upvote
I think Rivian is disguising a hidden factor: CarPlay prohibits vehicle manufacturers from collecting metrics and selling anonymized or identified user activity data, and this loss of telematics data / income stream is unacceptable to manufacturers (for example, GM*) who see the smart TV business making billions on that precise data.

The correct route for someone with interview access to Rivian to clarify whether this scenario applies would be to review their legal terms for owners and then point-blank ask in a recorded interview ‘whether Rivian’s vehicles are reporting to Rivian what music their buyers play in Rivian vehicles’. This is a nuanced sentence: whether is yes/no; information is too broad to weasel out of; ‘on what music’ focuses on a private aspect of car ownership and is a callback to the VHS rental rulings; ‘in their vehicles’ is not only restricted to what’s connected to the headunit by usb or Bluetooth or radio, but also covers the headunit-connected microphones in the vehicle as well. If they say yes, the questions become obvious. If they say no, the followup should be to ask if Rivian contractually guarantees that they will not someday issue a software update that begins doing so. Either it does not, or it does. Two questions max to either confirm or refute a suspicion.

GM cited ‘the ability to improve cars’ as why it’s refusing CarPlay, but as the OP article clearly shows, GM could simply continue to improve the cars and the screen surrounding the CarPlay dedicated window, while continuing to improve their own built-in functions using the data from those who do not use it for the benefit of those same users. GM’s justifications last year in this regard are just as obtuse as Rivian’s this year. Given that similarity, I suspect you’re right: Rivian does indeed seem to be trying not to appear desperately in need of cash by reselling user data for subscription revenue profit: ‘buy our three-ton six-figure vehicle so that we can make $1/year off of you to keep our business afloat’ is horrendous optics and would lead to open mockery of their business.

* The GM/FTC 2026 case only prevents GM from selling data associated with vehicle driving. Headunit usage cannot be readily assumed to be ‘driving’ data in the case context of vehicle insurers, and so continued sale of radio usage data to (for imaginary example) Nielsen would be unaffected by the specific, narrow, and temporary 2026 ruling.

reply
> I think Rivian is disguising a hidden factor: CarPlay prohibits vehicle manufacturers from collecting metrics and selling anonymized or identified user activity data, and this loss of telematics data / income stream is unacceptable to manufacturers (for example, GM*) who see the smart TV business making billions on that precise data.

The car's own cellular connection can still report large amounts of telemetry, such as the car's location in real time, how many people are in it, etc. And if modern cars are anything like smart TVs, send "content recognition" screenshots home to infer what drivers use the onboard screen for.

I refuse to drive a car without first unplugging the cell modem; this is more or less easy depending on the make and model, so do your research.

reply
This is all true, but has little to do with CarPlay in specific — except for the content recognition bit, which, yes, that’s exactly why the careful phrasing around the microphone. I endorse the fight against continuous telematics but I’m only addressing Rivian’s obtuse refusals of CarPlay and how to force one likely intention into the open (and thus discussion of whether Apple’s flat refusal to allow telemetry sharing for such purposes is appropriate!), rather than trying to boil the full ‘fuck telemetry’ ocean in a CarPlay post.
reply
deleted
reply
They want software subscription income. It's as simple as that.
reply
Yep. Subscriptions and incentives.

Every car I have purchased has satellite radio factory installed. And each time SiriusXM will not shut up about trying to get me to sign up. Over and over. It takes years before they give up.

I don’t want it. So why is it in the car? Because they pay Ford and Honda and everyone else to put it there.

Why did they both have Spotify? And iHeartRadio? Who even uses that? All sorts of other things. There’s a kickback for every one.

But unlike satellite none of them work without a cell connection. And they won’t use your phone. You have to pay the car maker for their overpriced connectivity. That’s what they want you to do.

Money money everywhere. But if I use CarPlay or android auto guess who doesn’t get a cut.

“People will think our software is bad.” It is, that’s why I want CarPlay.

reply
They want my money. After the car payment I don't have money leftover for another subscription. Use my phone subscription, that is what I'm paying for for.
reply
That’s one of the things that’s always seemed odd to me. I’m more likely to use some service on the car that you get a kick back for and can spy on if I can use my cell phone data plan.

If you try to put a gate in front of it of a $25/mo car data plan, forget it.

It’s 4G? Wow. My phone is only 5G. It’s a hotspot? So is my phone. And I’m the only one here anyway. I get updates to your maps? I don’t like your maps.

It’s like they’re trying to sell flavoring to make dirty water taste better, without ever stopping to think most people don’t like dirty water.

reply
And your data. Auto makers love selling user data.
reply
TBF for a lot of stuff they could probably just monitor the audio system to fingerprint things the way TVs do these days and sell that data even if you use android auto or CarPlay.

But they certainly get a lot more if you use their maps and entertainment apps.

reply
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" -- Upton Sinclair

This is the CEO of Rivian's software arm -- his job is to create and sell software that runs in the car. Carplay and Android Auto effectively make him unnecessary.

If you listen to the interview, he has bold ideas about how the car should somehow be the center of one's computing ecosystem. It's ridiculous because the smartphone is already the center! And people like that! And it just makes sense! They're fighting this dumb battle because they have to. But ultimately every car manufacturer wants to get away from Carplay so they can own that tiny fraction of computing that happens on the drive to and from work.

reply
The car industry got "mogged" as the kids say by Apple - cars went from status items (see any 60s/70s movie) to "an iPhone accessory" overnight and they've still not recovered.
reply