Whenever GM explains why it’s abandoning CarPlay, the explanation is nothing short of a convoluted mess. For instance, GM CEO Mary Barra and GM Chief Product Officer Sterling Anderson recently appeared on the Decoder podcast and explained, in part, their stance on CarPlay. At one point, Anderson went so far as to intimate that GM’s decision was inspired by Steve Jobs’ approach to product development.
“But frankly, it’s a very Jobsian approach to things,” Anderson said. “The removal of the disk drive, nobody liked that, everybody on the forums and Facebook was complaining about it, but to that he said, ‘Look, guys, flash storage really is the future. Get on board, you’ll see that.’ That’s kind of what we’re saying here, in fact that’s exactly what we’re saying.”
That’d be a more convincing argument if GM was offering something better than CarPlay. But, as mentioned above, CarPlay just works while GM’s own infotainment system simply isn’t as reliable. That’s hardly a surprise given that Apple has a decades-long history of churning out intuitive and easy-to-use software. GM, on the other hand, can make fine automobiles, but has never been known for its software prowess. Abandoning a working technology in favor of one that’s decidedly worse is the exact opposite of a “Jobsian approach.”
Later on, Anderson started talking about how GM’s own infotainment system allows for more functionality than a console simply mirroring an iPhone. The only problem is that Anderson doesn’t explain how or why this is the case. “You are in a much more immersive environment that can do so many more things,” Anderson said. “Why would you use the equivalent of a phone mirroring application on a laptop in your car?”
Because, quite simply, it works. The lack of coherent messaging from top GM executives, in my opinion, underscores their limited vision and only strengthens the idea that GM’s move is motivated more by short-term financials than an actual interest in creating a compelling user experience.