
BMW's Apple CarPlay annual fee is next-level gouging - mpweiher
https://www.cnet.com/g00/roadshow/news/bmw-carplay-fee-highway-robbery/
======
sjwright
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.

~~~
afpx
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.

~~~
sjwright
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.

------
skywhopper
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.

~~~
netsharc
Porsche already has an idea of temporarily more horsepower for money, not even
permanently.

~~~
Jeremy1026
And Tesla lets you access the rest of your battery pack by paying more.

~~~
Baeocystin
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.

~~~
nolok
What a weird conter argument. Can be used for porsche too !

> To be fair, that that is even possible is because they installed better,
> larger engine than were initially promised in the first place.

~~~
Baeocystin
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.

~~~
SturgeonsLaw
But is that really what it is, or is it a case of not getting all of the
engine that you did pay for?

~~~
ssheth
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.

~~~
davrosthedalek
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?

------
boardwaalk
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.)

~~~
andybak
CNET has been at the forefront of user-hostile web design for as long as I can
remember.

~~~
chillingeffect
>CNET [....] user-hostile web design

Did that page quickly load about 8 deeper pages for everyone, making the back
button appear not to work (until you realize it's just 8 deep)?

------
jbuzbee
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"

~~~
tobyhinloopen
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

~~~
virgilp
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)

------
ddinh
I wonder how long it will take before somebody figures out how to jailbreak
BMW infotainment systems to enable CarPlay. This kind of stuff is not exactly
without precedent: [https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1099782_bmw-i3-rex-
elec...](https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1099782_bmw-i3-rex-electric-car-
coding-unlocks-features-owners-want-and-may-void-warranty)

~~~
Klathmon
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.

~~~
awinder
[https://mazdatweaks.com](https://mazdatweaks.com)

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!

~~~
Klathmon
That's genuinely amazing!

I honestly didn't think it would be possible when I sold my Mazda a few years
ago, and I'm so happy they were able to get it working.

And I'm with you, I don't believe that AA or carplay is coming any time soon,
since they were saying that it was "coming soon" when I sold the thing.

And there is absolutely 0 chance they will allow an update to bring it to
older cars.

------
vinceguidry
I didn't understand the net neutrality dig. Price gouging is price gouging,
the practice is far older than the Internet.

~~~
rayiner
“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.

~~~
vinceguidry
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.

------
apercu
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.

~~~
theluketaylor
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.

~~~
carterehsmith
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.

~~~
theluketaylor
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.

~~~
carterehsmith
>> 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.

~~~
theluketaylor
>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.

------
wyager
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.

~~~
rayiner
I don’t get the first point. If you can afford a BMW, $80 a year is nothing.
Why do I care if it costs $80 a year instead of say $700 up front?

~~~
013a
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.

~~~
sokoloff
Invest the $620 difference and you cover the $80 annual payments for quite
some time. (Per cFIREsim, 50% of the time, it covers 12 years of payments.)

------
flibble
This fee shouldn’t be compared with net neutrality. It’s a completely
different and less scary thing.

~~~
torstenvl
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.

------
gnicholas
Question: was the old $300 fee available for all BMWs, or were there
tiers/packages that you had to buy for it to be an option?

If there were prerequisites to purchasing under the old price stricture, are
there any under the new structure?

------
to3m
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?

~~~
ramenmeal
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.

~~~
mstolpm
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.

~~~
davrosthedalek
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.

------
thrillgore
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.

------
hedora
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)

~~~
lotsofpulp
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.

~~~
disillusioned
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.

~~~
hedora
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?

~~~
toast0
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.

~~~
sokoloff
That pre-supposes that CarPlay's call center will have higher availability
than 911's, otherwise, you not only moved the problem, you made it worse.

I don't know how to handicap the wager that CarPlay's center is better than
911's, but I tend to doubt it.

~~~
toast0
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.

------
alkonaut
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?

~~~
MBCook
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.

~~~
pimlottc
> 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?

~~~
MBCook
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.

------
mdekkers
Pretty much all software produced, ever, has been cracked. I suspect an
"unlock" will appear soon.

------
exabrial
Ok someone please explain how this is a net neutrality issue exactly?

~~~
colejohnson66
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).

------
zerostar07
the net neutrality comment seemed so far off from the next few statements that
i stopped reading. i don't think i m missing anything interesting

------
mark_sz
I'm guessing their next step will be to charge monthly for Bluetooth
connectivity and probably Navigation.

------
jessaustin
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.

------
dingo_bat
Just a warning: article has LOUD autoplaying video that will start up about a
minute after you open the tab in the background, just to fuck with you.

------
monochromatic
This has literally nothing to do with net neutrality.

------
jacksmith21006
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.

------
analog31
>>>> 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. ;-)

