Years in the making, the U.S. auto industry may have passed an important tipping

point in April: the point at which automakers began wresting control of the technology future of their industry from the limping digital juggernaut known as Big Tech.

Consider two developments alone as being illustrative, if not determinative, of the industry’s new status: Ford’s unveiling of its new Michigan Central digital-tech campus in a long-neglected part of Detroit, and General Motors’ decision to exclude Apple CarPlay in its new electric vehicles.

Both things put down new markers in the ongoing struggle for dominance of the electronic portion that, of course, represents a bigger and bigger share of the true value added to vehicles. It’s a battle that has been taking shape over at least the last decade, and has seen swings to and fro. But it appears as though not just the Detroit Three but the automotive industry in general has made two big decisions about its future.

The first strategic determination — that the future of locomotion will be electric — has been obvious for a while.

But the second — that auto companies want to shape their own, proprietary approaches to the digital essence of their vehicles, rather than farm out the chore to Silicon Valley — is only now coming into view.

The recent moves by GM and Ford underscore this reality. GM said it will join Tesla and Rivian in not including Apple CarPlay in future EVs, hoping to build their own new revenue streams by selling subscriptions through infotainment centers in GM models.

This is a significant but existentially necessary about-face for the company. Just several years ago, GM joined most other automakers in welcoming CarPlay and Android Auto into its vehicles because of the familiarity and ease of use for consumers of dealing with those well known smartphone interfaces compared with GM’s pioneering OnStar and other attempts in that space. In 2015, GM CEO Mary Barra said that partnering with Apple and Google on this score “is a great example of how Chevrolet continues to democratize technology that’s important to our customers.”

Now, however, GM is undaunted in its changed point of view. “We understand there is a high familiarity with phone projection systems, but we are confident that as our EV customers become more familiar with [GM’s] purpose-built, integrated [infotainment] system, they will find it e3asy to use and reocgnize its many capabilities and benefits,” a GM spokeswoman said.

For its part, Ford’s reveal of its Michigan Central plans struck a blow for the company’s own determination not to cede the digital future entirely to Silicon Valley. This 30-acre center — in part, rehabbing and repurposing a once-iconic building that long ago served as the main inter-city rail depot for Detroit — will serve as the automaker’s cutting edge on development of mobility technologies, calling for the employment of thousands of digitally fluent workers who won’t just be writing code for the next video game or food-delivery app but helping to create the very future of automotive transportation.

And the symbolism couldn’t be more powerful: To put together Michigan Central, Ford — which is headquartered just several miles up Michigan Avenue in suburban Dearborn — is investing about $1 billion in the overhaul of the nearly century-old, Albert Kahn designed, Art Deco landmark.

“We need to accelerate the development and deployment of critical technologies,” said David Belt, co-founder of Newlab, a tech-enterprise incubator on the site. “Michigan Central is building an unprecedented platform to make this possible.”

And it’s the type of place that will benefit handsomely from the inevitable shift of tech talent away from Silicon Valley, Hollywood and some East Coast redoubts, which are still laying off highly capable digital workers.

It makes increasing sense for automakers to attempt to recapture the binary codes in their vehicles, for a number of reasons. Consumers’ purchase decisions increasingly are based on what tech a vehicle can offer, across a range of areas, as previous differentiators such as manufacturing product quality have evened out. Automakers have invested in, maintain and grow huge workforces of thousands of people, engineers and designers and software developers alike, who are solely dedicated to leveraging digital technology in various ways to make their vehicles and brands stand out; why cede that territory to outsiders?

Indeed, as software becomes increasingly central to a vehicle’s value proposition, the notion of reserving an “Apple” space in a Cadillac or a Highlander seems as out of place today as the old “Intel on the inside” positioning would be in a modern PC. Today, the software is the car, and the car is the software. Why should Apple get to be what drivers identify with in any vehicle?

Compare these two decisions with the earlier determinations that GM and Ford made about their battery systems for EVs. GM CEO Mary Barra made the early decision for her company to develop its own battery architecture, called Ultium, which it controls even with partnerships to manufacture the batteries. And after former Ford CEO Jim Hackett proceeded with EV development on the basis of outsourcing battery design and manufacture to other companies, one of the first major things current CEO Jim Farley did was execute a 180-degree switch in strategy so that Ford will produce its own batteries.

Battery-based powertrains are crucial to the future of vehicles and their makers, and so are the infotainment-based software platforms within the autos. Both of these require each company’s own control of the real estate, unlike, say, co-branding of speaker systems with well known audio brands.

Meanwhile, Silicon Valley keeps folding in on itself because of a slowing economy, corporate hubris and the liberating effect of the relocation of digital work.

“This should embolden corporates; it’s a moment to take advantage of,” said Andrew Binns, founder of Change Logic and advisor to CEOs. “And there’s an opportunity for traditional midsize firms to take advantage too. But they have to be fast. Silicon Valley is in a moment of dislocation and disruption, but they’ve been through it before and have come back.”