Slashdot Mirror
Porsche Chooses Apple Over Google Because Google Wants Too Much Data
countach44 writes: As reported in number 5 of this list from Motor Trend, Porsche went with Apple over Google for the infotainment system in its new 911. Apparently, Android Auto wants vehicle data (throttle position, speed, coolant temp, etc.) whereas Apple Play only needs to know if the car is in motion. Naturally, people are curious what Google, as a company building its own car, wants that data for.
Information about the car is what CONSUMERS want. Google is asking for it because we are asking for it.
Google Dashboard:
Throttle position
Speed
Coolant temp
Fuel Consumption
etc.
Apple Dashboard:
The car is moving.
That is fixed in Android 6. You will now be able to accept or reject individual permissions.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
To block you from doing distracting tasks while driving such as editing a playlist or browsing your contact list.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
A couple of years ago, your probably asked why a phone needed sensors - like gyros, compass, temperature, motion, fingerprints, cameras, etc.
If you want to do really innovative and cool stuff, you need a way for the computer to be aware of the world around it. If you are a "car" system and you want to make really useful and cool apps for cars, then things like speed, g-forces, braking, turn signals, GPS, temperature and other sensors all become really essential.
My information *may* be outdated as I did the work over a year ago.
Google and Apple both *want* a similar (small) set of data, neither actually *require* much of the data to operate. Car companies are really weird about providing the access (although the Head Unit either as a vendor, the common case, or the company itself, need the data anyway).
IIRC Google's version wants to know if you are in reverse, and compass heading. Apple will infer.
The biggest difference as an integrator for the systems is that Apple call audio used the same USB channel as entertainment / navigation audio.
Google's call audio requires the Bluetooth HFP 1.5 which most head units already support.
Each solution had it's own challenges, Apple with it's USB wackiness that severely the hardware options[1] and Google with the Bluetooth adding to the audio mux logic.
Personally I find it *MUCH* more likely that Porsche vendor has CarPlay(tm) working and has a USB hardware issue with using the same port for both systems and/or dropped the Bluetooth from the CarPlay(tm) head unit to save cost.
Basically most vendors had over a year longer to get CarPlay(tm) working before they had access to AndroidAuto but getting AndroidAuto working once you have done the work to get CarPlay(tm) to work was pretty trivial. As always getting things into production quality takes time and effort and for many of these head units it may only require a software update to get either/both systems working. In my initial prototype I supported the use case of AA for navigation and ACP for playing music handling phone calls [in part because my initial HFP work kinda stank, damn you Broadcom :-)].
[1] Original described as variation of USB-OTG but it really isn't ... any chip with hardware/firmware OTG is unlikely to work.
The point is that Porsche should be telling google what they want their entertainment system to do and how much information they want to send to it. Google should not be asking for this information and they should definitely not be the one dictating what information is required for an embedded audio entertanment system. the next thing you know Google will be sending all the data back to their datacenters, monitoring not only where you are but how fat you are diving, what rpms you are changing gears so they can let your insurance know if you have a lead foot, and your auto mechanic if you like to bounce off the rev limiter a little too often.
losing out on my privacy and autonomy in the name of someone elses stupid feature is the wrong way to go. Google making demands on a car company when the car company is the one who should be making decisions about the features and functionality of the car is the wrong way to go.
Google should STFU and be happy that someone wants to pay to license their technology and then they should work to provide the features that the licensee wants.
1. Google says it is not true.
2. Adding things like current speed and wheel angle can really help with dead reckoning when GPS is having a problem getting a lock like going through a tunnel.
3. Knowing how much fuel you have left and your current mpg can help it find the cheapest gas along your route.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I don't know if you've kept up with the latest and greatest when it comes to maintaining a car, but car manufacturers are VERY CONTROLLING when it comes to being able to read sensor data. The reason they do this is because they can keep third party mechanics out unless they pay $$$$$ to become a licensed technician or otherwise obtain the diagnostic information needed to effectively work on today's cars. Car repair is big bucks for the manufacturer if they keep that information proprietary.
If Porsche handed that stuff over to Google, it would make it a HELL of a lot easier for end users to be able to troubleshoot their car and fix it on their own, and THAT could seriously hurt Porsch's aftermarket revenue, hence I could see why they wouldn't want it. I'm guessing that Google might want this information mainly to allow app developers to be able to better use their imagination, but still, I doubt Porsche would give it up anyways.
Mixed feelings: Porsche (do want) with nanny controls( don't want). Sort of like watching your Ferrari going over a cliff driven by your mother-in-law.
Google absolutely did want all the data set back to their data center. Porsche clearly states this.