Can you also get Apple maps on driver display and HUD with a J1 Taycan?

[Bosmonster]

I saw this video but haven’t managed to get this working on my 2022 Taycan CT 4S. Do only the newer models support this or should I change a setting somewhere?

Sponsored

 

[daveo4EV]

I saw this video but haven’t managed to get this working on my 2022 Taycan CT 4S. Do only the newer models support this or should I change a setting somewhere?

doubtful…at a minimum it would require a software update that may or may not ever come…

the new Macan supports CarPlay driving directions in the AR HUD - I haven't had one to play with to explore all the choices…

 

[Novemberwhisky]

Nope , not currently possible.

 

[Bosmonster]

Nope , not currently possible.

Fingers crossed that we get update!

 

[tigerbalm]

Porsche has lost their install.exe floppy disk.

 

[d00d]

I was going to ask what's the benefit over PCM navigation, as there's still no Waze integration, but then did some research.
Apparently Apple Maps has reporting capability, probably not used as much though;
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...d.2237669/page-32?post=29591321#post-29591321

 

[GreenHornet]

Never going to happen on the J1.1 or J1.2 unfortunately

 

[ZenicaNC]

Never going to happen on the J1.1 or J1.2 unfortunately

Agreed. It's a classic example of marketing promising one thing and bean counters not delivering.

The car was and could very well still be touted as "eligible for software updates" but what is conveniently omitted is the part about selective updating. Only the favored son will get updates and right now, that is the Macan.

 

[tigerbalm]

Agreed. It's a classic example of marketing promising one thing and bean counters not delivering.

The car was and could very well still be touted as "eligible for software updates" but what is conveniently omitted is the part about selective updating. Only the favored son will get updates and right now, that is the Macan.

In a world of iPhone, Android and Tesla – it is not a good look – for 18 month old cars to already be treated as legacy. It is not what consumers expect or have experienced recently with global brands.

And the PCM fragmentation that Porsche has chosen – or been bounced into – has not made their maintenance roadmap any easier either. The Macan might be the "latest" PCM approach – but it will soon too be legacy.

 

[chun]

The brand new taycan GT, released not even 2 months ago for only 300.000; is too old for software updates. So sadly, you have to stick with legacy software. That's the Porsche way

You want proper software? Stop buying expensive cars, apparently the 200-600% margin on some parts is not enough to allow premium car brands to pay software devs Only cheap cars seem to do software correctly these days

 

[ZenicaNC]

In a world of iPhone, Android and Tesla – it is not a good look – for 18 month old cars to already be treated as legacy. It is not what consumers expect or have experienced recently with global brands.

And the PCM fragmentation that Porsche has chosen – or been bounced into – has not made their maintenance roadmap any easier either. The Macan might be the "latest" PCM approach – but it will soon too be legacy.

They would argue the early Taycans did honor the OTA update requirement since they updated the PCM from the (now I didn't see it firsthand before the update, so I'm going by what the salesman told me) 1980's calculator look to the colored tiles/icons it has now. I just wouldn't expect any future enhancements. The excuse for everything, including things it won't apply to will be the vehicle hardware doesn't support it.

 

[whitex]

You want proper software? Stop buying expensive cars, apparently the 200-600% margin on some parts is not enough to allow premium car brands to pay software devs Only cheap cars seem to do software correctly these days

You nailed it , even if you were just being facetious. The higher the markup (profit margin cannot be >100% by definition), the lower the volume, and therefore lower engineering budget. Toyotas have way lower per car profit margin than Ferrari, yet their total profit is orders of magnitude larger because of their massive volume. Software cost is 99.99% in development and testing, 0.01% or less in replication (making incremental copies). This means that the software budget depends on total profit, not profit margin, hence the higher the volume of the car, the more money available for software development, so the faster the progress and feature richness of said software.

Notice that when Tesla was selling only $100K+ vehicles (Model S/X), they had amazing profit margins per car (much higher than the rest of the industry), but they were losing tons of money until they released Model 3/Y - their high volume products. Tesla spends a lot of money on software, and expensive low volume vehicles cannot pay for that level of software.

 

[chun]

You nailed it , even if you were just being facetious. The higher the markup (profit margin cannot be >100% by definition), the lower the volume, and therefore lower engineering budget. Toyotas have way lower per car profit margin than Ferrari, yet their total profit is orders of magnitude larger because of their massive volume. Software cost is 99.99% in development and testing, 0.01% or less in replication (making incremental copies). This means that the software budget depends on total profit, not profit margin, hence the higher the volume of the car, the more money available for software development, so the faster the progress and feature richness of said software.

Notice that when Tesla was selling only $100K+ vehicles (Model S/X), they had amazing profit margins per car (much higher than the rest of the industry), but they were losing tons of money until they released Model 3/Y - their high volume products. Tesla spends a lot of money on software, and expensive low volume vehicles cannot pay for that level of software.

But that's just not true.

Does Lotus sell more cars than Porsche? Does Lucid sell more? Does Rivian? Does Polestar? All of these have better software.

Here's an extreme example. One of the main reasons Koenigsegg Gemera is not shipping is because the software is not ready, and they know the importance of software. And that's straight out of Christian von Koenigsegg mouth. Do they sell more cars?

"But then they would lose money, just like those companies". Well, they are losing clients, current ones. They are also losing mind share, so future clients. They are also losing entire markets. Surely, the loses are bigger by not keeping up with other brands in terms of software.

What's stopping Porsche from using their software across all of their EV cars, like BMW? Meaning both high volume and low volume cars.

Can we stop making excuses for poor old Porsche?

Software cost is 99.99% in development and testing, 0.01% or less in replication

So why is Porsche not replicating software updates from MY25 to MY20-25? Why is Porsche not replicating Macan EV software to MY25 taycan? They can clearly do it, since apparently they are sending polls on having this as paid retrofit. Why would it need to be paid, if replication is basically 0 cost?

I'll be honest, as long as customers that allow to be walked all over keep existing, Porsche will keep doing it

Porsche sells more expensive EVs, in higher volume, with higher profit margin on them than many of the brands mentioned. And with all that, they cannot develop good software. They cannot even pay to use already developed software apparently.

Porsche model has always been using profit margins from their wide range of models, to develop their high end models. But with the EV, that strategy seems to be dead.

The true answer is that Porsche leadership is clueless, and would blame anything but their bad decisions for the bad sells and diminishing of the brand.

Other EV companies clearly got the memo, and got straight to work, reinventing themselves and capitalizing on the future. Porsche, like all german companies, will become irrelevant unless they adapt. There is a reason europe has 0 hard hits in terms of software and IT products, and it's the german metality, that Porsche still has.

 

[daveo4EV]

I have spoken at length to "internal sources" about this specific problem…

Porsche has an organization problem - and if you look closely and know what to look for you can see their org chart in their software - they have no "unifying" vision for their software - and every vehicle is treated as it's own project…

Spoiler: deeper thoughts

NOTE: organizational problem here is subjective from the point of view of their software across their multiple product lines - I do not believe management of Porsche would agree with my assessment - Porsche remains the most profitable automotive brand in the industry. So "explaining" management or the board that there is "a problem" is an academic exercise because there are few if any tangible "metics" one could point too that demonstrate this "problem". I've been in this exact situation inside a major corporation - attempting to bring well intentioned "feedback" to managements attention so we can avoid "future problems/pain". Management typically has a hard time "hearing feedback" over the noise/rush of the incoming torrent of profitability…like a water fall making tons of noise - this type of feedback is drown out by "success" - it's hard to fault Porsche's "success" to date…so I'm not sure how much change we can expect in this space, or if it's even 'required'.

one concrete example:

all new 2025 vehicles shipping in EU require certain driving aids (speed limit notices ect) and these dirving aids must be on by default (legal requirment) but can be turned off…

the GT group came up with their way of doing it…
and the non-GT group has different ways of doing it…

the two groups are separate in both vehicle target market and physically different locations in Germany (Porsche's legendary Weissach development location where they do their most extreme race engineering) - apparently this separation given them wide latitude to innovate, unfortunately or fortunately that means they are not constrained to do their vehicle software like the others…since them have different needs, schedules, goals, target markets…this separate but equal approach to software allows separate teams to manage their own schedule, needs, goals, and driver experience, the downside is commonality is not enforced and leads to fragmented software bases that make it's harder to have a unified approach "after the fact"…

I'm told - when one VP showed another VP how their were doing it - the other VP said wow that's soo much better - we should do it that way also…but that will take until until 2026/2027 to get the software into their organziation…_IF_ they decide to pursue it - which is a big if…

Porsche does not view software as a "product" for their entire line - it's treated as a "supply chain" component to be "sourced" for each different vehicle - Macan's AC compressor is not the same as the Panamera's AC compressor (hypothetical example) - each 'project' needs to solve it's own problems and source components

so each project has it's own software division…with no unifying vision

Porsche physical design language is strong and consistent across the product line - and ruthlessly enforced across project teams (as it shoudl be)

Porsche lacks enthusiasm to the same level for their "software design language" - and it shows - and this is confirmed by multiple internal sources that I've had lunch with on various occassions…

the Original Macan EV was going to be a "single" ECU vehicle (making the software easier on soooo many levels) - between concept, prototype, reality the new Macan EV that is shipping has 20+ separate ECU's - it's a much more traditional vehicle in terms of "electronics" architecture … almost indistinguishable from an ICE Macan…the reason? organizational infighting, shared platform with Audi/VW, and the software for the single ECU design wasn't ready and couldn't be made ready…so the Macan EV software shares very little with the Q6 - we have mulitple ECUs/Main comptuers, and that makes any software update "harder/impossible" and OTA updates in the field that might brick the vehicle while it drains the 12V battery is not something anyone wants to touch with a 10-foot pole…

it's a complex organization problem - and the organization is not optimized for a common software platform - they are in fact incentivized to remain independent from one another to reduce logistical dependences and avoid project delays x-organization…

it's a very complex problem and goes against decades of established corporate culture and and the skills they require have weak internal support and are not core-competencies - and the organization is consumed and running flat out just to stay afloat and relevant in their historical markets…

so as one example - we have at least 3 versions of a user experience in Porsche vehicles for disabling various "nannies" mandated by EU 2025 vehicle regulations…because there are separate teams shipping separate vehicle's that each had to address the requirements with their own resources/staff…or possiblity outside contractors in the supply chain which makes it even harder…

another example - the Taycan gen1, gen2 and Macan EV all have different charging user-expereince for setting battery schedule, SOC, min, and max etc…3 separate projects, 3 separate teams, 3 separate charging experiences…

I don't see this improving any time soon…it's not a core competency for Porsche.

 

[tigerbalm]

I'm told - when one VP showed another VP how their were doing it - the other VP said wow that's soo much better - we should do it that way also…but that will take until until 2026/2027 to get the software into their organziation…_IF_ they decide to pursue it - which is a big if…

I'm guessing this is the physical "ASSIST" button on the new GT3 that pops up a dedicated modal dialog that allows you to tap on/off each feature – as opposed to having it buried deep in "settings" menus?

Sponsored