This deal reminded me the deal that Microsoft invested into Apple in 1997. Rivian has been struggling a lot recently (similar to Apple that time) and now they are going to have enough money to become the Apple of EVs while Tesla becoming the Android.
BYD's technology, not so much--they're better at manufacturing cars in degrees compared to Tesla, not an order of magnitude.
The magic is at CATL and friends. There is a Cambrian explosion of battery technology in China that doesn't get reported super well in the mainstream press.
The bottleneck is the grid not terminal hardware. If a home or small business asks for a multiple MW circuit they're going to be laughed at for preposterousness. Laying harmless gigabit fiber to a new area requires permits, construction, labor, think of what becomes necessary when it's enough electrons to kill a dinosaur.
So far the story has been Tesla being the Apple of EVs(pioneer, small number of premium models, lots of mindshare), BYD being the Samsung(cheaper copy of Tesla), and GM/Ford etc. being the Nokia/Blackberry(legacy volume manufacturers that did not pivot to the new thing in time).
Tesla once looked futuristic, but now they're sorely lacking : automatic windscreen wipers still don't work properly (they work perfectly well on my 2005 Ford Focus, thank you), they now lack basic ergonomic features such as a turn signal lever, their "self driving" feature is horribly lagging behind most other makers (constant phantom braking still a recurring problem after years and years, no proper automatic overtaking, inferior speed control and speed limit enforcement, etc).
I've not had phantom braking for a year or so, I used to have one per week. I'm happy with the speed control. I like the display of current speed limit and use the scroll wheel to control the delta against the current speed limit.
I have FSD, but don't use it, so I don't let the car dry to automatically overtake anyone.
There are apparently two things that particularly trigger phantom braking : bright sun and dark shadows on the road, for instance roads lined with trees are pretty bad; also flashing yellow traffic lights (normally means that you can simply proceed prudently, but apparently the Tesla system often interprets it as a "yellow about to turn red" signal and stops abruptly instead).
> their "self driving" feature is horribly lagging behind most other makers (constant phantom braking still a recurring problem after years and years, no proper automatic overtaking, inferior speed control and speed limit enforcement, etc)
Who are these makers that allegedly outclass Autopilot/FSD?
From all the tests I've made recently, BMW, Mercedes, BYD and Renault all do better than Tesla. Push the left turn signal, the car switches lane, accelerates and overtakes by itself. In the EU at least Teslas can't seem to get this right.
Also Teslas are among the lasts (with X-Peng) in their price range lacking a capacitive steering wheel (doesn't require moving the wheel, a light touch from time to time is enough to keep cruise control on).
And none of them suffers from the dangerous "phantom braking" defect, which occurs almost certainly at least once for any one-hour long trip.
Haven’t used it myself but every auto journalist YouTube video I’ve seen on SuperCruise says it’s the best in the class.
I had the model 3 FSD thirty day trial, it was ok, but not $7000 ok.
As for Autopilot.. almost everybody has good lane keeping/radar cruise tech now. My 18 Acura was as good as Autopilot, and maybe better than “post LiDAR” autopilot.
Drive Pilot just follows the car in front and has several limitations, it doesn't even have overtaking, so I would be surprised since the parent poster says lack of automatic overtaking is a limitation.
Drive Pilot:
Works only when behind another car, it just follows that car
Cannot change lanes
Works only under 40MPH
Works only in daylight, does not work at night
Does not work in rain
Works only in traffic jams and heavy traffic
Works only on a few pre-approved roads
How is the world is FSD "severely lagging behind" this tech when FSD has none of these limitations?
Something weird about how the Mercedes tech is hyped up in message forums.
Yes, it does have a lot of limitations, though I suppose one argument would be that if Mercedes isn't willing to do autonomy without a lot of caveats that's because they're risk averse (or at least their lawyers are).
There's also the fact that VW is far behind the competion in electric vehicles and is staring down the barrel of Chinese EVs. A technology sharing agreement is part of this deal, so VW can leverage that to catch up with their own products.
Rivian focuses on a different segment of the market from most cars sold by VW Group (trucks, SUVs, the American market in general) so from Rivian's perspective they're not likely to be cannibalized.
I don’t think there is much evidence that they are far behind their competition in anything but sales. Efficiency of their latest models is good, software has improved a lot, and they are starting to return to their previous (good enough) quality levels. I think we are quickly approaching the full commoditization of EVs. At similar price points you get the same thing across all manufacturers. Maybe a bit more quality here, some additional software gimmicks over there, and the rest is just marketing, local patriotism, and branding. Add to that a sprinkle of varying regional adaptation
I think the whole vehicle industry is looking at a slightly milder version of the "Kodak problem". That is, the money is oriented towards the service aspects of the industry.
Kodak wasn't a camera company, they were a chemical company. Cameras and lenses were a loss-leader for selling film and the equipment and chemicals used to develop it. You can't just swap the products and make a little less money, it changes the entire business model.
Likewise a lot of these car companies make money on the long chain of maintenance as much as or moreso than the cars themselves. Electric cars come with a whole new business model. And the core competencies that are required are much different. Less precision machining and more electrical engineering
I think this is right. I don't have a car but I rent cars periodically and pick based on the UX more than the "tech" features. Most EVs are fast enough and have enough range that it doesn't really make a difference to the driving experience but the UX and all the screens do make a difference.
I like the Audi E-tron because I can mostly ignore or turn off the center screen and have everything important in front of me behind the wheel. The center screen on the Polestar 2 is a bit more pronounced but can be muted when switching to the music screen. Teslas and VW EVs have way to much happening in the center screen so I avoid those. It's sad to see Volvo go down the same path but a correction should be in order.
Anyways, all the tech is commoditised so you need something else to differentiate yourself. For me that's not a big center display to show how "tech forward" you are, as it ends up suggesting you're anything but.
I think in some ways VW group has more experience with making/selling EVs than Tesla. They might not have the volumes of a single model, but they’ve been selling a much wider range of models than Tesla has for a fairly long time now.
They still have a few years to improve their EVs, and when people really start to switch their gas cars with EVs in large volumes they have the benefit of being well established while having a wide range of model that can replace any of their old gas car offerings.
I’m not 100% sure that Teslas strategy of superoptimizing 3-4 bland models is a winning strategy in the very long run. People like to buy cars that fit their needs and personality.
Tesla is taking way too long to develop interesting models, and the Cybertruck, while interesting, might be too weird and flawed to be a big international success in the long run.
Though if the bet on robotaxis pay off, I could see Tesla being a huge success in the future as well. I’m just not sure if that’s going to actually happen. Or if Elon will bet too much of their development efforts on it too early, and thus run out of steam before it takes off.
> I’m not 100% sure that Teslas strategy of superoptimizing 3-4 bland models is a winning strategy in the very long run. People like to buy cars that fit their needs and personality.
Buying mass produced car is the most environmentally friendly way - it has least manufacturing, repairs, customisation footprint. I do agree people are sick of seeing same model 3/y everywhere which is depressing thought.
> Or if Elon will bet too much of their development efforts on it too early, and thus run out of steam before it takes off.
According to his own admission, they'd have been insolvent around the time he went on to promise full self driving and claiming that Teslas will be able to become unstaffed taxis in early 2010. Ballooning it's valuation and solving the solvency issue by selling of some stocks.
The only surprising thing is how people still but into it, over a decade later. Wanna bet there is going to be another large sell of Tesla stock after the latest announcement?
I don’t think VWs problem is technology. It’s very much pricing, look at the ID 4 and 3 in China vs Europe it’s half the price or less.
Yes there are differences in the models however the center console airbag doesn’t justify a 50% price bump.
Chinese EVs are eating the lunch of European manufacturers has nothing to do with tech. The MG EVs that are some of the best selling cars in many EU countries for example are objectively worse than any European competitor they are just substantially cheaper.
And unlike their Euro counterparts their base models are actually available for dealerships you can’t get a VW in the UK without tacking like 8-10K worth of addons onto it unless you want to wait for months.
>Rivian focuses on a different segment of the market from most cars sold by VW Group (trucks, SUVs, the American market in general) so from Rivian's perspective they're not likely to be cannibalized.
Couldn't be more wrong. VW is building up a direct competitor to Rivian.
The similarities and differences with the 1997 MS-Apple deal are interesting. Arguably, the $150m that Microsoft invested was less significant than: (1) the vote of confidence to customers, 3rd-party developers, and investors that Apple would survive; (2) the commitment by Microsoft to continue developing/supporting MS Office and IE at a time when Apple did not have iWork equivalents or a browser like Safari yet.
Re: (2), even if there were alternatives like ClarisWorks being able to open and share MS Office documents was critical to keeping the Mac alive at that time. Plus, the web was one of the things that helped Apple survive the platform wars (i.e., proprietary document formats, two-sided markets, etc.). And whatever its imperfections, Internet Explorer was becoming the standard as Netscape lost share and this was before Mozilla, Firefox, Safari, or Chrome. the Mac needed a first-class browser and Microsoft committed to providing one for 5 years.
In contrast, while the cash, additional market for EV software, and vote of confidence is no doubt very valuable to Rivian, it would be an even more valuable if VW could provide some distribution or other advantages to get Rivian out of it's current hole.
Microsoft didnt "invest into Apple". Jobs forced Gates to settle multiple lawsuits (including outright stealing code and shipping it in Windows as their own) that if not settled would have killed MS a year later when DOJ pounced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
TLDR: Microsoft was stealing with help of Intel, both companies scared by QuickTime positioning Apple as the leader in Multimedia (1991 Adobe Premiere build by ex Quicktime engineer on Mac platform, 1991 Avid ported from Apollo $workstations$ to Mac). When Jobs came back in 1996 he didnt like (or couldnt afford) all the litigation and promptly settled for $ and Microsoft support commitment (Office, IE) in exchange for letting MS save face.
"David Boies, attorney for the DoJ, noted that John Warden, for Microsoft, had omitted to quote part of a handwritten note by Fred Anderson, Apple's CFO, in which Anderson wrote that "the [QuickTime] patent dispute was resolved with cross-licence and significant payment to Apple." The payment was $150 million."
"Microsoft and Intel had been shocked to find that Apple's QuickTime product made digital video on Windows seem like continuous motion, and was far in advance of anything that either of them had, even in a planning stage. The speed was achieved by bypassing Windows' Graphics Display Interface and enabling the application to write directly to the video card. The result was a significant improvement over the choppy, 'slide-show' quality of Microsoft's own efforts. Apple's intention was to establish the driver as a standard for multimedia video imaging, so that Mac developers could sell their applications on the Windows and Mac platforms. Microsoft requested a free licence from Apple for QuickTime for Windows in June 1993, and was refused. In July 1993, the San Francisco Canyon Company entered into an agreement with Intel to deliver a program (codenamed Mario) that would enable Intel to accelerate Video for Windows' processing of video images."
"Intel gave this code to Microsoft as part of a joint development program called Display Control Interface."
"Canyon admitted that it had copied to Intel code developed for and assigned to Apple. In September 1994, Apple's software was distributed by Microsoft in its developer kits, and in Microsoft's Video for Windows version 1.1d."
"FS: What was Microsoft's philosophy or attitude regarding games when you began?
Alex St John: Oh, it was completely nonexistent! During that time, their entire focus was on multimedia video, the primary mission of DirectX wasn't to benefit and push gaming, but simply to drive Apple and Quicktime into the ground."
Tesla is Apple. They both have an asshole CEO who thinks that forcing users to adapt to his vision is the best path forward. They make incomprehensibly bad decisions (butterfly keyboard and stalk removal). They both are control freaks, etc.
Rivian is also Apple, but it just doesn't have any clout.
Hard agree. Jobs was much better at this (being a control freak with weird ideas). I don't think the butterfly keyboard would've happened on his watch.
Auto groups often target the same market but at different price points with different brands. Audi sedans vs VW sedans for instance. My Jetta got a trickle down drive train from Audi which is one of the main reasons I looked at VW.
Are you sure that Scout is targeted at Rivian customers? Or at people who wish they could afford a Rivian and can't?
>Are you sure that Scout is targeted at Rivian customers?
Almost certainly. I don't think there is any point in making an EV truck for less than a Rivian R3.
Trucks are expensive and VW has never tried to compete at the absolute low end. To really undercut Rivian they would need an EV truck at 25k, which is a product which would absolutely suck.
VW does a lot of joint ventures with competitors; the Ford Explorer EV is essentially an id.4, say.
I'd kind of wonder if VW is more interested in vans here, tho. They seem to have missed the boat on electric vans; it's all Merc/Citroen/Renault in Europe, and Rivian in the US. VW's only electric van is a cargo version of the id Buzz.
Sure, I get that. But I would think that they have a specific goal in mind.
One article claims they are interested in the platform, maybe they want that platform for Scout? The last "real" truck VW was a rebranded Ford F-150. It might not make a lot of sense to adapt their current MEB platform for a truck, as it has vastly different requirements compared to the usual VW car.
Kind of feels like Rivian is giving away a hell of a lot to VW for only $5B. They must be really unsure they can make it to R2 launch.
The really challenging part for the old car companies has been the software and that was Rivian's edge. Now they've given that way and have to compete with VW on purely the hardware side that the old car companies are already good at.
They are also losing a hell of a lot of money - 1 billion in the last year. On a bit more than 50k shipped vehicles, that is around USD 20K loss per vehicle.
And it is a 15 year old company, not a new startup.
I live in a wealthy part of Wyoming. Rivians are by a decent shot the most popular EV I see driven by locals. (There is one Cybertruck, but I think it's on Turo and mocking it brings the F-250, EV and Subaru drivers together. Plenty of normal Teslas, though.)
Same down here in the Colorado resort towns. If you don’t wheel or tow a camper I imagine it’ll do whatever else you want.
But still I’ve yet to see one with a sled deck or a tailgate pad though so I assume it’s just people who don’t really need a truck at all.
I think they’re just for putzing around town. There’s not much options for chargers, and towns and destinations are far apart. I imagine that’s even more true in Wyoming.
I drove across state a couple weeks ago, Jackson to Laramie and back, and almost every gas station had a couple EV chargers. Granted, I doubt they were fast chargers and they may not have even been working.
and then at least 5-10x what companies that actually make a lot of cars are valued.
Tesla should probably be valued at something like #3 or #4, their market value needs to crater by at least 50%, more like 80%, to reflect their real long term standing.
Not really. Tesla's maps experience is miles away from Google Maps on CarPlay. CarPlay has some other goodies that would be nice to have if it wouldn't ruin main Teslas experience.
Honestly, aside from the handling mechanics the directly relate to the hiw the vehicle moves (steering, stopping, etc) the "user experience" to working with vehicle peripherals seems to be steadily getting worse every year.
What am I missing? I can play podcasts/music/whatever from my phone, the name/progress bar shows on the UI. I can control volume, next track, next in play list etc from the Tesla UI.
Maps/Nav are already google and speech recognition works well. I've seen horrid interfaces from Ford, Subaru, and Toyota, which would make me beg for a phone UI, but the tesla UI seems pretty similar to my Pixel 8. I.e. pinch/zoom/rotate works pretty well with a decently high update rate.
Also a Tesla owner. Hate that can not use Car Play. What am I missing? Google maps lets me search by topic, Telsa doesn't. I end up having to pull out my phone to find anything. Then to add insult to injuiry, 50% of the time I pick "share" and pick the Tesla app it fails with some error message and I need to get out of Google Maps, launch the Tesla app, then go back to Maps and share again. No other app on my phone has issues with sharing .
Another feature I miss from
CarPlay is my podcast app. Instead, to listen to my podcasts I have to again use the phone instead of the Tesla console.
others include that my phone streams better and has more services. I could take a video call with CarPlay or stream something from a service not available on Tesla
I'd also like to use a functional browser on the large screen while charging. Tesla's browser has crashed on me just trying to read the Tesla manual. It's useless
Like say thai food? Hardware stores? Etc. That works for me. Displays a list with letters on the map, then I can click on the letter or on the list to navigate. It also tells me hours and if they are about to close, just like maps.google.com.
I've gone back and forth between maps.google.com and clicking nav, and voice searching and clicking nav. I see no practical differences. I assume they use the same engine since they give me the same route and ETA. Can you give me a specific search that doesn't work for you?
> another feature I miss from CarPlay is my podcast app. Instead, to listen to my podcasts I have to again use the phone instead of the Tesla console.
Before I start I click on the podcast or playlist on my phone and hit play. Then it's a pretty nice experience. I can pause, next track, play, change volume, see the title, etc through the Tesla UI. If I get a call it auto pauses, if I open the door it decreases the volume, etc. I'm quite fond of it, so say I have a dog park play list. I can listen to it while I put on my shoes, enter the car, audio switches to car, I start driving to dog park, I leave the car, audio switches back to phone, etc. Basically seamless.
How would it be different with carplay?
> others include that my phone streams better and has more services. I could take a video call with CarPlay or stream something from a service not available on Tesla
Er, exactly, my audio comes from my phone. Youtube music auto downloads my playlist, I can download youtube videos, and both seem to have much better audio quality than the built in music streaming from the default breezer (default tesla app). I thought the Tesla sound system was crap, turns out breezer quality is crap. I especially like that I can "stream" music from my playlist, even when I have no signal, great on cross country drives.
> I'd also like to use a functional browser on the large screen while charging. Tesla's browser has crashed on me just trying to read the Tesla manual. It's useles
> Like say thai food? Hardware stores? Etc. That works for me. Displays a list with letters on the map
Ha. Try to search for "Safeway". The UI in Tesla is made by utter morons who need to be fired and forever banned from working on UI, so the list CUTS OFF THE ADDRESS DETAILS. So you just get a list of "Safeway" stores with a distance to them.
This also happens when you type a regular address for something like "1935 E 5st", the first result in the list might be in a wrong city.
I searched on Safeway, not sure it's worth posting a picture.
I get the following list:
A 1701 Jackson St, 1.4 miles away, open to 11pm
B 13111 W Alameda Pkwy, 4.6 miles away, open to 11pm.
C 11088 W Jewell Dr, 6.3 miles away, open to 11pm
Of course the A, B, and C are also on the map, you can click on the address or the letter on the map or the list and it will Nav there. Seems pretty easy to use and clear.
I've seen the different city thing before, but almost always when I don't have the address quite right. Things like missing a digit, or missing a S or N on a street. Once I fix it, it's always the local one.
so Tesla added that because it wasnt there when I bought the car. But it still missing essential info like ratings, reviews, pictures, etc....
> podcasts
my app lets me swtich to any podcast. that's more than just next/prev on a playlist. It also lets me advance +30s, +2m which is use all the time
to skip ads or segments
> video
you seemed to miss the point of wanting to use the large console display to show video from the phone (while charging). the face that audio comes out the car speakers is not an arguement against CarPlay support
The EV charging planning features while route planning still seem pretty necessary with the current level of deployed charging infrastructure (at least in the US) ...
I don't think at least CarPlay has anything able to meet the actual need there or even a way to provide something that would ... Maybe a separate map app that ran inside carplay to provide the required featureset?
Electric vehicle routing is an option in Apple Maps and I'm assuming in Google Maps as well. A Rivian app could handle the rest. I'm pretty sure Apple would be extremely happy to figure out a way forward.
Important to note as well that you can technically support CarPlay and Android Auto just for the infotainment and keep the map function in-house running along with it.
Not necessarily. I drive an EV and don't have a charger at home so I rely on public infrastructure exclusively.
Day to day it or (my the usage patterns) don't change much and after the firstof when and where charging would fit in my schedule (usually while getting groceries each week).
For people who drive a lot of different routes or on vacation an dedicated EV mapping feature is nice but so far A Better Route Planer worked just fine (my car has no usable native solution).
Except that there are Android applications (like ABRP - https://abetterrouteplanner.com/ ) that do planning _better_ than the built-in navigation software in Tesla.
> Maybe a separate map app that ran inside carplay to provide the required featureset?
Yup. It's a pretty straightforward feature. Heck, I'd write it myself once I get an EV with Android Auto.
I had a car headunit with wireless Android Auto before and I drive a Rivian now. I thought it would be a degraded experience before buying the car. But I think it's probably a generally better experience now.
Context: I used Android Auto almost entirely for maps and streaming audio, and I always have my phone mounted on the dash to play some media when I drive.
1- Versus either wired or wireless Android Auto, there's just one less step after getting in the car. The car boots ready to go and navigate. There isn't a 2 step loading of the car OS, and then streaming your phone content
2- No battery usage in wireless mode. Phone runs less hot generally vs charging wirelessly or plugged in, which matters on sunny days.
3- If you're not just one-tap navigating to a routine place and you're actively searching for a destination, given how big infotainment screens are continuously getting, I just don't think it's generally a good medium for prolonged interactions. I rather hold the phone in my hands and interact with a familiar phone interface and then send the destination to the car, than doing search and explorations on a car. And I rather hold an untethered phone that isn't slowing down because of the heat from streaming when I do interact with the phone.
4- CarPlay might be better, but Android Auto still has plenty of edge cases, correctly controlling volume, play/pausing media, depending on which app was in the foreground when Android Auto got initially connected. For the first few years, Google Maps disallowed having Maps open simultaneously on the car display and on the phone. And the car app has much less features. I have to turn the engine off or turn off wifi to disconnect Android Auto and use Maps directly. Having 2 full functioning devices with a thin, mature (Bluetooth) interface between them on the Rivian is a cleaner separation.
I love CarPlay/AA, and maybe this is hyperbole but not doing CarPlay/AA isn't that crazy of a decision. Tesla, GM, other big automakers have done this too.
It's not always about that. AA and Car play are a very common reason for service visits and it's not uncommon for customers to get their entire head unit replaced because of frozen screens or whatever. GM hired a lead dev from CarPlay to help lead their replacement. When they work it's great but my touchscreen freezes regularly and it's extremely annoying.
So basically, automakers can't make a robust console to simply display the streamed content. What makes you think that their software will be any better?
It’s the natural result when software (and sometimes hardware) is treated as a line item to be contracted out to the lowest bidder. Infotainment is a core feature that shouldn’t be cheaped out on, but many automakers haven’t realized that.
It’s also just more lucrative to drive people to use the built in stuff instead of mirroring their phone, both for easier data mining and for pushing users into subscriptions.
Tesla also started doing their "iPad with a car attached" thing before CarPlay was released in 2014.
Arguably they could have switched over at some time, but they're doing well enough that they haven't felt the need.
But I'd be surprised if there isn't a Tesla somewhere in the bowels of Musk's volcano lair that has CarPlay running, just waiting for the right time to release it as a software upgrade option (only $1000!).
Address book syncing is the main issue. I want my contacts on my phone. So taking phone calls gets a bit awkward, though with Siri getting a little better it’s sort of doable.
Other than that it’s the constant re-typing of destinations from the calendar.
Here’s a fun tip I learned recently - you can press the share button on your phone and send the location to Tesla. This makes copying addresses from calendar or anywhere super easy
> PLEASE, fire the moron in Rivian (the CEO?) who doesn't want to integrate CarPlay/AndroidAuto.
I'm in my car to go from point A to point B, not to be entertained by Google or Apple.
Is Google Maps okay'ish for nav? Yup. Is it better than, say, Porsche's previous nav system: not really.
Is Google Maps, in the EU, better at indicating speed traps than my (legal) "Coyote" system: no, definitely not.
To me AndroidAuto and CarPlay are fucking gizmos.
The one thing that counts to me is how pleasant the car is to drive and its safety. On that later point arguably a car that does not have a Google/Apple tablet in its dashboard is safer than the same car that does.
I understand that we're in a FB/Instagram/WhatsApp society but maybe, just maybe, that when you're driving is the time to...
Disconnect?
P.S: if anyone comes out saying "but music", I'll answer this: my car has a better soundsystem than yours and it's not using AndroidAuto/CarPlay. It's some stuff working on top of the QNX OS. The point is the same: I care about the quality of the sound/music (so much that I basically bought a high-end limousine for its soundsystem/sound insulation), not about how I select it.
> On that later point arguably a car that does not have a Google/Apple tablet in its dashboard is safer than the same car that does
Speaking anecdotally, having CarPlay work on a rental means I can just talk to Siri. Having to futz with the car's own system, on the other hand, means lots of time not looking at the road.
> Is Google Maps, in the EU, better at indicating speed traps than my (legal) "Coyote" system: no, definitely not.
Here's the thing. Tesla does not have speed trap detection. And so you're screwed, there's NOTHING you can do with the built-in software. Your only recourse is to go and cry at Musk's feet to add the function.
With AA/CarPlay, I can just switch to a different software. E.g. Sygic supports speed traps in multiple countries, and it has fully offline maps.
Tesla's maps become a gray box once it loses the data connectivity. And in 4 years, you'll be paying $10 a month to have maps _at_ _all_ because the Standard Connectivity will not be free anymore.
Great, ain't it?
> my car has a better soundsystem than yours and it's not using AndroidAuto/CarPlay
Android Auto / CarPlay can transmit the lossless audio stream.
The thing about car infotainment is that on average, it’s not good, and even when it is, it is until it’s not. Support timelines for dash systems have traditionally been awful, which leads to them becoming outdated and progressively more useless as time goes on, well before the end of the vehicle’s usefulness. Even worse, with how deeply the infotainment ties into the operation of the vehicle these days, third party head unit replacements to fix this issue aren’t practical.
It’s also another thing to have to log everything into which is a pain and has to be repeated for each person frequently driving the vehicle.
CarPlay/Android Auto avoid both nicely.
Now of course I’d trust Tesla or Rivian to not pull support prematurely more than any traditional automaker, but it’s still a risk regardless of brand.
Worse than being ugly, the Playskool style construction of only a few major parts makes them cost a fortune to repair from minor fender benders. I'm not sure what's had more of an impact on increasing insurance premiums, this or Kia/Hyundai's support for struggling car thieves.
I've heard this before, but when I dig in it seems like it's not true. Newer cars (gas or EV) are more complicated, more crowded, more sensors, more cables, etc. Even replacing a bumper is labor intensive, often requires messing with sensors, wiring harnesses, repainting, integrating new sensors into the car, debugging resulting problems, etc.
As a result that it's becoming increasingly easy to "total" a car in collisions that would have been repaired a decade ago. If you damage a major part of the chassis you get totaled, regardless if it was 25 welded pieces or 1 cast piece.
In the smartphone analogy, I'd relate Lucid to Sony, who makes some really awesome phones, but damn are they expensive. I've been wanting an Experia for years but can never convince myself the price is worth it over a OnePlus.
