1939 Buick Roadmaster Image by mk4oto

• Why It’s Important? GM’s move to replace Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with an in-house platform offers powerful lessons for product leaders. GM aims to balance market forces for deeper control over user experience and data. They plan to support more personalized services, foster revenue growth, and strengthen brand loyalty.
• Key Topics:
  • GM’s shift to software and data ownership, and unified user experience. Control the flow of user insights for better product decisions. Create connected services that offer unified, personalized, and seamless interactions and user experience.
  • New opportunities for delivering customer value. Software-defined hardware allows for deeper vehicle integration, streamlined updates, and faster customer development and feature refining.
  • Strategic frameworks. Apply models like Three Horizons and Porter’s Five Forces for strategic innovations.

A Strategic Perspective on GM’s Shift

Recent The Verge Decoder¹ podcast interview features GM’s vice-president of software-defined vehicle and operating systems Baris Cetinok. He discusses how the automaker plans to build out its in-car software systems. This indicates a move away from reliance on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in future electric vehicles. Here are the key takeaways:

1. Shift to a Proprietary Software Platform

GM is phasing out Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in upcoming EVs. They are aiming instead to build a “native” GM operating system. It should be centered on Google services and custom software from GM.

This in-house platform aims for deeper integration between vehicle hardware, systems and infotainment. It enables real-time data access, streamlined product updates and a unified user experience.

2. Reasons Behind Dropping CarPlay and Android Auto

Control and Data

By moving to an internally developed system, GM has direct access to performance and vehicle data that CarPlay / Android Auto wouldn’t share.

User Experience

GM has developed a built-from-scratch infotainment system. This allows them to create seamless experiences specific to their vehicles including advanced driver-assist features and personalized services.

Future-Proofing

GM expects software-defined vehicles to unlock ongoing improvements, over-the-air (OTA) updates, and new capabilities over the vehicle’s lifespan.

3. Collaboration with Google

While CarPlay and Android Auto are on the way out in these new EVs, Google still has a significant role. Particular services include navigation (Google Maps) and voice control (Google Assistant).

This collaboration provides GM’s custom system with powerful, well-established services. Yet, it keeps GM in the driver’s seat for data and feature integration.

4. Business Model and Monetization

GM anticipates subscription-based features and add-ons, similar to other automakers’ moves into software-as-a-service.

The goal is to create ongoing revenue streams through software improvements rather than just a one-time vehicle sale.

5. Challenges and Competitiveness

GM acknowledges it must deliver a robust, engaging interface and stay competitive with Apple and Google’s consumer-friendly designs.

The success of this strategy rests on GM’s ability to leverage deep vehicle integration. They can offer unique services that typical phone-mirroring solutions cannot match.

Why Control Over Software Matters

Software has become a primary driver of innovation in the automotive sector. Customers expect smooth, integrated experiences that adapt to their personal needs. Legacy systems often limit opportunities to collect first-party data and integrate advanced features. 

If automakers rely on third-party platforms, they may surrender data ownership and monetization potential. Proprietary systems give product teams a direct view into usage patterns, which can drive better decisions. They also offer flexibility to design experiences that reflect the automaker’s unique value proposition.

Leaders must consider how software ownership aligns with broader product goals. It includes long-term revenue potential, service differentiation, and competitive positioning. Control over the software stack helps companies shape each interaction with the consumer. That relationship can extend far beyond the initial sale.

Data-Driven Opportunities and Risks

First-party data collection is a core advantage of in-house software platforms. Product teams can track user behavior, driving conditions, and vehicle performance in real time. These data points support predictive maintenance, personalized feature sets, and proactive customer engagement. According to McKinsey,² software-defined hardware with over-the-air software updates boosts customer loyalty and brand perception. Real-time insights let organizations tailor offerings based on actual usage patterns.

“The benefits of software-defined hardware, enhanced by AI, translate into better products and services for end customers. As an example, compare the customer experience at electric vehicle (EV) start-ups with that of traditional OEMs. New EV OEMs, such as Tesla, which were not constrained by legacy hardware, have used software-defined hardware and delivered over-the-air (OTA) updates to improve vehicle performance, efficiency, and features beginning in 2018. That convenience is not possible with older, hardware-centric car designs. Other OEMs are also investing in software-defined hardware or forming joint ventures to create it.”

—McKinsey

However, building a proprietary platform requires significant investment in infrastructure, talent, and security measures. Software engineers and data scientists must work closely to ensure reliable performance. Privacy regulations also demand robust compliance procedures. Leaders should adopt clear data governance frameworks to protect consumer trust. These steps help avoid reputational and financial risks that can arise from data mismanagement.

Strategic Implications for Product Leaders

Product leaders should view such shifts as part of a broader digital transformation trend. Successful automotive brands now seek to function more like tech companies. This change involves cross-functional collaboration between hardware, software, and services teams. Clear strategies around product lifecycle management, monetization, and feature expansion become essential.

A proprietary software stack can transform a car into a connected device. It also enables continuous improvement through remote updates. For product executives, this shift offers new revenue possibilities, including subscription services. Value-added tiers can include advanced driver assistance, navigation enhancements, or predictive maintenance alerts. However, customer acceptance hinges on perceived value and seamless interfaces.

For example, the 2024 J.D. Power TXI Study³ finds that many advanced vehicle technologies either excite owners or leave them unimpressed. AI-based features, like smart climate control, gain strong approval for solving real user needs. In contrast, recognition technologies (e.g., facial and fingerprint recognition) and interior gesture controls rank poorly due to high problem rates and limited perceived usefulness. 

Owners also show little interest in passenger display screens, which many see as too complex to operate. Surprisingly, some drivers remain indifferent to certain ADAS features, especially ones they feel do not solve pressing problems (e.g., active driving assistance). Moreover, Tesla’s technology satisfaction scores dip as the brand attracts customers outside its early adopter segment. Notably, J.D. Power now clusters advanced technologies into must-have, nice-to-have, and not-necessary groups. The goal is to help automakers calculate return on investment and align features with customer expectations.

This J.D. Power research underscores the need for product leaders to validate user value before investing in expensive tech. If a feature does not address a clear user pain point, it can become a cost burden. Instead of being advantageous, it may not serve as a brand differentiator. Leaders should develop a disciplined technology roadmap that prioritizes proven solutions (e.g., AI-based comfort features) over “nice-to-have” or “novelty” technologies with low adoption rates. 

Frameworks for Evaluating the Opportunity

Leaders can assess such strategic opportunities using structured frameworks like the McKinsey Three Horizons Model:⁴

• Horizon 1: Optimize current capabilities. Improve core infotainment and vehicle health features.
• Horizon 2: Launch adjacent services that deepen engagement. Consider data-driven subscription features or marketplace offerings.
• Horizon 3: Invest in transformative technologies. Explore fully autonomous systems and broader ecosystem partnerships.

Michael Porter’s Five Forces (Porter 1979,⁵ TSI⁶) also helps clarify third-party suppliers’ and competitive pressure.

Force	Description
Competitive Rivalry	Examines the intensity of competition within an industry. Influence factors include product differentiation, price competition, and brand loyalty.
Threat of New Entrants	Assesses how easily new competitors can enter the market. Considers barriers like capital requirements, regulatory hurdles, and established brand identities.
Bargaining Power of Suppliers	Evaluates suppliers’ ability to influence prices and terms. Those are often determined by the scarcity or uniqueness of inputs and the number of available suppliers.
Bargaining Power of Buyers	Focuses on the influence customers have over pricing and quality. Factors that buyers can easily switch to competitors or purchase in large volumes.
Threat of Substitution	Measures the likelihood of customers replacing a product with an alternative. It must meet the same need, often coming from outside the existing industry.

Third-party automotive software providers represent powerful force. They can shape user experience, influencing everything from dashboard interfaces to navigation and personalized settings. Internalizing these functions enhances bargaining power and strengthens brand differentiation. However, when these external platforms control critical aspects of the in-car experience, the automaker loses a degree of autonomy and differentiation. This can lead to a fragmented or less cohesive user journey.

GM’s decision to phase out Apple CarPlay and Android Auto reflects a desire to centralize control over infotainment and data. Instead, GM is partnering selectively with Google to integrate specific services—such as Google Maps or Google Assistant—rather than outsourcing the entire interface. By doing so, GM maintains a unified brand identity and preserves ownership of vehicle data. They can more closely align software updates or feature rollouts with its own strategic goals.

New competitors may emerge from adjacent industries, including tech giants. In China, Xiaomi entered the automotive space with a C-class luxury sedan SU7. They are leveraging hardware and software prowess to deliver smart, internet-connected vehicles. 

Apple, having invested over $10 billion in its car project, ultimately canceled it in February 2024 due to internal disagreements about the project’s direction, according to the New York Times.⁷ This suggests Apple’s possible intention to be more than just an infotainment system supplier. Potentially they could become a full competitor in the automotive market.

Jaguar is illustrating the difficulties of navigating the rapidly changing automotive industry. Formerly a symbol of British automotive excellence, has encountered significant challenges in recent years. Under Tata Motors’ ownership since 2008, the brand has struggled with declining sales and profitability. In 2019, Tata Motors wrote down its investment in Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) by $3.9 billion, largely due to a 50% drop in sales in China (Wikipedia).

Despite efforts to revitalize the brand and electrifying its lineup, Jaguar has been unable to regain its former market position. In 2024, JLR announced a strategic shift to reposition Jaguar as a lower-volume, higher-end brand. The new models expected to cost upwards of £100,000 (BBC),⁸ aiming to compete with luxury manufacturers like Bentley and Porsche. This plan includes introducing three new electric models. The first one is unlikely to go on sale until late 2026.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Software-defined hardware unlocks a new level of flexibility in product development. It allows automakers to rapidly refine features and functionality without waiting for a full hardware refresh. Traditional, hardware-defined cars force OEMs to physically design, engineer, and produce new features before testing them with real consumers. It is an expensive and time-intensive process. 

By contrast, a software-driven vehicle enables rapid iteration through over-the-air updates and on-demand feature rollouts. This makes it possible to gather user feedback early, pivot based on real-world data, and continuously optimize the in-cabin experience. Consequently, automakers gain an entirely new product opportunity with a more agile, customer-driven approach. It also aligns with the rapid innovation cycles seen in consumer digital products.

Automakers today can validate demand through user discovery and research. Customer Development interviews and surveys help to identify key users’ pain points and generate hypotheses about valuable services and features. Software-defined hardware then allows to test these hypotheses without long and expensive car re-engineering.

A multi-faceted user discovery and research process can employ the next steps:

Step	Description	Actions
1	User Personas and Segmentation	Develop detailed user personas and segment the target audience based on demographics, behaviors, and preferences.
2	Surveys and Customer Development Interviews	Conduct comprehensive surveys and in-depth customer development interviews to identify key users’ pain points, challenges, and unmet needs.
3	Hypotheses Generation	Generate a range of hypotheses about potential valuable services, based on the insights gathered from surveys and interviews. Those services should address user pain points and needs.
4	Software-Defined Hardware Prototyping	Utilize software-defined hardware to rapidly develop prototypes and minimum viable products (MVPs) that can be used to test the hypotheses.
5	User Testing and Feedback	Conduct user testing sessions with representative users to gather feedback on the prototypes and MVPs.
6	Iterative Development	Based on the user feedback and insights gathered, iterate on the service design and development process.
7	Data Analysis and Insights	Collect and analyze data and product metrics from user interactions with the prototypes and MVPs.

Conclusion

GM’s software pivot reflects a larger industry trend where automotive companies seek deeper control over user experience. Product leaders who manage connected platforms can learn from this strategy. They can use lessons from GM to align software investment with data collection, customer satisfaction, and revenue growth.

We invite you to share your own experiences with proprietary software transitions and product prioritization. How do you balance user needs, revenue, and brand differentiation? Please share your insights in the comments below. For more strategic perspectives on product innovation, subscribe to our newsletter and stay informed about the latest industry trends.

Sources

1. Patel, Nilay. “GM Software Boss: We Have ‘High Conviction’ Ditching CarPlay Is the Right Path.” The Verge, 4 Nov. 2024,
   https://www.theverge.com/24285581/gm-software-baris-cetinok-apple-carplay-android-auto-google-cars-evs-decoder-podcast. ↩︎
2. Rizvi, Ali, Ani Kelkar, and Philipp Kampshoff, with Sarthak Vaish. “Software-Defined Hardware in the Age of AI.” McKinsey & Company, 3 Jan. 2025, https://www.mckinsey.com/features/mckinsey-center-for-future-mobility/our-insights/software-defined-hardware-in-the-age-of-ai. ↩︎
3. J.D. Power. “Customers Favor AI-Based Technologies but Automakers May Not Have Best Advanced Tech Strategy, J.D. Power Finds.” Press Release, 22 Aug. 2024, https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2024-us-tech-experience-index-txi-study. ↩︎
4. “Enduring Ideas: The Three Horizons of Growth.” McKinsey Quarterly, McKinsey & Company, 1 Dec. 2009,
   https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/enduring-ideas-the-three-horizons-of-growth. ↩︎
5. Porter, Michael E. “How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy.” Harvard Business Review, Mar.–Apr. 1979,
   https://hbr.org/1979/03/how-competitive-forces-shape-strategy. ↩︎
6. “Porter’s Five Forces: The Ultimate Competitive Strategy Blueprint.” The Strategy Institute, 19 Apr. 2024,
   https://www.thestrategyinstitute.org/insights/porters-five-forces-the-ultimate-competitive-strategy-blueprint. ↩︎
7. Chen, Brian X., and Tripp Mickle. “Behind Apple’s Doomed Car Project: False Starts and Wrong Turns.” The New York Times, 28 Feb. 2024,
   https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/technology/behind-the-apple-car-dead.html. ↩︎
8. Leggett, Theo. “How Jaguar Lost Its Way – Long before That Polarising Advert.” BBC News, 8 Dec. 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd60v8zj678o. ↩︎