Rivian Is Wrong About Not Supporting Apple CarPlay, As Is Everyone Who Agrees With Them

Nilay Patel/Verge: The other thing I’m curious about when it comes to demand and what people are shopping for with these cars is CarPlay. Apple is very insistent that no new car buyer will buy anything except a car with CarPlay. Tesla famously doesn’t have CarPlay. Rivian famously doesn’t have CarPlay. GM is taking it out of its EVs. Are you committed to that, that you’re just going to stick with your software and your interface? Or are you open to using Apple’s next-generation CarPlay?

RJ Scaringe: You and I talked about this before. This is a question that certainly you see a lot of buzz around on the internet. Some of our customers make some noise about this. We’ve taken the view of the digital experience in the vehicle wants to feel consistent and holistically harmonious across every touchpoint. In order to do that, the idea of having customers jump in or out of an application for which we don’t control and for which doesn’t have deep capabilities to leverage other parts of the vehicle experience… for example, if you’re in CarPlay and want to open the front trunk, you have to leave the application and go to another interface. It’s not consistent with how we think about really creating a pure product experience.

It seems Scaringe’s main point is that they want the “digital experience” in their cars to be “holistically harmonious,” meaning that they want to retain control of the user experience, and not pass UX control over to anyone else, like Apple. He also mentions that using CarPlay is a problem because if you have to – and this is his example – open the front trunk, you have to leave CarPlay and go into Rivian’s interface.

Now, there are some real problems with these arguments. First off, the opening the front trunk thing: that’s Rivian’s problem, because putting a control to open a trunk inside a menu on a touchscreen is just shitty design that nobody actually wants. You know what people will do when you ask them to open the front trunk? They’ll reach around under the left side of the dash (on LHD cars) because that’s where they’ve known hood releases have been, forever.

Putting controls that open parts of the car – hatches, doors, glove boxes – on a touchscreen interface is just idiotic, and not something anybody really wants. Who asked for that? Who decided they wanted to navigate a touchscreen UX to locate where the control to open a trunk is? That’s garbage.

And here’s the other thing – the idea that people buying cars care about anything like a holistically harmonious digital experience is absolute delusional crap. Sure, RJ Scaringe (a clearly sharp guy) cares about that, and so do his UX designers, but the people who actually want to buy and use the cars? They do not give a brace of BMs about that.

People want to use the interfaces they already use and understand. They use their phones all day long; that’s the interface they want for their car’s infotainment and navigation systems, the same interface they’ve been using all day as it is, the one that already has their preferences and seamlessly knows the address they looked up before even getting in the car and has their playlists and contacts and everything, right there, ready to go.

Nobody wants to learn some dumb new UX for their car. They just don’t care, and, why should they? Plus, let’s look at these harmonious digital experiences that RJ is talking about. Here’s a walkthrough of Rivian’s new UI/UX system:

One of the things they’re most proud of is the new look, which includes 3D cell-shaded graphics provided by Epic Games, and, yes, it does look great:

Very attractive! The cell-shaded, animated illustration sure is evocative and pretty! But is this actually a good interface? Is it so good that Rivian should prevent another sort of UX from controlling things like music and navigation and texting and other infotainment features? I’m not so sure. Let’s just take a look at this screen:

The UX is nothing to write home about here. 75% of the screen is an illustration that doesn’t do jack shit and the actual controls are just a bunch of basic text-and-icon buttons in a small panel. The text is pretty small, you’d have to really focus on this if you were to try to adjust any of these things while driving, and if there’s anything actually innovative going on here, it’s incredibly well-hidden.

Really, if this UX reminds me of anything, it’s another cell-shaded, illustrated UX concept, one you may remember. It was called Microsoft Bob.

At least in Bob the buttons were made to look like objects in the environment, instead of on some gray floating panel. But nobody liked Microsoft Bob.

The black strips on the top and bottom remain there regardless of whatever main interface is on screen, and I’d imagine that could be retained even if the main area of the screen was running Apple CarPlay or Android Auto, so things like climate controls and other always-available controls (even opening trunks, if you insist on having it on a touchscreen) should be accessible even with something not holistically harmonious on the main screen.

There’s so much hubris here, as these carmakers all are so sure they’re making incredible digital user experiences people are just thrilled to have. They’re not. Here’s another example from this Rivian video:

What we’re looking at here is actually two things: the Rivian interface for controlling the direction the HVAC vents blow and a visual reminder of how misguided and wrong it is to put some controls on a digital touchscreen.

HVAC vent direction should never be controlled on a touchscreen: the very concept is too idiotic. Simple control vanes and knobs on the vents themselves work immediately, intuitively, and can be adjusted any time at all, independently of what may be on a touchscreen. They require no additional servo motors or wiring or software. They’re a solved problem.

This interface is an abject failure, and you can tell that by this simple clue: it’s a picture of the dashboard that you’re already looking right at. The little picture of the steering wheel is inches from the actual steering wheel. They’re simulating moving physical vent controls by having you move simulated, drawn vents on the screen, when they could have eliminated all of this by just letting your same fingers move the vents directly. It’s like a joke. The people that design this and think it’s just great have no business telling anyone what UX they can or can’t use in their own cars.

I should note that Rivian is not alone with this inane idea; plenty of other carmakers do the same thing, controlling HVAC vents via the touchscreen, including Tesla, whose implementation is especially fussy and stupid:

There are a number of articles out there already defending Scaringe’s take, including one from my beloved ex-editor, Patrick George. Patrick is great, but boy do I not agree with him, here. One of Patrick’s main points is that carmakers’ software is getting better and better, and while he may certainly be right about this, it just doesn’t matter.

He uses the Mercedes-Benz Hyperscreen system as an example of how much carmaker UX systems and software have leapfrogged systems like CarPlay and Android Auto, but the honest truth is that when most people see something like this:

…the reaction isn’t one of fascination and excitement, but rather a ragged sigh of dismay at the thought of having to figure out what all of that is and what it does when all they want to do is listen to their damn Spotify playlist and get directions to that new Peruvian-Dutch fusion restaurant where they’re meeting everybody.

Patrick compares that Hyperscreen experience to CarPlay, and comes up with this conclusion:

I can’t imagine wanting to swap that experience for the same set of Apple icons I’ve seen since the Obama years.

…but his conclusion is completely wrong. People want the same set of icons they already know and understand. People want something that just works, that they already understand, that has become second nature to them. Swapping those out for some other set of unfamiliar icons that do basically the same shit in just a different, more blue-glowy way is of interest to nobody, and I suspect deep down that includes Patrick, too.

Nobody gives a shit about their car’s unique software or UX or digital experience or whatever you want to call it if they have the option of just using the system they already know, already have set up, and already are using. There’s a reason a full third of car buyers consider the lack of Android Auto or CarPlay a dealbreaker when it comes to picking a new car.

We’ve already seen how this works for years, as people will stick with the phone ecosystem they’re used to even if the other side has better hardware or features. If you started with an iPhone, you’re far more likely to stick with what you know than switch to Android, for example, even if there’s some new Android phone with a better camera or whatever.

People can come up to you and say, hey, we have a new phone with better features and battery life and smells better than your iPhone, but most iPhone people would say, ah, I don’t really care, I just want to stick with my iPhone. People are invested in what they know.

It’s absolutely fine that people treat CarPlay or Android Auto as a dealbreaker for a new car. It’s what works for them, and what they want, and for Rivian or Tesla or GM or whomever to ignore what buyers clearly want because of what essentially comes down to corporate ego is just absurd.

Nobody gives a shit about any carmaker’s unique, bespoke “digital experiences” when it comes to doing the shit they already do a thousand times a day on their phones. They just want to do it the same way, just on their car. We’re all tired, and we just want to listen to our damn podcasts, send our damn texts, get our damn directions, and if we never see any of your cell-shaded animations done in collaboration with Epic Games then I think, somehow, we’ll all live.

Now, I do need to acknowledge some things here: David Tracy, my co-founder at The Autopian, is insistent that I note that I am in no way smarter than the many, many smart people who develop UI/UX systems for carmakers, and of course he’s right about that. I worked in UI/UX for a long time myself, but that’s not what I currently do. They know what they’re doing.

But my argument isn’t that I somehow know better; it’s that the experts who make these systems do know better in many ways, but that has also blinded them to what people actually want, which is what they know.

David also thinks my main point is that people don’t like change, but that’s an oversimplification; people don’t like needless change, they don’t like change that doesn’t actually make anything better, and I think that’s the argument for the current carmaker-designed infotainment system interfaces.

Also, Tesla, the biggest-selling EV brand does not offer CarPlay or Android Auto (though there are third-party projects to do this, because people do want it) and that must mean something; clearly, not having CarPlay is not necessarily a hinderance to success.

So, they’re smart, I’m dumb, Tesla is a success despite all this, but what I say still stands, I think.

Carmakers need to just sit down and give people what they want, which is the same UX as on their phones. They’ve made that very clear. And also to remember that not everything needs to be on a damn touchscreen. No one’s touchscreen UX is so amazing that it’s better or easier than just moving a knob to change where air is blowing or pulling a lever that is always available to open a trunk.

It’s time to get a grip. No one cares about being “holistically harmonious,” so it’s time to just let that shit go and we’ll all pretend no one ever said something so embarrassing at all.

Deal? Good.

Europe Is Requiring Physical Buttons For Cars To Get Top Safety Marks, And We Should, Too

Here’s What Happened When I Confronted Volvo’s Head Designer About The Company’s Egregious Decision To Require A Touchscreen Button To Open The EX90’s Glovebox

These Are The Five Car Controls That Should Never Be On Screens