I genuinely wonder how they justify that figure. They could maybe justify a subscription if they offered a significant service, but they are by definition going to deliver a worse experience than CarPlay/Android Auto - simply due to it not being your own smartphone.
Why would anyone buy an expensive car which is designed to last a decade while it has essential pre-installed features locked behind a subscription? If they want recurring revenue that badly, they should just lease it out.
The figure is utterly ridiculous. They truly expect to generate a revenue stream 2x the size of Spotify or AirPods? Apple as a whole only makes 21B a year from all services, and they run everything from cloud storage, to synchronization, to an App Store with a wild profit margin from fees.
Of course, all American auto makers have wildly unrealistic plans for electric vehicle adoption in the next 5 years, too -- i think one of them is predicting $600B of revenue from EVs before 2030, when they currently only make a few million a year. Their finance departments must have some good drugs in the water coolers.
What's more ludicrous is that they expect to generate a revenue stream 1/6th the size of their entire automotive enterprise. You'll pay $300/mo for a car payment, and $40/mo for OnStar Audio, and $10/mo will be earned from selling your data and showing ads on your nav system.
> Apple as a whole only makes 21B a year from all services, and they run everything from cloud storage, to synchronization, to an App Store with a wild profit margin from fees.
Correct on "wild profit margin", but your numbers are wrong according to FY22 10-K filing[1]:
Every feature on the car will be a subscription... Heated Seats, Fast Charging, Nav, everything
Of course they will be "free" for the first 3-5 years of ownership, the free is non-transferable to a new owner... and you will be able to get the GM+ All Access Plan to "unlock your car's full potential for only $500 a year".....
This is not a GM thing, this is the dream of all Auto Makers..
You may "buy" the car, but you are not "buying" the software that runs the car...
One of the benefits of "economy" cars. More reliable than the high-end models and they can't pull this crap because it would lose them money as their customer base can't afford it.
This is why I'm really skeptical of mandating EVs without consumer protection because this seems to be the point where automakers are seeing dollar signs and can force buyers into higher price brackets.
I think attempting to solve a problem that is created by government regulations by creating more government regulations is crazy...
There should be no EV mandate, then there would not need to be consumer protections as the market would do what is does best and allow manufacturers to compete on the merits of the vehicles not by the government choosing what we should be allowed to drive.
I think there are already too many regulations on the manufacture of cars.
Federally, all of them. I dont think it is a role for the federal government. The only plausible authority it the continued in proper use of the commerce clause to justify all federal action.
At the state level I think the only regulations should be those around direct safety concerns (like air bags, lights, etc). Efficiency or other non-safety related regulations should be disallowed. Further safety regulations should be limited safe operations for other drivers sharing the road, not passenger protection (outside of regulations on truth in advertising, product defect)... passenger protection should be a market dynamic, coupled with greater tort reform to be able to hold liable manufacturers for their marketing claims.
Why would anyone buy an expensive car which is designed to last a decade while it has essential pre-installed features locked behind a subscription? If they want recurring revenue that badly, they should just lease it out.