Item — HN Reader

Very shortsighted IMHO. By keeping both they will be broadening the appeal of their cars to a larger segment of the market. All in favor of a subscription model??

"Buyers of GM EVs with the new systems will get access to Google Maps and Google Assistant, a voice command system, at no extra cost for eight years, GM said. GM said the future infotainment systems will offer applications such as Spotify's music service, Audible and other services that many drivers now access via smartphones"

1 comments

I think they would argue the shortsighted plan would be to stick with CarPlay and Android Auto because they are here now and work. The long term plan is to control in-car hardware/software and find ways to generate revenue from it.

Maybe the real money is in services?

It's possible they may sell fewer cars, but make more money overall. The article says they think they can generate $20-$25 billion of subscription revenue by 2030. That's the revenue from about 400,000 vehicles. If their vehicle sales drop by less than 17%, they win.

This is the kind of user-hostile, maximum-profit-at-all-costs thinking that is absolutely ruining various aspects of our society, economy, etc. Just like streaming services, where it's absolutely clear that people are happy to pay a reasonable monthly subscription for on-demand access to all the shows they like (see: Netflix several years ago), but the content owners are just horrified at the thought that they don't get both every drop of revenue they can possibly squeeze out of every customer, and absolute iron-clad control of the experience from beginning to end.

I don't care if it's "rational" behavior for the business; it's disgusting and shouldn't be allowed. The good of society should always come before increasing profits even higher for already-massive, already-highly-profitable companies.