A Very Real Reason GM is Removing CarPlay/Android Auto in their ICE Vehicles

I intended for this post to be brief and concise, as Chad Kirchner has already addressed the topics I wanted to discuss in detail in his brilliant newsletter, which you should sign up for if you haven't already.

The news, as Chad mentioned, is that GM will be removing support for CarPlay and Android Auto in not just EVs but ICE vehicles, despite being able to support both via Google Built-In, as other OEMs have done. This will force GM vehicle owners to use GM's unified platform. As a consumer, I have concerns - I'm old enough to remember the TV/VCR combo. VCR breaks? The TV is also taken to the repair shop. Given GM's previous software issues, I really hope they have this buttoned up before SOP in 2028.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of questions about why GM would take this route, especially since many consumers are strongly opposed to such a decision.

Solving GM's OnStar Problem.

GM made OnStar standard on most U.S./Canada GM retail vehicles around 2007, but vehicles built before 2015 lost service after the 3G/CDMA shutdown. Functionally, that makes vehicles from 2015 onward enabled with OnStar. With the U.S. fleet now 12.8 years old on average and 6–14-year-old vehicles comprising about 70% of vehicles in operation, it's safe to say that 50–55% of GM vehicles on U.S. roads have OnStar functionality. However, of the 50-55% estimated cars that can support OnStar, roughly one in eight to one in ten GM vehicles on the road overall have an active plan.

Let that sink in for a moment.

GM has spent nearly two decades embedding hardware, building infrastructure, maintaining cellular connectivity, and subsidizing the initial service period for OnStar. They've invested billions in a connected vehicle ecosystem that the vast majority of their customers don't use. The hardware is there. The capability is there. The backend infrastructure is humming along. But the revenue is barely a trickle compared to the potential.

From GM's perspective, we're talking an existential business model problem. They're sitting on what should be a recurring revenue goldmine in an industry desperately trying to pivot from one-time vehicle sales to ongoing service relationships. Meanwhile, customers happily plug in their phones, use CarPlay or Android Auto for navigation and entertainment, and completely bypass GM's entire connected services ecosystem.

The Dependency Strategy

This is where removing CarPlay and Android Auto becomes the linchpin of GM's strategy. It's not really about having a "better" infotainment experience. It's about eliminating the competition that makes OnStar irrelevant to most owners.

Think about what customers actually use connected services for: navigation, entertainment, communication, and remote vehicle features. When CarPlay and Android Auto are available, they handle the first three seamlessly, using apps consumers already know and prefer. OnStar's value proposition shrinks to emergency services and remote door unlock—features most people hope to never need and won't pay $25-35/month to maintain. But what if you remove the alternatives?

Suddenly, GM's unified platform isn't competing with the smartphone in your pocket—it is your only option for in-vehicle connectivity. Need navigation? You'll need a data plan. Want streaming music? Data plan. Remote features through the app? Data plan. Over-the-air updates for vehicle features? You guessed it.

A Forced Adoption Play

Ask yourself this: is GM betting they can build a better mousetrap? Or are they simply making their mousetrap the only trap in town? Taking it one step further, what if they make the cheese cost extra? By 2028 SOP, GM will have created a vehicle ecosystem where core functionality that customers have come to expect, e.g., things they currently get "for free" through their phone, will require a GM subscription to access.

This is the business model they need to bring to fruition: transform OnStar from an optional add-on service that 90% of capable vehicles ignore into an essential utility that vehicle ownership effectively requires. The embedded hardware that currently sits dormant becomes the foundation for a mandatory relationship. The recurring revenue that barely materialized for 15 years becomes baked into the ownership experience.

The Risk

Of course, this strategy assumes that consumers will accept this forced dependency rather than simply switching to a different brand. Which brings us back to the TV/VCR combo problem: when you tie everything together and something breaks, and given GM's software track record, something will break, you've just made your entire vehicle's user experience hostage to your software competency. That's a bold bet for a company that's historically struggled with software execution.