General Motors told investors it expects deferred software and services revenue to reach about $7.5 billion by the end of 2026, a figure management said is up nearly 40% from 2025. That disclosure, made during GM’s Q4 2025 earnings call, helps explain why some automakers are pushing back on deeper Apple CarPlay and Google Android Auto integration: ceding the dashboard can mean ceding recurring software-and-services revenue. With Apple now rolling out CarPlay Ultra, a version designed to take over every screen in the cockpit, the financial stakes for carmakers have never been higher.
Why Apple’s Latest CarPlay Push Alarmed Automakers
Apple’s CarPlay has been a fixture in new cars for years, but the company’s ambitions have grown well beyond mirroring a phone screen. CarPlay Ultra, the next generation of the platform, extends Apple’s software across all driver screens, including the instrument cluster that displays speed, navigation, and vehicle diagnostics. Apple describes the system as offering a customized look and feel for each automaker, and says it can extend across driver screens; in practice, that would put more of the in-cabin interface under Apple’s design language, potentially including areas that surface vehicle information such as climate and EV-related data, depending on how an automaker implements it.
That expansion is precisely what has triggered resistance. When CarPlay was limited to the center infotainment display, automakers could still own the instrument cluster and the data flowing through it. CarPlay Ultra changes the equation by reaching into the core driving interface, the area where automakers have historically maintained full control over what information appears and how it is presented. For companies building subscription services around navigation, driver coaching, and vehicle health monitoring, letting Apple occupy that real estate threatens to cut them out of the customer relationship entirely and to reduce their ability to promote their own paid features inside the car.
GM’s Billion-Dollar Software Bet
No automaker has been more explicit about the financial opportunity at stake than General Motors. In its long-range plan, GM projected annual software and services revenue of $20 billion to $25 billion by 2030, generated from approximately 30 million connected vehicles. The company has framed its software platforms as tools for margin expansion, not just customer convenience. High-margin subscription revenue from features like its hands-free driving systems, safety and connectivity bundles, and in-car entertainment could reshape GM’s profit structure in ways that traditional vehicle sales alone cannot, especially as hardware margins come under pressure.
The near-term trajectory is already steep. During GM’s Q4 2025 earnings call, management disclosed that the company expects deferred revenue from software and services to reach about $7.5 billion by the end of 2026, up nearly 40% from 2025. Deferred revenue in this context represents money already committed by customers for services that will be recognized over time, a strong signal that GM’s subscription model is gaining traction. Handing the dashboard to Apple or Google would directly threaten that pipeline, because drivers who rely on CarPlay for navigation and media have little reason to pay GM for overlapping features, and the automaker loses a prime channel to market additional paid upgrades over the life of the vehicle.
The Control-and-Revenue Conflict Behind the Pushback
The resistance extends beyond Detroit. As the Financial Times has reported, some major automakers are publicly pushing back against Apple’s deeper cockpit integration, framing the dispute as a fight over data control, in-car services, and brand differentiation. The concern is not simply aesthetic. Automakers argue that when Apple or Google becomes the primary software layer in the car, it can shift control over user data and service relationships toward the tech platforms. That data feeds advertising and services ecosystems that benefit Silicon Valley, not the automaker that built the vehicle, and it can inform new offerings that compete directly with the carmaker’s own paid services.
Differentiation is the other pressure point. If CarPlay Ultra (or similar platforms) becomes the dominant interface across brands, automakers worry the in-cabin experience could start to feel more standardized. In that scenario, two very different brands could end up presenting the same maps, media controls, and visual language to drivers. For premium brands that charge thousands of dollars more for their interiors, that sameness erodes one of their strongest selling arguments. The financial math is straightforward: automakers that let tech platforms own the screen lose both the data that powers future services and the brand distinction that supports pricing power, making it harder to justify premium trims or exclusive digital features that are supposed to set their vehicles apart.
What Drivers Actually Lose in This Fight
For the people who buy and drive these cars, the industry tug-of-war creates a real tension between convenience and capability. CarPlay and Android Auto became popular because they work: they offer fast voice assistants, familiar apps, and navigation systems that are updated continuously on the phone. Drivers often trust Apple Maps or Google Maps more than most factory navigation systems, and streaming apps integrate seamlessly through phone-based platforms. Removing or limiting those tools in favor of proprietary automaker software risks frustrating customers who have come to expect a phone-like experience behind the wheel and who may see the absence of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when choosing their next car.
At the same time, automakers argue that their own systems can do things CarPlay cannot. Vehicle-specific features like battery preconditioning in electric cars, advanced driver-assistance settings, and real-time tire pressure monitoring require deep integration with the car’s hardware and safety systems. An Apple overlay sitting on top of the instrument cluster could obscure or complicate access to those functions, or force drivers to jump between Apple and automaker menus to accomplish routine tasks. The risk for drivers is a fragmented experience: one set of apps controlled by Apple, another controlled by the automaker, and no clean way to unify them. Automakers betting on proprietary platforms will need to prove their software is genuinely better, not just a tollbooth for subscriptions, if they want drivers to accept the loss of familiar phone mirroring.
An Industry Crossroads Worth Billions
The scale of the financial opportunity explains why this conflict will intensify rather than fade. GM alone is targeting $20 billion to $25 billion in annual software and services revenue by 2030, according to its investor disclosures. If even a fraction of that figure applies across the broader auto industry, the collective revenue pool that automakers are defending runs well into the tens of billions. That is the context behind the headline claim: even a single automaker’s software-and-services ambitions can run into the tens of billions over time, creating a strong incentive to keep Apple and Google from becoming the default operating system of the automobile and to ensure that recurring payments for connectivity and digital features flow through automakers’ own platforms instead.
Whether that strategy succeeds will depend on execution. If automakers deliver fast, reliable, and intuitive software that meaningfully improves the driving experience, they can justify asking customers to pay directly for those services and to accept a more limited role for Apple and Google on the dashboard. If they fall short, drivers may gravitate toward brands that continue to embrace CarPlay and Android Auto, forcing reluctant manufacturers to reopen the door to big tech. For now, the industry is at a crossroads: GM’s rising deferred software revenue shows what is at stake financially, while Apple’s push with CarPlay Ultra underscores how quickly control of the cockpit could slip away from traditional car companies if they cannot make their own software compelling enough to stand on its own.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
