Slashdot Mirror
Why Automakers Should Stop the Infotainment Arms Race
New submitter SomewhatRandom writes "Dailytech recently published an article titled 'Detroit Automakers Vie For App Devs Amid Infotainment Arms Race.' Unfortunately for auto manufacturers, they are in a poor position to complete with companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc... and they should give up the arms race and take a different direction. Mobile operating systems and their associated hardware have a rapid release cycle that significantly outpaces vehicle infotainment systems. Additionally, mobile OSs are developed by specialized companies that can spend dump trucks filled with money on their platform. I'm sorry Dodge, Toyota, Honda and all your friends; you simply can't compete."
SomewhatRandom continues,
"The in-house infotainment systems being brought to market by the automotive industry typically try to replicate a limited subset of features provided by a mobile operating system (ex: Android, iOS), while implementing a clunky interface that feels like a blast from the past. Replicating features that already exist in a consumer's device with a clunky interface does not offer any value to the end consumer.
Automakers should stop throwing money at developing a 'doomed to fail' in-house infotainment solution, and start catering to the consumer by developing a system that allows the consumer's mobile device of choice to control in-vehicle assets (speakers, in-dash touchscreen, noise-canceling microphone) directly.
Consumers would prefer to see a standards-based system that allows the interface of their existing mobile OS of choice duplicated or extended on an in-dash touchscreen, while having audio redirected from their device to the vehicle's speakers. Start focusing on technologies like Miracast and Bluetooth and how they can be used to augment a customer's mobile device, rather than replace it. Manufacturers that choose to adopt this focus not only provide better value to the end consumer, but also be able to reduce the size of their development budgets. Win-Win.
What are your thoughts? Am I crazy, or does it seem like the automotive industry has lost sight of what will best serve the consumer?"
"The in-house infotainment systems being brought to market by the automotive industry typically try to replicate a limited subset of features provided by a mobile operating system (ex: Android, iOS), while implementing a clunky interface that feels like a blast from the past. Replicating features that already exist in a consumer's device with a clunky interface does not offer any value to the end consumer.
Automakers should stop throwing money at developing a 'doomed to fail' in-house infotainment solution, and start catering to the consumer by developing a system that allows the consumer's mobile device of choice to control in-vehicle assets (speakers, in-dash touchscreen, noise-canceling microphone) directly.
Consumers would prefer to see a standards-based system that allows the interface of their existing mobile OS of choice duplicated or extended on an in-dash touchscreen, while having audio redirected from their device to the vehicle's speakers. Start focusing on technologies like Miracast and Bluetooth and how they can be used to augment a customer's mobile device, rather than replace it. Manufacturers that choose to adopt this focus not only provide better value to the end consumer, but also be able to reduce the size of their development budgets. Win-Win.
What are your thoughts? Am I crazy, or does it seem like the automotive industry has lost sight of what will best serve the consumer?"
Pioneer AppRadio looks ideal - basically mirrors your phone's screen on it's 7" display. You need to do a bit of hacking to unlock the full potential, but the basic idea is brilliant.
The only real down-side is that the FM radio side sucks. If you mainly listen to playlists on your phone though it isn't a big issue.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If you are going to build something like this into a car, it must be upgrade-able and replaceable. Cars are used well over 10 years, any computer system would be hopelessly obsolete in half that time.
Mobile operating systems and their associated hardware have a rapid release cycle that significantly outpaces vehicle infotainment systems.
Let's hope car companies don't learn to emulate this, Engine Control Units actually work reliably.
I'm sorry Dodge, Toyota, Honda and all your friends; you simply can't compete.
That's why Ford is going to be laughing all the way to the bank - their 2014 Ford Focus will be the first car to include both MySpace and AltaVista integration via an exclusive agreement with CompuServe.
Or maybe you should be driving instead of playing with infotainment systems.
... can we stop using that word? I don't know if it's the same for anyone else, but whenever I hear that word it sounds like something between the word "synergy" and an ice pick stabbed into my ear.
Theres definitely a difference between a rapid cycle throwaway crap vs I need this to work flawlessly for next 10 years stuff. Recently had the chance to troubleshoot an unconnect system which conked out, on the new jeeps and realized would gladly take an outdated stable interface vs bleeding edge stuff, especially when the only way to turn on a/c and controls is thru interface. Need beats fancy shit any day especially on 102F days :)
You change cars so much more often than desktop computers? Are you implying that desktop computer component builders should stop their line of work, because they can't compete with Microsoft, Apple, Google?
Maybe your phone's software is tied to your phone, but that's your problem not the new status quo.
And even if you planned to keep the same car for a decade, which may render the hardware obsolete, haven't you ever changed a part of your car?
Automakers could put in computers for passenger/driver use in cars and then also sell upgrades for those computers.
The driver doesn't need that many distractions. A radio is fine. Hooking up to your playlists is fine. Anything beyond that isn't.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Yes, there is nothing us app developers hate more than a stable, long-term OS that isn't constantly being upgraded to some new damn dessert. Must really suck to develop for a platform that not only has completely standardized hardware, but on has the same set of features for years.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
All I want from an in car system is:
1. FM and/or DAB radio.
2. Bluetooth interface
3. Steering wheel controls with actual buttons for the most used radio and whateverplayer functions - i.e. volume, previous track, next track, previous station, next station. Less used controls on the front panel of the radio but still physical buttons. Not a touch screen.
4. USB power points.
I don't want a CD player, MP3 player, satnav or anything else. They will be hopelessly outdated in no time and touch screens are quite frankly awful for use in a car, and satnav updates for built-in car systems are generally expensive - compared to TomTom on my iPhone which gets updated automatically. Passengers can bring their own tablet if they want to watch videos in the back seat.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
They should go back to DIN hole, ISO connector, and keep the buttons for the AC and other non-stereo things separate.
My car was built in 1991. When I enter, my phone connects to the radio via bluetooth, and when I receive a call, I press the accept call button on the radio, and get the sound over the original speakers. But bluetooth didn't exist in 1991, cell phones hardly existed back then. You see, my car has just that: A DIN hole, and a regular connector that becomes an ISO connector with the help of a cheap adaptor. Old radio out, disconnect cables, connect new radio, insert into hole. Done.
And everything else still works, because that was just the radio, not the integrated kitchen sink that is both a radio (analogue, of course, which won't last another ten years), and the controls for the car itself, as is often found on modern cars.
1. Electric motors have maximum torque at zero rpm
2. IC engines have peak torque at some 3000 rpm
But till Tesla came out with a car using electric motors to beat the big "performance" car makers BMW, Porche, Jaguar and Benz, they kept messing with making the IC engines more and more powerful, with more and more complicated transmissions, in their acceleration pissing contest called 0 to 60 time. They have seen diesel - electric locomotives completely dispensing with transmissions, and using pure electric motors to produce oodles of torque needed to get a a mile long freight train moving. They should have added a small 10 or 20 HP electric motor to their high end cars, to go from 0mph to 5 or 7 mph in 0.5 sec and go fro 7 to 60 in 2 sec flat with their enormous 8 cyl, 12 cyl engines producing 300 to 500 HP. They could have done it 25 or 30 years ago. The technology needed to do it existed then. I am not talking about super efficient hybrid or regenerative braking or any such thing. I am talking about the pissing contest all these car companies took to heart and fought hard, and where there was big prize money awaiting the winner. Still not a single one of them thought of using a small electric motor to supplement their IC engines. But no, they were set in their ways till they were forced it eat the dust of Tesla with a liberal helping of crow.
When it comes to electronics, they think they will make big profits here by the "walled garden" approach. All companies pack their GPS in bundles and try to charge 500$ to 1900$ to get the GPS. Then they want 100 to 200$ to upgrade the maps. Hello! Google maps and spoken driving directions are free. They think they are going to make money of these things?
It is not just the auto makers who lack imagination and innovation. The whole industry reeks of anti-competitive behavior and following the rut. The dealers are lobbying to prevent Tesla from selling the cars directly to the customers.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I drive a 2013 Ram 1500, and it has a relatively large LCD screen with an 'infotainment' system. I see no reason why it would ever need to be updated. It basically serves the following functions: Radio, Media (usb, aux, etc.), Phone, Navigation, Climate Control, and Settings. There is an 'app store' but it is useless to me and there really isn't much there anyway. Since all of the existing functionality already works, and they provide all of the features I need, where is the need for an upgrade? If there was a bug in the system, I could see where an upgrade would help. But from a pure functionality perspective, it isn't necessary.
First of all, on ANY platform I DETEST rapid release and continuous improvement. What I want is MEANINGFUL releases of MAJOR changes in a cohesive, well tested release. I hate crap apps on my Android phone or Java run-time constantly f*ing looking to be updated for little changes. I especially ABHOR continual rearrangements of the interface (which Chase banking is constantly messing with)! All of this coming to my automobile. There are enough distractions on the road already!
To that end I am glad to hear about NY's increased penalties for texting while driving.
But what has me scratching my head is the wording, which says:
- -
What are the laws on cell phone use, texting or sending email while you operate a vehicle in NYS?
Under New York State law you cannot use a hand-held mobile telephone or send a text or an email while you drive. If you use a hand-held mobile telephone while you drive, except to call 911 or to contact medical, fire or police personnel about an emergency, or use a device to text or send email, you can receive a traffic ticket and pay a maximum fine of $100 and mandatory surcharges and fees of up to $85.
In 2013, several changes are being made to the penalties for these violations as described below.
Increased Driver Violation Points
- -
By my reading, this says you can't even use your cell phone to play music through bluetooth or use google maps navigation. Or does "use a hand-held mobile telephone" mean "make a phone call". I suppose it may depend on the mood of the cop who pulls you over?
What do you think?
And please add to my list of obnoxious continual improvement software iTunes!
It's cheaper.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
you have to be using it in your hands. my iphone hooks into my car via a USB port and plays music. the steering wheel controls can control the device.
and by NY State law its also illegal to use your phone while at a red light. you have to pull over and park to use it without a hands free device
Perhaps drivers should be watching the road rather than 'infotainment' devices?
Exactly. This is why you need buttons that provide tactile feedback, rather than a touch screen.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
at WWDC Apple had a quick preview of some car systems running iOS that will integrate with iphones using Siri and whatever else. Honda will have this on their 2014 models
So are cars without airbags or seatbelts but we don't let car companies sell those.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I'm sorry Dodge, Toyota, Honda and all your friends; you simply can't compete.
I think perhaps they can.
In 2010, Toyota employed 325,905 people worldwide, and was the third-largest automobile manufacturer in 2011 by production behind General Motors and Volkswagen Group. Toyota is the eleventh-largest company in the world by revenue. In July 2012, the company reported it had manufactured its 200-millionth vehicle.
On May 8, 2013, Toyota Motor Corporation announced its financial results for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013. Net revenues totaled 22.0 trillion yen (US$ 216.7 billion, +18.7%). Operating income was 1.32 trillion yen (US $13 billion, +371%), net income 962.1 billion yen (US$9.47 billion, +339%).
Toyota
I worked in software development for OnStar. Posting as AC.
The short answer is - the article is very accurate. Development processes are horrifying, and the corporate mindset there (trying to patent parts of Agile) is absolutely ludicrous.
What they SHOULD do - make their systems and accessories easily available to third parties via a common and well-documented interface - is exactly what they WON'T do, because there's money in it. OnStar makes an OBSCENE amount of money for what it actually provides to the customer, for example, and any threat to that would make the difference between the organization being profitable and losing money.
When I found out my new Toyota had bluetooth that linked to the cars speakers I was happy because I could get rid of that uncomfortable headset and there were even some nice buttons on the steering wheel, so I didn't have to take my hands off the wheel. The cheap headset could connect to multiple phones and would automatically bring up the voice activated menu on each phone. Surely my brand new car bluetooth will function the same way, right? Wrong. It can only connect one phone at a time and cannot work with the phone's menu. No dial by name, no caller ID, no nothing. In order to make a call, I would have to go into the phone, look up a number and hit call. That's just as dangerous as texting.
Why did they waste the time and money developing and installing this? Concentrate on making cars. Make the cars more fuel efficient. Make the cars safer. They shouldn't be an extension of your phone or TV or the internet with wheels.
Focus, auto-industry, focus. (I almost said Detroit, but who are we kidding?)
Not everyone has the same mobile devices and not everyone wants the same level of connectivity to their car. Just have a way of connecting the device to the audio/video in the car and let the device do the work.
See a gap more than 10 car lengths? You pass and nip in there. There's still 4 car lengths left!
Except now there isn't enough distance for safe driving now, and if you find yourself braking hard, you will now be rear-ended by someone whose fault this was not.
Using different computers for braking and GPS isn't going to make the car any safer, and it's not going to save any lives in a collision.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
>> Am I crazy, or does it seem like the automotive industry has lost sight of what will best serve the consumer?
The automotive industry has lost sight of what will best serve the consumer.
If you typed that in, and read it out loud, and kept a straight face..
They cannot lose something they never had.
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
Would the submitter please stop trying to speak for all consumers or even the majority of them? If you are excited about Miracast then you are obviously out of touch with the average person.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
To me the simplest and most straightforward solution is enabling a phone's touch interface to be extended to the larger dash screen. This could happen wirelessly or via wired connector (USB or HDMI).
This puts the phone's features on the larger dash screen where they are presumably easier to interact with. For safety reasons, you could consider a restriction that prevents use of text and video apps display while the vehicle is in motion (but still make it easy to short that wire to ground for those of us who don't want to be limited like this).
To make this work, iOS and Android would both have to support touch interfaces external to their device as well as better external display formatting (ie, not just the rectangular phone screen, but matching the aspect/size of the car display). Ideally there would also be some kind of standard that would support tactile physical buttons mappable to touch functions.
At this point, the car maker only needs to provide basic infotainment controls for the car radio and amplifier and climate controls.
which probably cost less than a $100 to manufacture.
Too much margin in it for them to return to standard DIN and integration options.
Area51 - We are watching...
In-car apps just plain suck. Please spare us the horror, Ford, and just give us a good flexible tablet dock in the middle of the console.
Buy a TomTom, or Garmin, or Magellan nav system. Clean, easy to use, minimalist while providing the information you need to drive (and usually the option to add lots more layers of info for non-driving use, if you really want it).
Now compare that to any in-dash OEM GPS (not simply one licensed from the big three mentioned above). Oh, sure, they'll show your car moving on a map, but good luck doing something as advanced and obscure as, say, entering an address you want to go to, without taking the six-hour prep course and clicking through three or more "You must not use this while driving! You agree to not hold Chrysler responsible if you die in a horrible fiery wreck because the GPS lied to you! You will go to church this Sunday!" warning/disclaimer screens.
And don't even get me started on the actual "entertainment" part of their crapware. A $50 standalone DVD player blows the pants off the crap Detroit seems to think we want. Really, why shouldn't I have a 10-band equalizer on the steering wheel, but it makes me visually navigate a touch-menu to change the radio station?
/ Warning for the just-plain-impaired: This post may contain hyperbole and traces of nuts.
What I want is MEANINGFUL releases of MAJOR changes in a cohesive, well tested release.
That's called engineering. Sorry, but there's no money in that. What you want is agile development that can turn in an instant to follow the latest trend. If you want reliability, get a horse.
Really, using a different computer for GPS and playing music from the one that controls braking will not make the car safer? You really think that it is a good idea to have the computer that controls the braking accessible to be updated over wireless? Because there is certainly demand that the computer that runs GPS be update-able using wireless. I am really opposed to the idea that the computer that that controls braking and acceleration be accessible via wireless.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Because they're all integrated. Your car's radar can detect that the vehicle in front of you has suddenly hit the brakes, it can sound an alarm and blink a light on the windshield warning you of a road hazard immediately ahead, the engine telemetry can talk to your ABS braking systems telling them that the car is still moving even though the brakes have locked up, your crash sensors can detect an accident, your seat belt pre-tensioners and airbag deployment systems help protect the cabin occupants in case of an accident, your entertainment system can tell your cell phone to call a number, and your telemetry system records the events. Tying them all together permits your car to help you avoid accidents, protect you in case of an impact, call an emergency services number in the event of a crash, and can even help prove to a court that you were traveling only 5 MPH and had applied the brakes two seconds before you were struck.
There are safety designs in place. The different systems tie to the CAN bus through a fairly simple and robust chip that implements the protocols, which helps insulate and isolate a faulty device from overrunning the bus. There are often multiple CAN buses in a car, with engine management and safety being isolated from cabin entertainment systems. The CAN bus protocol has a priority mechanism, where lower numbered devices take priority over higher number devices - safety systems, such as ABS, crash detection and airbag deployment, are the lowest numbers, security systems like door locks have higher numbers, and the whiz-bang gadgetry of your stereo has the highest numbers.
Furthermore, your ABS system is an active driver assistance system, but it's not your means of braking. If it fails, the hydraulics still connect your brake pedals to your wheels, and you can still maintain control of the car. The airbags are just one component of an overall safety package, so if they fail, the seat belt pre-tensioners might still work. Even if the pre-tensioners also fail, the seat belts themselves still offer protection. The steering wheel is designed to collapse in the event you hit it with your body. The body is designed with crumple zones to absorb impacts.
What they've done is to combine these pieces that have known failure rates of one per tens or hundreds of millions of miles driven, and used them to protect you in the case of a serious accident, which they know happens once per hundred thousand miles driven. The chances of the systems working together to keep you safer are much higher than the chances that they'll all fail at the moment you need them the most.
John
Your tablet/phone, with tiny ass buttons designed to be used when you're focused exclusively on the tablet is an absolutely shitty device to use in a car. They are in fact a danger to you and everyone else on the road.
Car 'infotainment' (god I hate that word) devices are designed to be dealt with at a glance, without focusing on the device exclusively. No matter how clunky you think Honda's interface is ... its 10 billion times better than your tablet interface after you plow into a tree because you couldn't hit the button without looking directly at the screen and precisesly hitting the right spot.
iPad/Android app developers in general have NO CLUE how to deal with the ergonomics of cars.
WHY do you NEED in car apps. You are supposed to be getting from one place to another. A GPS, some audio and a few other minor things are the only apps you actually should have access to in your car. You should not be able to run any random app just because you're too stupid to realize how dangerous what you are doing is.
I could ramble on for hours about why tablets as carputers are a bad idea.
Just because you think the car makers don't know what they are doing, doesn't make it true. Its your own ignorance thats the problem.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
So much easier to use and allow you to keep your eyes on the road. If a knob breaks, not much cost to replace. If a touch screen screws up... re-mortgage the house.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
The law likes to find an easy solution by claiming "you're always at fault for rear-ending a vehicle in front of you". That doesn't make it "right" or "just".
For example, the person who suddenly brakes when there's no good reason to do so, simply in the hopes of making a car behind them bump them? That happened all the time where I used to live, when someone wanted to commit some insurance fraud. (Already have some rear-end damage that you couldn't get covered? Just cause another accident that you can force the other guy to pay out on, and get it all fixed free.)
Not all vehicles have identically stopping distances either.... A lot depends on the tires, weight of the vehicle in question, etc. So even an alert driver can't always guarantee he or she can avoid rear-ending a car that unexpectedly does a panic stop.
Sorry, I understand your explanation of how those systems tie together to improve safety. However, my phone is not part of the car system, why should my GPS and music player be part of that system?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's not. the article writer has zero clue as to what they are talking about.
The "infotainment" system is the simplest system in your car. They just hype it to try and justify the $3500 additional cost to the car price.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
However, my phone is not part of the car system, why should my GPS and music player be part of that system?
In my car, the stereo system connects to the phone via Bluetooth. There is no other independent wireless communication system available to the car. At startup, after connecting to my phone, the display announces "911 Assist enabled". My stereo needs to know when the airbags have been deployed so it can call 911 on my behalf. Thus they need to be connected.
In your car, there may be a more subtle reason. Perhaps a phone interface is an option it didn't come with, but it is pre-wired to support it. Maybe the gas gauge is tied to the nav system to highlight gas stations when you have less than 1/8 tank of fuel remaining. Maybe the nav system feeds the vehicle data recorder. Maybe your car has warning sounds that play through the audio system. Or maybe the volume control is tied to the speedometer to keep the music level appropriate for the road noise.
I don't know what your particular car does or is capable of. But there could be a dozen obscure reasons the car could want to talk to the satnav or audio systems.
John
Yes, they try to gouge us on these toys. No, it's far from the simplest system in any vehicle.
Just another day in Paradise
Yes it is. the ECM and BCM are the most complex system, then the Safety restraint system the Infotainment system is the last and threfore the simplest.
I know I have worked on all this stuff. The car stereo is the simplest part, it is nothing more than a freaking UI to the canbus.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Auto manufacturers have had decades to standardize controls like windshield wipers and they haven't managed it. They're different in each brand of car, causing drivers to stare at the stick trying to figure out if an up arrow means lift up, twist a knob up, or push the stick towards the dash. They haven't standardized radio controls, AC controls, or anything else other than pedals and turn signals. Even trying to adjust the seat in an unfamiliar car is a pain. A handle that tilts the seatback in one car will actually lift or lower the entire seat in another. The chances of something complex like computer interfaces being standardized is a pipe dream.
I can think of lots of reasons for the car computer to talk to the satnav or audio systems. However, why does the satnav or audio system need to be able to talk to the car computer?
I did look over your list of reasons for the car computer to talk to the satnav or audio systems and NONE of them are safety related. The closest approximation was that the stereo system used its bluetooth connection to your phone to call 911 when the airbags deployed. However, as I noted before, the phone is not an integral part of the car computer system, why does the stereo have to be (which is what we are discussing).
The topic of discussion is why car companies are attempting to create GPS/audio/other information/other entertainment systems that are integral parts of the car rather than components using a standard interface which can be swapped out with third party components when the car owner so chooses. None of your explanations give an answer that supports the direction the car companies are moving.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
you have to be using it in your hands
Yes, that's my point. We actually have a car that can control the old i-things through the car stereo (a Hyundai Sonata). However, with a slashdot ID of 15368, I need to use the linux-based Android devices you insensitive clod!
But seriously, I believe the new i-things don't work with the car controls since the lightning connector doesn't support the telnet/ssh access that the old connector allowed, even with an adaptor. And furthermore, I think even if you had such a car and an old i-thing, most people still just prefer to point and click the i-thing.
...not an entertainment system. Wait, scratch that, it's one of the best entertainment systems available. Right after a plane, a hang glider, and a few water-craft. Certainly not every car is a sports car. But if they'd stop making really comfortable, really smooth, really cubic, really roomy cars, they wouldn't be so boring to drive that they need lane change notification systems, front-collision mitigation systems, movie players, satelite radio, and thirty-seven days of music just to keep the driver awake.
Some are already doing this.
These aren't dumb companies, remember there are a lot of consumer protection laws and if your vehicle has a problem.
Only if you like Microsoft
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
I work for a company that develops infotainment systems for auto manufacturers. I totally agree that I would love to have the full capability of my smart phone OS of choice at my finger tips. I would love to not have to re-learn a new UI for every car! That said, one of the primary concerns of auto-makers when it comes to UI is safety and driver distraction. This is a big deal because as of today there are relatively light government restrictions on what can be done in a vehicle, and the auto makers want to keep it that way. To do this they try to be self policing. Simply mirroring a smart phone screen onto a larger in-vehicle display relinquishes too much control and allows end users to do things that can (reasonably or otherwise) be deemed unsafe while driving. I know there are apps that aim to prevent this, and there are other solutions being considered as well, but it is important to understand that this is the driving force behind independent UI designs, not just an overblown auto-manufacturer ego or cost cutting solution.
Wireless GPS database updates != wirelessly updateable braking computer.
You write the brake processing system as an interrupt service routine, and set a watchdog timer to trigger the NMI every hundredth or thousandth of a second, or whatever. The GPS and entertainment system runs at the application level. It's not that hard, and nothing the GPS does can interfere with brake processing.
I can understand the desire to air gap the systems, but it isn't really necessary.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
You're right. I'm getting nostalgic for actual engineering and fore thought in product design. Better is Agile approach to cater to the social app whims of teenage girls.
Ah, I think I understand what you're getting at. The core concept I think you're missing is that there is no "car computer". There isn't a single central computer running everything, with just wires to remote sensors and actuators. Instead, the car is built from of dozens of distributed systems, all interconnected via the CAN bus. The engine has its own computer, and its tasks include firing spark plugs, monitoring engine sensors, etc. The ABS has its own computer, and all it does is to monitor and modulate the brakes. The dashboard is its own computer, and simply displays data coming from the various other systems. And the infotainment system is its own computer, and is hideously complex, and does no end of crap. I believe my car has over 140 individual systems on the bus.
Each device on the bus has an independent processor that does whatever the device is supposed to do, a CAN controller, and a transceiver that isolates the device from the bus (thus preventing a wonky stereo from shutting down the engine.) Some devices transmit data constantly, such as the engine controller continuously sending RPM and exhaust gas temperature. Some devices only transmit data when they do something "interesting", like the seat belt detectors or the tire pressure sensors. Others don't normally transmit much data, but instead read from other sources of data and do something with it. The remote control mirrors are an example of a device that doesn't send much of anything, but constantly listens for other information.
Each system works independently, talking to and from the bus as required. The bus protocol arbitrates amongst itself to figure out who is sending the highest priority message, so things like airbag deployment can take precedence over changing the radio station. The CAN bus is that standard interface you were asking about.
The "infotainment" system has expanded beyond sound and is becoming the center of control for things like climate and navigation. When you tap the "A/C" icon on the screen to turn on the air conditioning, it'll send an "calling for cabin A/C" message over the bus. But it's not in charge of your car. Your car will continue to work even if someone pries it out of the dashboard, (as long as they didn't steal the security system, too.) You maybe won't be able to adjust the climate, you won't have a satnav system, but your car will still work. And you could replace that panel with a different panel. The horrible "MyTouch" control panel is an option in Ford cars (unfortunately standard on their higher end packages), but you can get simpler option packages that don't include it, and instead have a panel with actual tactile controls. Both panels use the same CAN bus and interface to talk to the rest of the car's systems.
John
If my one car had a computer system built in when manufactured, it would still be running OS/2. On a VGA monitor.
Because they cause crashes!
I guess your definition of system doesn't include anything like the fuel system, or the exhaust system.
Just another day in Paradise
What?
You don't mean that a cheap ARM board with Bluetooth, WiFi, Miracast, HDMI out and touch/audio in + a simple GNU/Linux could do what 99% of the people want for about 50p do you?
I'm genuinely shocked that they would attempt this awful vendor lock in and price gouging.
No honour amongst thieves, eh?
And all that happens is people crash.
It's a race between automakers adapting to fast moving CE v/s CE makers building h/w made for car. However simple it looks, Google/Apple have a lot of catchup. For example, FM Radio @ 300kmph is a different ball game (diversity, multiple tuners, alternative channels, Digital Radio etc.,). Multi zone audio/video is yet to catchup on Phones. My 10yr old Honda just fails to fail (touch wood) and the same goes with the infotainment unit in the car. On the contrary, I have been forced to change my fruit/desert phone every 2yrs (broke or cheap upgrade). And the app that I bought, for 99cents, is not usable on the new phones either because of super high resolution or screen format. The car makers will still have to build a ton of electronics (with display) for Driver Assistance, Comfort controls, Cluster (Self Driving !!) etc., and none of this can tolerate the availability/reliability of phones. In terms of complexity, Phone/Audio features are really simple when compared to rest of the electronics in modern day cars. While Google/Apple is busy taking taking over the Phones/Music player functions in the car, Automakers are busy building significantly complex electronics/display-devices for cars. BTW, what happens to my driving directions, when I forget my phone at home !!
If your car stereo is controlling the Fuel system and exhaust system, then the car was designed by morons.
I suggest you look up what computers are in cars, because it sounds like you know absolutely nothing about them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And now you're just being a dick.
Just another day in Paradise