Apple Announces Porsche Support For iPhone Car Keys

[m8rks]

Regret not spec-ing comfort access now… ?

Sponsored

 

[chaz]

Speaking of Car Key https://www.macrumors.com/2025/07/14/apple-testing-digital-key-version-4/

 

[seabird]

My point is we DO NOT KNOW what Apple requires.

We DO know what Apple requires. There are cars on the market, today, with support for this feature. Those features are set by an industry trade group that includes Apple and multiple vehicle manufacturers (Porsche included), utilizing hardware that actually exists for purchase. CarKey is a feature designed to be adopted by that industry. There is zero benefit to Apple to build an incompatible standard instead of working within that framework, which, again, they helped create in the first place.

Random conspiracy theories about hypothetical secret requirements without a shred of evidence is just pointless fanfiction.

 

[JonoNZ]

Yep, we definitely know what Apple requires. The BMW iX has had full support for Apple CarKey since it's launch in 2022.

 

[Dragon Tourniquet]

We DO know what Apple requires. There are cars on the market, today, with support for this feature. Those features are set by an industry trade group that includes Apple and multiple vehicle manufacturers (Porsche included), utilizing hardware that actually exists for purchase. CarKey is a feature designed to be adopted by that industry. There is zero benefit to Apple to build an incompatible standard instead of working within that framework, which, again, they helped create in the first place.

Yep, we definitely know what Apple requires. The BMW iX has had full support for Apple CarKey since it's launch in 2022.

The fact that there are cars on the market using the technology does not mean all potential hardware that would meet the requirements of the CCC also meet the requirements of Apple's MFi program (which is required to put a car key into Apple Wallet, unless you can find a way to bypass the iOS software entitlement system). We don't know if there are extra requirements in the MFi agreement, be they hardware, certification, or software (and if we do know, we can't discuss them because of the required NDA with Apple). It just means that the cars that have the functionality meet the CCC standard and potentially other requirements that may or may not exist.

I really do hope there aren't extra requirements, because I want the funcionality added to my car. My point is SOLELY that we don't know if it is contractually possible for Porsche to add the functionality to vehicles that are already delivered or even produced. Stating otherwise is being intentionally ignorant of how contracts work.

Random conspiracy theories about hypothetical secret requirements without a shred of evidence is just pointless fanfiction.

Conspiracy theory or not, speculation is the only option when Apple won't release their MFi agreement for public discourse (and getting the agreement itself requires being under an NDA). Also, the CCC Digital Key Specification is actually considered confidential and publicly discussing what is in it is breaking the term of use to download it (see item 4 in the TOU).

Apple being part of creating the standard means literally nothing in terms of how Apple decides to do things. They've created or popularized prior standards then tacked on extra requirements for using it with their products in the past (popularized USB before it otherwise took off by dropping all other ports from the iMac, then added the extra requirement of MFi certification to effectively use it with iPhones & iPads when they switched from Lightning), and have also been petty to the point of changing low level plans when a company does something to displease them (they were ready to announce a move to ZFS until Sun/Oracle announced it before Apple was ready, so they scrapped it and started over to create APFS).

 

[seabird]

The fact that there are cars on the market using the technology does not mean all potential hardware that would meet the requirements of the CCC also meet the requirements of Apple's MFi program (which is required to put a car key into Apple Wallet, unless you can find a way to bypass the iOS software entitlement system).

You do not need to be part of the MFi program for CarKey.

It just means that the cars that have the functionality meet the CCC standard

Which is the entirety of the hardware requirements for CarKey. Apple has not been cagey about this. You keep referring to secrecy around business agreements, none of which has anything to do with this. You're talking in complete circles for absolutely no reason. Apple and Porsche could enter into a contract tomorrow agreeing never to sell anything to Dragon Tourniquet. Is it worth pumping out paragraph after paragraph of nonsense theorizing that they will? No.

CarKey is an implementation designed to enable digital keys on cars that meet the CCC standard for all global automakers. The whole point is to make those requirements clear, which Apple and CCC have done. Your "but Apple could secretly sabotage everything!" claims continue to have zero basis in reality.

 

[Dragon Tourniquet]

You do not need to be part of the MFi program for CarKey.

OK, cool, so you didn't bother clicking through the links in one of my earlier replies, where I specifically linked to Apple's docs which show it requires a specific entitlement to use Apple CarKey on iOS, and getting that entitlement requires being in the MFi program.

Which is the entirety of the hardware requirements for CarKey. Apple has not been cagey about this. You keep referring to secrecy around business agreements, none of which has anything to do with this. You're talking in complete circles for absolutely no reason. Apple and Porsche could enter into a contract tomorrow agreeing never to sell anything to Dragon Tourniquet. Is it worth pumping out paragraph after paragraph of nonsense theorizing that they will? No.

CarKey is an implementation designed to enable digital keys on cars that meet the CCC standard for all global automakers. The whole point is to make those requirements clear, which Apple and CCC have done. Your "but Apple could secretly sabotage everything!" claims continue to have zero basis in reality.

They may not consider it sabotage, just money extraction. Let's assume they don't require specifically Apple certified hardware purchased from an Apple certified supplier (required for HomeKit locks, including the new UWB locks), and they just require a fee for vehicle sold that will be allowed to use the system (required for TouchPass enabled access control systems), do you think Porsche is going to want to pay the fee for models already sold that didn't have the fee included? How would they write that off as part of cost of goods sold, when the cost is incurred after the sale happened?

 

[seabird]

OK, cool, so you didn't bother clicking through the links in one of my earlier replies, where I specifically linked to Apple's docs which show it requires a specific entitlement to use Apple CarKey on iOS, and getting that entitlement requires being in the MFi program.

Setting aside the hilarity that those links were shared earlier in the thread by me, the MFi requirement of yours is just as fictional as everything else you're inventing.

Straight from the "Who does not need to join" section of the MFi program website:

• "Developers and manufacturers of accessories that connect to an Apple device using only Bluetooth Low Energy, Core Bluetooth, or standard Bluetooth profiles supported by iOS. Learn more about Bluetooth.
• Developers of contactless keys, badges, and student IDs deployed through the Apple Wallet Access Program."

They may not consider it sabotage, just money extraction. Let's assume they don't require specifically Apple certified hardware purchased from an Apple certified supplier (required for HomeKit locks, including the new UWB locks), and they just require a fee for vehicle sold that will be allowed to use the system (required for TouchPass enabled access control systems), do you think Porsche is going to want to pay the fee for models already sold that didn't have the fee included? How would they write that off as part of cost of goods sold, when the cost is incurred after the sale happened?

More hallucinatory fanfiction. There is no point to this. You're just making shit up for no reason. Apple does not require special hardware for implementing features. Apple does not require their own certification of suppliers for third parties that have already obtained the service-required certification. Apple does not charge fees for Wallet transactions. Apple's contactless payment and badging infrastructure is not proprietary. Its participation in CCC is not an illusion.

The entire point of Apple Wallet is to make the device useful to vendors and servicers so that people buy iPhones. As an extension of making Wallet more compelling for customers, they've added the ability to use transit passes, corporate badges, hotel key, and car keys. None of these services has secret Apple requirements. CarKey is 100% compatible with CCC compliant hardware. End of story.

 

[Dragon Tourniquet]

From the first link in the reply I linked:

Your app must have the com.apple.developer.carkey.session entitlement to use this framework. To request the entitlement, you must be an automaker enrolled in the MFi Program. For details, see https://developer.apple.com/mfi/.​

 

[Dragon Tourniquet]

To your other points:

Apple does not require their own certification of suppliers for third parties that have already obtained the service-required certification.

They dropped the requirement to use hardware based keys with other HomeKit devices several years ago, but getting a device MFi certified so it can be added to HomeKit without warnings to the end user still requires it to sue certified chips for locks.

Apple does not charge fees for Wallet transactions.

You are correct that they don't charge fees for all Wallet transactions, but they do for Apple Pay. The issuing bank pays them 15 basis points (0.15%) of the charge, with that money coming from the CC processing fees (specifically from the amount that goes from the merchant through to the issuing bank). That's specifically why a lot of smaller banks don't participate. Credit card fees are fun. I've worked in that space for 12 years.

You are also correct that their NFC stuff isn't proprietary and is standards conforming, but its use in iOS is restricted based on the entitlement system in iOS. That's also why companies outside of the EU and Australia can't do NFC payment cards outside of Apple Wallet (and thus avoid the fee).

Its participation in CCC is not an illusion.

Not saying it is, but that doesn't mean they can't also extract money from that system (just like they do with issuing banks for credit cards in Apple Pay).

 

[tmrqs]

 

[seabird]

From the first link in the reply I linked:

Your app must have the com.apple.developer.carkey.session entitlement to use this framework. To request the entitlement, you must be an automaker enrolled in the MFi Program. For details, see https://developer.apple.com/mfi/.​

...which takes you to the exact page with superseding information that says MFi is not required for all use cases and providing alternative means of access to that entitlement.

You will find no cars listed on the MFi program database. You will find no car advertising an MFi accessory label. And most importantly, you will find no secret hardware requirements for CarKey in the MFi agreement, either.

They dropped the requirement to use hardware based keys with other HomeKit devices several years ago, but getting a device MFi certified so it can be added to HomeKit without warnings to the end user still requires it to sue certified chips for locks.

HomeKit is a perfect example of why your theories are completely fictional. Apple is a founding member of the Matter alliance and devices that are Matter certified by CSA do not require separate certification or testing for HomeKit. This works exactly the same way that CCC standard hardware does for CarKey.

There are no secret Apple-only hardware requirements in either case, and it is really getting old that you keep bringing this up without a single shred of evidence.

 

[PrudentOcean]

Sponsored