option, even if they do so in a weirdly customer-hostile way.)
The only clear advantage of CarPlay is that the software is being continually updated and improved. Perhaps when your 2018 model is seven years old, the features of CarPlay in iOS 16 running on your iPhone Xs Edition would be preferred. And by then BMW will have been shamed into aborting this annual fee joke.