Re: Ford insists it will continue to support Apple CarPlay

[ryannix123]

Unfortunately, Ford isn't supporting it...yet. Only a few manufacturers are, and only one has it fully available: Aston Martin.

But if Ford goes ahead and enables it, I'll make sure to post about it immediately!

Sponsored

 

[kevlar]

I misread your comment and thought you had figured out a hack to use it! I apologize!

 

[E90alex]

CarPlay Ultra will never be back ported to older systems. It requires a much deeper integration with the car that current hardware won’t allow.

The car needs to have been engineered from the beginning with CarPlay Ultra in mind.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Why do you make assertions that Apple sells customer data without any citations? Apple selling data (even de-identified) is inconsistent with Apple's explicit policies and independent reporting.

Talk about being "disingenuous"!

You are an ignorant fool. Goodbye.

 

[ryannix123]

You are an ignorant fool. Goodbye.

“Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice.”
― Michael Crichton, State of Fear

 

[phil]

GM would be dead to me regardless. They can’t even master the technology required to develop a micro-frunk, let alone a proper frunk

It's as if GM has forgotten the original purpose of the automobile -- to provide frunk storage.

Losers!

 

[silverelan]

Apple is extremely careful about safety. The CarPlay API’s are extremely limited for that reason.

I would argue that making a user tap the screen to generate +/- buttons along with directional arrows to scroll the screen is *not* a safer experience than pinch to zoom and press-to-select on a POI. Hopefully, Apple changes their tune on this.

 

[Flydivesurf]

“Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice.”
― Michael Crichton, State of Fear

You are aware, no doubt, of the numerous lawsuits and technical papers exposing the lengths Apple has gone to circumvent the privacy restrictions you've been touting in this thread, and do exactly what it says it does not do — sell personalized data? Further, Apple routinely shares its analytics with numerous parties, including Ford. Policies don't mean a thing when they're circumvented by the company that writes them.

 

[ryannix123]

You are aware, no doubt, of the numerous lawsuits and technical papers exposing the lengths Apple has gone to circumvent the privacy restrictions you've been touting in this thread, and do exactly what it says it does not do — sell personalized data? Further, Apple routinely shares its analytics with numerous parties, including Ford. Policies don't mean a thing when they're circumvented by the company that writes them.

I’ve looked into the major privacy lawsuits against Apple (including recent ones from 2024-2025), and none have resulted in findings that Apple sells personalized (or even de-identified) data.

• The $95M Siri settlement (Jan 2025): Alleged accidental recordings were shared with contractors for improvement, not sold for marketing. Apple explicitly stated post-settlement: “Apple has never used Siri data to build marketing profiles, never made it available for advertising, and never sold it to anyone for any purpose.” No admission of wrongdoing, and no evidence of sales emerged.


• Ongoing/narrowed app analytics lawsuits (e.g., collecting data despite opt-outs in App Store/Music/etc.): These focus on misleading privacy settings or internal collection for product improvement—not selling data to third parties.

• Older iTunes listening data cases (2019): Dismissed; plaintiffs couldn’t prove Apple sold or disclosed identifiable listening info.

Apple’s privacy policy is clear: “Apple does not sell your personal data” (including under broad definitions in laws like California’s). Independent reports and experts consistently note Apple doesn’t monetize data via sales (unlike ad-driven competitors); they earn from hardware/services.

On analytics sharing with Ford (or any automaker): No evidence of that. CarPlay is designed so user data (navigation, music choices) stays on your phone and flows to Apple—not the carmaker. That’s exactly why GM and others dropped it: to gain direct access to driving data for their own monetization (e.g., subscriptions, insurance partnerships). Apple has no deals to share CarPlay data with automakers.

If there are specific lawsuits or technical papers you’re referring to that prove sales/sharing, I’d love links—happy to dig in. Otherwise, the record shows Apple’s privacy isn’t perfect (e.g., past contractor issues, analytics opt-out bugs), but selling personal data isn’t one of their problems. Policies matter when backed by business model (no ad revenue reliance) and lack of proven violations on that front.

Back to the original point: GM’s drop of CarPlay is about them wanting your data exclusively, not protecting you from Apple.

Cite your sources before making such assertions

 

[Flydivesurf]

Cite your sources before making such assertions

If you actually read all of the cases you claim, you would have seen my name on several appeals cases argued in the 9th circuit. Your assertation is quite wrong. Let your worship of Apple go, they're not worth it.

 

[ryannix123]

Why would I waste my time carefully parsing legal documents?

• Settlements like the $95M Siri case (finalized 2025) involved accidental recordings shared with contractors for improvement—not sold for marketing or to third parties. Apple explicitly denied selling data, and no evidence of sales emerged.
• The ongoing/narrowed app analytics lawsuit (In re Apple Data Privacy Litigation) focuses on collection despite settings, not proven sales or sharing with automakers like Ford.
• No major case has resulted in findings that Apple sells personalized (or even de-identified) data. Apple's policy remains: no selling personal data (broadly defined under laws like California's).

Policies aren't perfect, and Apple has faced valid criticism (e.g., past contractor access, opt-out bugs). But the business model (hardware/services, not ads) and the lack of proven data sales scandals set them apart from competitors.

Happy to discuss specifics if you share sources—no worship here, just facts.

 

[Jimrpa]

“GM does not want to share data about you with Apple”

Apple doesn’t ask GM for data.

Pretty sure Apple needs data from the vehicle (essentially GM in the case we are discussing) to function correctly. My suspicion is that GM is trying to monetize the consumer and doesn’t really want to provide a “back door” that would allow a third party to get “valuable” data without paying.

 

[Jimrpa]

“Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice.”
― Michael Crichton, State of Fear

And here I’ve been calling it “American Exceptionalism”

 

[Jimrpa]

I’ve looked into the major privacy lawsuits against Apple (including recent ones from 2024-2025), and none have resulted in findings that Apple sells personalized (or even de-identified) data.

• The $95M Siri settlement (Jan 2025): Alleged accidental recordings were shared with contractors for improvement, not sold for marketing. Apple explicitly stated post-settlement: “Apple has never used Siri data to build marketing profiles, never made it available for advertising, and never sold it to anyone for any purpose.” No admission of wrongdoing, and no evidence of sales emerged.


• Ongoing/narrowed app analytics lawsuits (e.g., collecting data despite opt-outs in App Store/Music/etc.): These focus on misleading privacy settings or internal collection for product improvement—not selling data to third parties.

• Older iTunes listening data cases (2019): Dismissed; plaintiffs couldn’t prove Apple sold or disclosed identifiable listening info.

Apple’s privacy policy is clear: “Apple does not sell your personal data” (including under broad definitions in laws like California’s). Independent reports and experts consistently note Apple doesn’t monetize data via sales (unlike ad-driven competitors); they earn from hardware/services.

On analytics sharing with Ford (or any automaker): No evidence of that. CarPlay is designed so user data (navigation, music choices) stays on your phone and flows to Apple—not the carmaker. That’s exactly why GM and others dropped it: to gain direct access to driving data for their own monetization (e.g., subscriptions, insurance partnerships). Apple has no deals to share CarPlay data with automakers.

If there are specific lawsuits or technical papers you’re referring to that prove sales/sharing, I’d love links—happy to dig in. Otherwise, the record shows Apple’s privacy isn’t perfect (e.g., past contractor issues, analytics opt-out bugs), but selling personal data isn’t one of their problems. Policies matter when backed by business model (no ad revenue reliance) and lack of proven violations on that front.

Back to the original point: GM’s drop of CarPlay is about them wanting your data exclusively, not protecting you from Apple.

Cite your sources before making such assertions

This analysis is interesting. Here’s a very convoluted example and question: suppose I design an app, following all Apple privacy guidelines. Let’s call the App “Jim’s favorite veggie restaurants”. The app will provide directions, via Apple Maps, to a curated collection of vegetarian-friendly restaurants. I then sell data I’ve collected from the app (such as which restaurants are popular, and when) to “Big Veggie” (you know, the huge, monolithic, mega-corp that controls the entire vegetarian market, world-wide. It’s owned jointly by the Rothschild and the British royal family ). And you have to create an account and sign into the app to use “premium” features, such as filtering out places that serve broccoli.
So now, with my app, I’m able to profit off of information about you, AND Apple comes out smelling clean because their policies have been followed and Apple didn’t collect, aggregate, or sell ANY data. And GM of course, hates my app because they’re missing out on that sweet, sweet vegetarian data set.

Yes, my example is silly and absurd - deliberately so. I think the underlying questions are valid and, when multiplied by the number of different combinations and permutations, could be substantial.

 

[Flydivesurf]

Why would I waste my time carefully parsing legal documents

Yet here we are wasting our time arguing about a corporation and its Swiss cheese privacy policies that only look good in comparison to another absurdly large corporations privacy policies that are more holes than cheese.

Sponsored