Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Software-Defined Vehicles Will Dominate At CES (computerworld.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the please-don't-let-people-tweet-at-nearby-drivers dept.

Lucas123 writes: Carmakers and their tier 1 parts suppliers at CES in January are expected to launch an unprecedented number of software advances centered around cloud services and over-the-air updates. The number of in-vehicle processors continues to grow, and consumers have come to expect their car to mimic smartphone functionality. As hardware becomes more of a commodity, increasingly cars will be defined by software. There will be about 464 automotive electronics exhibitors at this year's CES — a record number, according to IHS Automotive. Human-machine interface will be a core technology at the show — augmented reality and virtual reality, in the form of gesture recognition and heads up displays, are expected to be among the most cutting-edge features.

Cloud-based speech recognition technology that uses machine learning skills to identify speech patterns more quickly will also be more commonplace. One development the analysts said they're "crossing their fingers" to see at the show is Modular Infotainment Platforms, which allow carmakers to offer the latest electronic systems prior to a model launch. Today, car models are often launched with years-old electronics. Apple's CarPlay and Google's Android Auto are also increasingly undermining the native infotainment system makers' business. Analysts believe all carmakers will eventually offer both APIs in future car models.

112 comments

  1. Going to be keeping my car for a while... by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those of us that work with software pale at the thought of myriad car components being "software defined".

    I think I'll be hanging on to my mostly hardware defined car for quite a few years as this all plays out...

    Don't get me wrong, I'm no luddite - I want a self-driving car badly. But I also don't like suffering the death of a thousand cuts with small things going inexplicably wrong in a car all the time either.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Progman3K · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thank you for writing out what lots of us are thinking.

      I bought an android 'smartphone' 5 years ago. At the time, it was cutting-edge.

      Now it's constantly locking-up/rebooting and incredibly slow.

      I also can't install many of the newer apps on it because its firmware revision is too ancient(?!).

      I thought "maybe if I go to the telephone vendor and ask if they can upgrade the firmware"

      "Naw, we can't update it, buy a new phone"

      I can just imagine what dumb excuses the car-makers will have.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    2. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Another software guy who wants cars to be cars, reporting in.

      I read this:

      The number of in-vehicle processors continues to grow, and consumers have come to expect their car to mimic smartphone functionality.

      and my immediate reaction was that I'd bet a substantial amount of money that this is much more about marketing than about what consumers buying a car actually want.

      But then I dislike questionable developments like so-called smart TVs and the Internet of Things as well, so maybe I just want all these kids to get off my lawn...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those of us that work with software pale at the thought of myriad car components being "software defined".

      I think I'll be hanging on to my mostly hardware defined car for quite a few years as this all plays out...

      Don't get me wrong, I'm no luddite - I want a self-driving car badly. But I also don't like suffering the death of a thousand cuts with small things going inexplicably wrong in a car all the time either.

      Those of us who are old enough to remember how terrible most cars were until the last 30 years or so, are used to small things going wrong all the time. It may be that cars have gotten so nice that people expect perfection, and any growing pains will cause people to reject progress.

    4. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      They really haven't got power windows figured out properly in over 50 years...

      Perhaps car manufactures need to look at what their customers really want in a car. All the additional electronics are nifty but most people want a car that is reliable. I want a car that isn't cheap flimsy plastic junk built on marketing hype for a premium price.

    5. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with power windows?

    6. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I could find the original article, but somebody questioned the premise that all this tech was something people actually wanted. Supposedly they never could find any study or any evidence that all this tech was things anybody actually wanted. Supposedly, most of the functionality of these advanced entertainment systems are almost never used. I think it was like GPS and music playback were the only features used with any regularity. It'd be interesting to see if anybody can actually find a study validating the original premise that everybody wants more smartphone like tech in their cars.

    7. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      They come off track, the switches are cheap junk that stops working after a year or two. I have had one or both of these issues in every car I've owned with power windows Dodge, Ford, Buick, Cadillac... all the same. I've owned Chevy, Toyota, and Nissan in the 70s and 80s but they were old enough that they didn't have power windows but I imagine they would not be much better today. I also find cheap plastic door handles to be a failing point the manufactures don't appear to care about.

    8. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      I've owned Hondas, Mazdas and a Nissan for over 20 years, and have had zero power window problems.

    9. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Plus I think the "market" is skewed. I shopped for cars and a tv in the last year, and it's IMPOSSIBLE to buy them without "smart" features. So no shit, 100% of consumers buy smart features ?

      If I could be either without, I would even pay more at this point.

    10. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should stop acting like a gorilla with your power window buttons. I've never had any of those problems. The only problem I've had with power windows were in an early-90s model Honda where they were really slow at times, and that was mostly because back then they still used the shitty scissor-type regulator mechanisms from hand-operated windows. Sometime in the 90s or so, everyone finally switched to the newer mechanisms where the motor sits on the window and raises it up and down a cable. They stuck with the shitty regulators for a long time because when they still made manual windows, it was cheaper to reuse the mechanisms between both types, but the new type is far more mechanically efficient and not prone to binding the way the old one was, so when manual windows became completely obsolete they finally abandoned the old mechanisms.

      I have had one or both of these issues in every car I've owned with power windows Dodge, Ford, Buick, Cadillac... all the same

      I think I see your problem there. Stop buying shitty American cars.

    11. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I've never had any problem with my power windows. At least they don't BSOD like some other windows have.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    12. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      How far we've come...
      Remember back in the early 90s? All we dreamed about was cramming a computer into everything.

      But with experience, our optimism has cooled a bit, hasn't it?

      And we're the PRO-tech guys.

      Well at least we got a little out of it, if you compare public perception of computers today with that of our childhood; back then, people really were afraid that monstrous computers would become all-knowing. Today, common people have realized that computers are NOT intelligent, are rather fragile and consequently have an appreciation of the gulf between what computers are and what they used to be afraid of.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    13. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Those of us that work with software pale at the thought of myriad car components being "software defined".

      I think I'll be hanging on to my mostly hardware defined car for quite a few years as this all plays out...

      Unless your car is pretty old, it's already heavily driven by software. Electronic Fuel Injection? The venerable timing chain/belt has been replaced by software, and it's software that is pretty smart about when to inject fuel and fire the spark plugs, constantly varying the timing by small amounts as engine demands change, and based on real-time reports from various sensors. Anti-lock brakes? Software. There's probably software embedded in your transmission. I drive an electric car, and there's very little of it that isn't software-controlled.

      All of that software is actually a big part of why vehicles today are safer, more reliable and more fuel-efficient than they were in decades past.

      But I also don't like suffering the death of a thousand cuts with small things going inexplicably wrong in a car all the time either.

      Software is inherently more reliable than hardware, since it doesn't wear out. What makes so much software bad is the fact that it's feasible to build stuff that is several orders of magnitude more complex than anything we'd attempt with hardware. Complexity is the enemy of reliability. On the other hand complexity enables us to do more, and better. So the key is to manage the complexity appropriately; minimizing it where possible and thoroughly validating it where the complexity is actually necessary. This is totally possible. The aerospace industry uses a tremendous amount of software, and makes it highly reliable.

      The automotive industry isn't very good at software, but in practice I think that's less of a problem that it appears, because the software that actually runs the parts of your car that are really important isn't very complex at all compared to most software systems, and applying standard hardware testing methodologies to the combined software and hardware works pretty well to flush out the problems. So, while there are problems, they tend to be relatively minor and obscure.

      In other areas, like entertainment systems, automotive software tends to suck. Partly that's because it doesn't get the same level of testing, but mostly it's because testing isn't good at identifying user experience problems.

      Security is also not very testable, and is another area where automotive software tends to be awful. Thus far that hasn't been a problem in practice. It's the one area that really concerns me.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      That is a great point, I would far rather that a car be refined to have amazing mechanical systems where tolerances were such that over 100k miles not a creak would be heard from dash or other panels in the car. I would love the placement of dials and controls to be carefully thought out and more money spent on visibility and UX... instead we'll get 18 speakers and a few more ambient color-changing LED's. Sigh.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    15. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Honda Civic has weak or low-spec OEM rear window armatures that easily get burnt-out spots, meaning that occasionally after lowing the window and it will refuse to move once it stops (need to take the door apart and physically move the rotor to get it working again). Oddly the front windows have never had a problem.

    16. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      You mean Made in America like Toyota, Chevy, Honda, Buick, and GMC?

      http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/...

      I know Toyota has more American Made cars than Ford, when did that happen?

    17. Re: Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even older cars had updates.
      In my Ford Mondeo front-rear balance( fade ) was not working. Fixed by software update.
      I am not luddite but after gu time sysadmin work i come home and have to manage updates of few computers,ton of software, phones for all family, digital cameras even TVs. I would really prefer mostly mechanical car - not another maintenance hell..
      Btw why car manufacturers are so sure consumers indeed want l these gizmos in car ? Most people I know just want to drive and adjust heater/ conditioner + electric windows. Many of them have no idea why car need bluetooth or wireless internet.

    18. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      I also can't install many of the newer apps on it because its firmware revision is too ancient(?!).

      I thought "maybe if I go to the telephone vendor and ask if they can upgrade the firmware"

      "Naw, we can't update it, buy a new phone"

      I'm afraid that in the future, that will be a car makers answer, too. Ford likes to advertise that 80% of all Fords F-150s are still on the road, or whatever the number is. But, they also know that means that they aren't selling new trucks to those people. Vehicles have gotten to the point where if they are maintained, they can be reliable transportation for 20 years or more and hundreds of thousands of miles.

      In the future, it won't be you need a new car because the current one is worn out. It will be because we stopped offering software updates for it. In short, like iOS and Android, the manufacturers will simply cease to support older vehicles and you will be forced to upgrade to a new one.

    19. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      How far we've come...
      Remember back in the early 90s? All we dreamed about was cramming a computer into everything.

      But with experience, our optimism has cooled a bit, hasn't it?

      And we're the PRO-tech guys.

      Well at least we got a little out of it, if you compare public perception of computers today with that of our childhood; back then, people really were afraid that monstrous computers would become all-knowing. Today, common people have realized that computers are NOT intelligent, are rather fragile and consequently have an appreciation of the gulf between what computers are and what they used to be afraid of.

      Computers didn't become all knowing , but big business and government, through the use of those computers did. I'd say those scared folks were pretty much on the mark.

    20. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, I don't mean American-made at all. If I meant American-made, I would have said so explicitly. I mean American companies. Honda, Toyota, etc. are not American companies, any more than Apple is a Chinese company. Fords are American, even though they're all made in Mexico, and GMs are American even though they're made in Canada. The design work and engineering is done in America, and the lousy design is why they suck no matter where they're made.

      By your logic, VW and Ford are Mexican companies, Apple is Chinese, and Seagate is Thai.

    21. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      That is a great point, I would far rather that a car be refined to have amazing mechanical systems where tolerances were such that over 100k miles not a creak would be heard from dash or other panels in the car. I would love the placement of dials and controls to be carefully thought out and more money spent on visibility and UX... instead we'll get 18 speakers and a few more ambient color-changing LED's. Sigh.

      The heck with even 100K miles. My wife's car has electronic steering where a sensor determines how far to turn the wheels. Guess what failed while going down the highway at 70mph! Or on my car, instead of the vents being controlled by a cable to the dash controls, they dash controls tell a computer to engage a servo to use a vacuum to open and close the vents. That was a $600 repair that should not have been needed. Don't get me wrong, technology is great, but technology for the sake of technology, when a good mechanical system exists, is plain stupid.

      Research dollars would be better spent on make better fuel efficient, safer more economical vehicles, than adding infotainment systems and electronic bling.

    22. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I suspect articles like that have been written about a lot of modern technologies that take what used to be a useful, single-purpose device and try to force other tangential functionality into it. The software version is probably Zawinski's law, which goes back around 20 years.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    23. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by billcopc · · Score: 2

      If carmakers would use simple, modular, open standards for all the computer and ICE stuff, I would be perfectly OK with it. They don't. They reinvent everything, every time, and it's always an impressively shitty implementation of whatever it is they were trying to accomplish. They can't even put goddamned RCA jacks on their stereos, and they dare call that shit "premium". Factory nav is a joke, because they cut $2 off the cost by using some bottom-spec CPU, or the touch screen is erratic, or the menus are hopelessly convoluted. It's like they hired those "engineers" who make the Chinese knock-off tablets, and bashed them in the head a couple hundred times before giving them a screwdriver and a $20 amazon gift card as the departmental budget.

      I have seen guys put a $200 Raspberry PI touch kit in their center console, running XBMC/Kodi, that blows away any factory system and even many aftermarket decks. I'm doing something a little more involved, because I'm a audiophile, a nerd, and a glutton for punishment... but the fact remains that we're all just lone hackers with hobbyist budgets, outdoing the billion dollar automotive industry. That just ain't right! Heck, a $150 android tablet does a better job at audio + GPS than any factory setup I've seen, even on the luxury vehicles.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    24. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      Sure, but it's still human beings pulling the strings.
      Not much of a difference in effect but still not the apocalyptic scenario science-fiction movies painted back in the 50s

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    25. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      The quality and workmanship of automotive has been in decline for some years now foreign or domestic. You don't have to act like a gorilla to break a flimsy piece of plastic as vehicles are subject to weather and cold makes plastic brittle. I live in an area that has sub-freezing and sometimes sub-zero temperatures during the winter, unfortunately I can't always park in a heated garage. It's been during the worst winter weather that I have always had those problems and I know I'm not the only one. There are businesses in the US mid-west that specifically market winterization and winter repair because it is a common problem.

    26. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by certsoft · · Score: 1

      Vacuum controlled vent controls are old school. My 2013 Ford C-Max uses stepping motors for air routing and mixing.

    27. Re: Going to be keeping my car for a while... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Get a Tesla. Automatic software updates every few weeks add features. Autopilot, improved UI, better performance, etc.
      Best car ever... Zero emissions.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    28. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The quality and workmanship of automotive has been in decline for some years now foreign or domestic.

      WTF? I'm sorry, this is just dumb. Auto quality has never been better, and it's easily proven: cars are lasting longer than ever and holding their value better than ever. It's routine for cars to reach 100k miles now and still fetch a very good price on the used market; 30 years ago a car that age was ready for the junkyard. Manufacturing tolerances are tighter than ever, defects are low, and things last forever, especially mechanical parts.

      Now I will admit I don't have experience with cars in -40 temperatures, and many plastics are indeed known to embrittle with age (and also cold). Perhaps you should look into buying a Volvo; since they're designed and made in Sweden, and have an excellent reputation for quality, they probably know a thing or two about making cars that handle cold weather well.

    29. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the vehicle in question is a late 90s pickup. However, in the 20 years of its predecessor, never once was there a problem with the cable version. Even stepping motors is technology looking for a problem to solve.

    30. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What you describe isn't what the car manufacturers mean most of the time. For example, cruise control used to be a little motor winding in a rope that pulled on the accelerator. The accelerator itself was mechanically linked to the engine valves.

      In my EV the linkage is all electronic. Couldn't be any other way. Same with many hybrids. Same with many aircraft for that matter. Controls are software defined, rather than mechanically defined.

      Such things are not inherently less reliable, and won't become obsolete any more than mechanical ones would.

      The problem areas are things like iPod integration in the head unit (useless now, doesn't support anything beyond 3rd gen from about 2005) and lack of updates for sat nav.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Those of us that work with software pale at the thought of myriad car components being "software defined".

      The term "software-defined" used alongside "car" is gibberish anyway. Unless you can load software/bitstreams into an FPGA or CPLD that turn it into a car, it's not a "software-defined car". What they're talking about is the incremental addition of driver-assist features to cars that's been going on for decades, it's just accelerated a bit recently due to Google making it more marketable.

    32. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Supposedly they never could find any study or any evidence that all this tech was things anybody actually wanted.

      Many of these features are not standard, and millions of people have paid to have them as add-ons. When I bought my last car, I paid about $1500 for the electronics package, that included backup camera, navigation, parking sensors, adaptive cruise control, etc. It was money well spent.

      More than 30,000 people die in traffic accidents every year, just in America, and more than a million are injured. "Smart cars" can reduce that, and full self-driving cars can reduce it every further.

    33. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      It's routine for cars to reach 100k miles now and still fetch a very good price on the used market; 30 years ago a car that age was ready for the junkyard.

      I have had two 82 cavaliers and an 82 buick custom that ended up going to the junkyard with over 200k miles. I liked that year in particular because it was the last of the throttle body and they could easily be modified to exceed what we today consider a good high mpg rating.

      Auto quality has never been better, and it's easily proven: cars are lasting longer than ever and holding their value better than ever.

      You can't say with any certainty that cars are lasting longer or retaining value better yet. One of my neighbors has an unmodified, original paint, still has the original engine, over 200k miles, 1967 mustang, granted the engine was rebuilt after about 150k but then again it's almost 50 years old and you can find plenty of cars from that era like that, not just mustangs, for as much as their original MSRP or up to 3x more if they are sporty and have been modified.

      Manufacturing tolerances are tighter than ever, defects are low, and things last forever, especially mechanical parts.

      My sister and her husband are both engineers and although the engines they design are not in your car, they might be in the dump truck that picks up your garbage, the great big generator at your data center, or the tractor a farmer is driving, they will be bitching about exactly the opposite when they come around on Christmas.

           

    34. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I have had two 82 cavaliers and an 82 buick custom that ended up going to the junkyard with over 200k miles. I liked that year in particular because it was the last of the throttle body and they could easily be modified to exceed what we today consider a good high mpg rating.

      You could "easily modify" some piece-of-junk 1982 car to get better than 40mpg or so? I'm sorry, I think you're full of shit. I got stuck with an 86 Cavalier in my youth and that thing could barely go uphill under its own power, and was worn out well before 100k.

      You can't say with any certainty that cars are lasting longer or retaining value better yet.

      Oh bullshit. Just look at used cars and the prices they demand. 100k cars are everywhere now. If you think 1967 cars did that routinely, you're simply insane.

      My sister and her husband are both engineers and although the engines they design are not in your car, they might be in the dump truck that picks up your garbage, the great big generator at your data center, or the tractor a farmer is driving, they will be bitching about exactly the opposite when they come around on Christmas.

      You really think manufacturing tolerances were better 40 years ago? I'm sorry, you're a fucking fool.

    35. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      You could "easily modify" some piece-of-junk 1982 car to get better than 40mpg or so? I'm sorry, I think you're full of shit.

      I think you don't know your history. Why don't you look up the mpg on some 82 vehicles that was right before chloral floral carbon scares and the stricter emission controls laws and right after the 1973 oil and 1979 energy crisis a lot of those vehicle broke 40 mpg from the factory and they had only the most basic emission control systems which when removed would increase economy by 3-5mpg.

       

    36. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I can't seem to find any official numbers for those years; the EPA's website only goes back to 1984, and the '84 Cavalier has some pretty lousy numbers compared to what you allege. I found some other site alleging some 40+ numbers for a bunch of cars, but then a bunch of comments after claiming those numbers were bogus. It seems strange that the Cavalier would suddenly drop 10+mpg in 2 years; I'm pretty sure the basic design was the same between 82 and 84. It did about 30mpg on the highway though, and low 20s in the city.

      "chloral floral carbon scares"? If you mean CFCs, those are real and were proven to be ozone-harming. They're also irrelevant to fuel economy, though you could complain that the first-generation HFC-based air conditioners kinda sucked. Still, A/C doesn't affect fuel economy until 2008 I believe, which is when EPA changed their testing methodology to include it IIRC. Before that, fuel economy tests kept the A/C off. And even with it on, the refrigerant probably won't make a difference; I kinda doubt the test demands a certain vent outlet temperature.

      Obviously, though, fuel economy has taken a back seat to other factors, namely crashworthiness, weight, and performance. Those old Cavaliers were horribly underpowered; now you can get a car with 40mpg fuel economy, more than twice as much horsepower, a 0-60 time more than twice as fast, insanely better handling, insanely fewer emissions (hence less smog: do you want to live in a place like Beijing?), insanely better crash protection, and 50% more weight (a penalty partially of the crash protection, but also cars have gotten somewhat larger since then for the same class), while not having to do nearly as much maintenance (usually nothing but oil changes and tire rotations until 100k, and oil changes can go 10-15k), nor having to retune carbs for different altitudes and weather.

    37. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Lotharus · · Score: 1

      That's not really a very relevant indicator, though. For you, the "electronics package" seemed to consist of only things you found helpful. In, I suspect, a great many cases, the "electronics package" contains a few tremendously useful things, and a handful of fluff things. There's no indication of which particular features purchasers of the "electronics package" actually care about.

      --
      http://undecidedgames.blogspot.com
    38. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Cars are already riddled with software, I don't know that this means much of a change. Easier to update, but electronics have a way of costing more to repair than analog components. Hell, I've had to had the friggin' *motherboard* replaced in my fridge. The cloud part is what scares me. Features that only work with connectivity? So we have to pay for cell service for cars, and hope we never drive anywhere without a usable signal?

    39. Re:Going to be keeping my car for a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Distirbutor Nasa
      Agen Nasa
      Jasa Pembuatan taman
      Daftar Agen Nasa
      pepadun
      Pupuk Nasa
      Pupuk Nasa
      Marketplace Online Indonesia
      Marketplace Online Indonesia
      Marketplace Online Indonesia
      Artikel Motivasi
      Dwi Dhini Oktaviani
      Jasa SEO

  2. Right turn NOW = drive on to railroad tracks. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Right turn NOW = drive on to railroad tracks.

    We need better testing and at least 5-8 years of updates for any new cars software.

  3. I've seen this before by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Just buy a damn smartphone and a holder for it. Give us Bluetooth connectivity for music and hands free. Oh and fuck Onstar. That's all you need. That way we can replace the phone every two years which is a hell of a lot easier than spending an extra $5K for a built-in system that is not easily up-gradable and leaves us vulnerable.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:I've seen this before by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You seem to not understand that the automotive industry is all about lock in with really crappy electronics.

      You will never EVER get what you ask for from any car maker on this planet.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:I've seen this before by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      Actually I do. I have done work for the automotive electronics industry. That's why I advocate "less is more" because of lock-in and it's not just about infotainment it's about all the other things that the manufacturers want to lock you out of. Headlights, Tire Pressure Monitor Sensors (TPMS), Stereo equipment and anything else that they can think of that a) forces you to buy from them for as long as you own it and b) forces you to get it serviced at their licensed dealers only. It's that way with headlights now on many top end cars. This kills the legitimate market for aftermarket parts and forces your insurance costs skyward.

      Shit if they could they'd DRM the windshields to force you to replace it using their OEM windshields when you get a rock chip.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:I've seen this before by Kjella · · Score: 1

      You seem to not understand that the automotive industry is all about lock in with really crappy electronics. You will never EVER get what you ask for from any car maker on this planet.

      To be fair, no business likes to just hand over a market that operates on/in/with their product. Like SmartTVs, sure TV could say "we'll just deliver the screen you use your cable box, HTPC, Apple TV, Chromecast or whatever" but of course they won't. Let's face it, just about any car on the road will get you from A to B in pretty much exactly the same time, given speed limits and traffic. A Ferrari can make you look cool and shave a few seconds off your acceleration but the only place it's significantly faster is on a race track. Aside from purely practical matters like the size of the car they're selling you brand, comfort and gizmos. You don't give up a selling point like the infotainment system without a fight.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:I've seen this before by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Oh bullshit. You can replace headlights on any car; that's completely stupid. They might not make it completely easy with HIDs, you might have to disassemble some plastic paneling or something, but it's not like you *have* to have dealer equipment to do it. HIDs all use standard D2S and D4S bulbs.

      And why the hell would you need "service" at a licensed dealer for your stereo? If you have regular problems with your stereo needing servicing, you're doing something wrong. TPMS? Why would that need service, unless you're changing a tire (and personally I've never met any backyard mechanic who changed their own tires)? All the carmakers use standard TPMS sensors anyway, and all the tire shops will sell you new ones if you need them (like for a second set of wheels, for people who switch between winter and summer wheels/tires). And that's just for cars which actually use TPMS sensors; a lot of cars just reuse the ABS wheelspeed sensors to detect differences in tire pressure. To reset the system when you inflate the tires, you just press and hold the TPMS button.

      Honestly, I'm really sick of all the new-car paranoia from luddite morons who want to go back to the days of carburetors and distributor points and manual chokes.

    5. Re:I've seen this before by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      To my original point... http://www.autoblog.com/2015/0...

      Luddites you say? "less is more" is actually quite rational and is a sister to KISS Sure technology changes, cars get updated but nobody is advocating going back to points, manual chokes et al. If it doesn't need to be there, why put it in? Why does a car need "dozens of computers?" Maybe it's to be able to massage your ass? That's a human machine interface problem, not my field.

      Oh bullshit. You can replace headlights on any car; that's completely stupid. They might not make it completely easy with HIDs, you might have to disassemble some plastic paneling or something, but it's not like you *have* to have dealer equipment to do it. HIDs all use standard D2S and D4S bulbs.

      Really? Change the bulb maybe but not the housing. Not if you're a BMW owner at least.

      And why the hell would you need "service" at a licensed dealer for your stereo?

      In the name of anti-theft if you're keeping things OE. I've blown out amps, speakers and head units. In the case of three cars I've owned the only place I could get them fixed was at a dealer without replacing the entire system. Are there ways around it? Sure but you can't just plug in an OE radio unless it's programmed with the car. If you're going aftermarket you can chuck the OE unit in the garbage or EBay it which is precisely what the manufacturers don't want you doing. They'd rather you pay full price for a new one.

      If you have regular problems with your stereo needing servicing, you're doing something wrong.

      What if I want to upgrade and resell my old unit? The buyer of my OE equipment has to make provisions with a dealer or a tech who knows how to get around
      the anti-theft protection.

      TPMS? Why would that need service, unless you're changing a tire (and personally I've never met any backyard mechanic who changed their own tires)? All the carmakers use standard TPMS sensors anyway, and all the tire shops will sell you new ones if you need them (like for a second set of wheels, for people who switch between winter and summer wheels/tires). And that's just for cars which actually use TPMS sensors; a lot of cars just reuse the ABS wheelspeed sensors to detect differences in tire pressure. To reset the system when you inflate the tires, you just press and hold the TPMS button.

      Honestly, I'm really sick of all the new-car paranoia from luddite morons who want to go back to the days of carburetors and distributor points and manual chokes.

      Really? I think you're oversimplifying a bit. Maybe consumer reports is more your style?

      For this model, the reprogramming process uses a handheld device that records each sensor's output and then feeds those into the car's computer. The sequence usually takes about five minutes or so. But at this dealership, the technicians fiddled around for more than two hours and finally threw in the towel. They said the problem was that the aftermarket sensors were no good. Their official programming tool didn't recognize the signals the sensors were transmitting.

      What was needed, they said, was original-equipment Toyota TPM sensors. They'd be happy to remove all four "faulty" sensors, install new ones, and program them to the car. All this for a mere $640.

      They obviously see a problem with TPMS sensors and compatibility. I've had personal experience with this one during a 36,000 mile service the dealer wanted to charge me $800 for new TPMS sensors. The solution for me was to tell the dealer to stick it up their ass. Why were t

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    6. Re:I've seen this before by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      "less is more" is actually quite rational and is a sister to KISS

      No, actually it's not. If you want features, you're going to have complexity; there's no way around it. If you want a Spartan car, great, good luck getting the automakers to make one for you. There are some really cheap econoboxes out there, so you can buy one of those, but even those are going to have some creature comforts because it's only a few freaks who really want a stripped-down vehicle, not enough to bother with because the cost of producing cars is so high. Every time automakers do try to make a super stripped-down model for all these complainers, they end up sitting on dealer lots, unable to be sold.

      Are you one of those people that still uses a flip phone or even a landline?

      If it doesn't need to be there, why put it in?

      Because people want nice things. Duh. Not everyone is some minimalist freak who doesn't like anything nice.

      Really? Change the bulb maybe but not the housing. Not if you're a BMW owner [bimmerfest.com] at least.

      You're going to have to elaborate. I read through a bit and didn't see any problems. Here's one guy's post:

      "I finally got around to replacing it with a new one and I didn't need to touch any programming whatsoever."

      If you're able to swap a headlight housing without messing with any special programming tools, then what exactly is the problem???

      I've blown out amps, speakers and head units.

      How in hell did you manage to do that? What kind of crappy cars are you buying where these things fail on you? Or are you playing stuff at max volume constantly or something? These are not normal things to fail in a car.

      If you're going aftermarket

      Good luck finding an aftermarket stereo to fit your car these days, because the sizes are all different, and now with highly integrated infotainment systems they do a lot more than just play music, and frequently allow configuration of other parts of the car. Basically, if you really don't like the stereo in a new car, *don't buy it*. It's not like the old days with DIN-sized stereos with tiny little buttons.

      What if I want to upgrade and resell my old unit?

      And what are you going to replace it with?

      Really? I think you're oversimplifying a bit. Maybe consumer reports is more your style? [consumerreports.org]

      If your tire shop damages your sensors, make sure they buy you new OEM ones then and pay for the programming. They're legally required to pay for anything they break after all. I'm glad my new car doesn't have them and uses the cheap-o method of just looking for different wheelspin rates.

      Because I didn't have OEM wheels and tires and had aftermarket TPMS sensors. Even though the TPMS system recognized the pressure and there were no idiot lights, there was a DTC that indicated a problem with the TPMS system. It was a warning but still a DTC.

      Can't you just clear the DTC with a typical OBDII scan tool? How did you modify the ECU to disregard it anyway?

    7. Re:I've seen this before by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      No, actually it's not. If you want features, you're going to have complexity; there's no way around it. If you want a Spartan car, great, good luck getting the automakers to make one for you. There are some really cheap econoboxes out there, so you can buy one of those, but even those are going to have some creature comforts because it's only a few freaks who really want a stripped-down vehicle, not enough to bother with because the cost of producing cars is so high. Every time automakers do try to make a super stripped-down model for all these complainers, they end up sitting on dealer lots, unable to be sold.

      There's lots of basic cars out there that aren't overly complex. Sure, you have to have an ECU but after it's optional. You can have electrically heated this and that but it doesn't take a program to deal with it. It's been done for years.

      Are you one of those people that still uses a flip phone or even a landline?

      If it doesn't need to be there, why put it in?

      Because people want nice things. Duh. Not everyone is some minimalist freak who doesn't like anything nice.

      Tell me, where can I buy a "flip phone?" They sound amazing. Also define "nice." are you saying that "nice" requires over complexity? Shit if that's the case DeBeers, Rolex and Patek are pushing the wrong product.

      Really? Change the bulb maybe but not the housing. Not if you're a BMW owner [bimmerfest.com] at least.

      You're going to have to elaborate. I read through a bit and didn't see any problems. Here's one guy's post:

      "I finally got around to replacing it with a new one and I didn't need to touch any programming whatsoever."

      If you're able to swap a headlight housing without messing with any special programming tools, then what exactly is the problem???

      Read the rest of the thread. Did you read about the ALU? You missed that part huh?

      You obviously live in a world where nothing possibly goes wrong, you take your car to a dealership and it's all puppies, kittens and rainbows. Some of us like to have alternatives to getting raped. Some of us *gasp* buy tires/wheels on the Internet that are all ready to be installed. I know, it's amazing I can buy anything now and I don't even have to have a dealer involved. It's a gas.

      I've blown out amps, speakers and head units.

      How in hell did you manage to do that? What kind of crappy cars are you buying where these things fail on you? Or are you playing stuff at max volume constantly or something?

      I've lost equipment over various reasons (busted CD eject), one system failure was a presumed lightening strike and speakers.. Well, let's say not all of us listen to NPR daily. Oh and I'd say that what I buy isn't exactly cheap either. No car is "cheap" anymore but if you lay out nearly six figures on any car it'll have something wrong with it over it's lifespan. I've had car on lease once that annoyed the hell out of me due to amplifier humm.. 7 repair visits before they finally replaced the AMP. I don't think Volvo knows how to deal with Led Zeppelin.

      Can't you just clear the DTC with a typical OBDII scan tool? How did you modify the ECU to disregard it anyway?

      You can clear a DTC however they'll usually pop back up. That's the nature of most DTCs. There's software out there you can buy and online support forums that'll teach you how to take care of these problems. A few years ago it was custom chips / EEPROM coders but now it's all software. I made the investment and never looked back.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  4. Add screen support by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I would agree but I would also like integration between smartphones and an in-car LCD - even just AirPlay and the Android equivalent would be enough for most uses.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Add screen support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In-car LCDs are dangerous and should never been allowed in the first place. When you're in the car, all you should be looking at is the road.

    2. Re:Add screen support by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      You also shouldn't be talking hands-free if you care at all about safety and driving properly, but unfortunately some drivers still do. Aside from connections for real-time traffic information and the like, or for genuine emergencies, there are really very few legitimate reasons to have a lot of these new gadgets in any car for the use of the driver.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:Add screen support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're in the car, all you should be looking at is the road.

      Does that mean no radios, AC/heat, adjustable mirrors, etc?

    4. Re:Add screen support by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      -1 Stupid. How do you expect to use GPS without an LCD screen? Without navigation, you'll be driving around in circles lost, taking wrong turns, backtracking, etc. and be far more likely to have an accident.

    5. Re:Add screen support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by mounting your fucking LCD SCREEN PHONE ?

      Everyone has one. Certainly everyone buying a car with built-in nav systems.

      And it's miles better than any piece of shit car system.

      You're as -1 stupid as they come.

    6. Re:Add screen support by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      No, you're a fucking idiot. Go read the GP's post: he was railing against LCD screens. That includes your LCD SCREEN PHONE, MORON!!! He didn't make an exception for that!

      And yes, phones are better than built-in nav in many ways, that's why everyone wants CarPlay and Android Auto.

      Idiot.

    7. Re:Add screen support by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Except that the there are studies that show those in dash LCDs are more dangerous than even talking on a cell phone. Take in dash GPS - you have to look down and away from the road to see what is going on. The old Tom Tom's and Garmins tended to be mounted above the dash where one could quickly see it without much movement. Phones can be mounted like that, too, except their screens are usually too small to see the details.

      All of that said, any of them still beat trying to look at a map while driving.

    8. Re:Add screen support by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      There is a reason why every manufacture installed GPS starts up with a warning telling you not to program it while the car is moving. Then again, it seems simple enough, that it should be able to figure out the car is moving and disallow changing it. But, what consumer would want a system like that? No, the warning is to protect the manufacturer, so they can say "We told you so" because they know it is inherently dangerous.

    9. Re:Add screen support by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen those particular studies that I recall, though I'm not surprised by what you described. Personally, I find the old school approach of actually planning my journey and then paying attention to road signs usually works out just fine.

      I'm hopeful that some of the modern developments involving project essential information directly onto the windscreen as a form of HUD will take care of the rest in due course. This, along with better external lights and sensors, is among the few recent developments in driver-facing technologies that I do welcome in cars, though I slightly fear what will happen if the designers get carried away with their toys and start shoving non-essential information (which is almost anything if you're driving) up there as well.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    10. Re:Add screen support by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      I know that BMW and other high end vehicles use a HUD for GPS info. It doesn't show all that is on the GPS screen, but does tell that you will be turning or exiting in such and such distance and the street name. GPS aren't really the problem. Fiddling with them, while driving is. And like you, I tend to plan out my trip in advance -- besides, it seems the GPS is never up to date with detours and road construction and it is really irritating to keep hearing "Make a legal u-turn" or "You are driving in a restricted area."

    11. Re:Add screen support by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm looking forward to the convergence of a few recent technologies that are in their infancy today: the use of HUDs to project directly onto the screen, the use of real-time information about traffic conditions and route planning, visualisations from that route planning software that show a realistic lane or junction arrangement, and in particular the use of sensors and image recognition technology to analyse the road ahead. The latter is already used for a few neat tricks like recognising current speed limits and warning about lane drift, and in particular detecting other hazards in or near the road to reconfigure front lighting to highlight dangers or avoid dazzling other road users.

      Put more mature versions of these technologies together, and at some point what I'm seeing when I look "out the window" is what's really out the window, overlaid with enhancements for better vision at night or in otherwise limited visibility, then overlaid again with navigational information that subtly highlights the lane I need to be in or the path I need to follow through a junction if I'm using the automatic route guidance tools, and then finally overlaid with essential information about hazards or urgent warnings. In all cases I can still see what's actually out there as well as my eyes will allow, and everything else other than possibly urgent warning indicators is just a soft/transparent enhancement of the natural view.

      For extra points, throw in the view from cameras that replace the way we use mirrors today, across the bottom of the windscreen where I'd just be looking at metal otherwise. Naturally these supplementary views could be overlaid with similar enhancements, and they wouldn't need to have the blind spots that most traditional mirror arrangements have.

      I don't know how much more comfortable a well designed system along those lines would make driving, particularly in unfamiliar territory, at night, or in bad conditions, but I'm better it's a lot. I'm betting it would avoid a lot of accidents, too. And with the current pace of innovation in the auto industry, it seems like the kind of technology we could actually have in real production cars within a decade, as long as we don't get sidetracked with all this infotainment crap along the way.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    12. Re:Add screen support by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's there to protect them from lawsuits, nothing more. Passengers should be able to use the system while the car is in motion, but of course they lock it out because it can't tell the driver's finger from the passenger's.

      The solution on my car was pretty simple: logging into the system and running a test script disabled the speed restriction. With systems running on embedded Linux, they're actually very hackable. Of course, to chat with people who actually DO hack on these infotainment systems, I have to go to web forums for gearheads, because the "nerds" on this site just sit around in their Depends whining about how "you can't work on cars any more".

  5. yes, that's just what i want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having audio from my car streamed back to "cloud" servers run by Google and Apple. Having those two companies tracking where I drive, and when.

    I can't wait to have them in control of parts of my car!

  6. Software Defined? by chispito · · Score: 1

    Is that really a proper use of "Software Defined?" The term brings to mind "Software Defined Radio" (SDR) which involves using flexible software to dramatically change the behavior of commodity trans/receivers. I really don't see how the software will "Define" a vehicle in the same way. It's firmware.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re: Software Defined? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how they be.

    2. Re: Software Defined? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just can't tell the truth.

    3. Re: Software Defined? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SDM. Software defined moron describes those Republicans.

    4. Re: Software Defined? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why they're Republicans.

    5. Re: Software Defined? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahhaha. They're so stupid.

  7. I think I will just buy old clunkers by fredrated · · Score: 1

    where the only processor is behind the steering wheel.

    1. Re:I think I will just buy old clunkers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and kills 40,000+ people (in the US) every year.

    2. Re:I think I will just buy old clunkers by fredrated · · Score: 1

      And this relates to vehicle software systems how? Are you saying that having lots of software driven options in a car make it safer? I propose that, unless you are referring specifically to self-driving cars (still little more than a fantasy) then lots of more software systems are simply more distractions and will result in more deaths.

    3. Re:I think I will just buy old clunkers by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I'm with you bro, and already doing it.
      I refuse to buy any new GM product just because you can't even get any Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, or GMC vehicle without Onstar now.

  8. More shite forced down our throats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technology filled self driving cars are not what I want at all. I'm glad that I will be dead before this becomes a reality. Unfortunately, I will probably live long enough, that I will not be able to find a vehicle without all of the anoying bullshit like alarms to bitch at me when I use hardware that I paid for they way I want to use it. don't like your seat belt buzzer? The dictatorship will only get worse. The F-ing safety foundation will make sure of that.

    1. Re:More shite forced down our throats by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      Good riddance to you when you go. People like you murder tens of thousands of people a year with your shitty driving. Self-driving cars can't get here soon enough to save us from you assholes.

  9. Yeah, about that... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    Do they still think a touch screen interface is the best way to control car software? Because forcing drivers to look away from the road to pick the next song to play is BRILLIANT!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Yeah, about that... by NatasRevol · · Score: 0

      Unlike the radio where you have to look away to change stations? And have for 50+ years.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radios used to have tactile buttons and knobs. Now you have no sensory feedback and have to rely on your vision.

    3. Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Derp. You fucking idiot. A touch screen interface has no tactile feedback. You can glance at your old fashioned radio to find which button you want to press, put your finger on it, then watch the road again. You can't do this on a touch screen. Therefore you are an idiot.

    4. Re:Yeah, about that... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      Most of the time, I switch between two stations. All I have to do is feel for the buttons and press "1" or "2". Without taking my eyes off the road.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    5. Re:Yeah, about that... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Then stop buying shitty Fords or whatever cars don't have buttons and knobs. My Mazda has a nice big knob for controlling the infotainment; works great. I can use the touchscreen when stopped, or stick with the knob when driving. Or I can use voice control (which admittedly is a bit buggy, but at least I don't have to take my eyes off the road when using it).

    6. Re:Yeah, about that... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Derpy derp.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It can if the mfgr wants it.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:Yeah, about that... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      How many times did you look down until you learned that? and what if you want to put in a cd or hook up your phone to the usb port?

      It's really not much different.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that you choose Ford to pick in... Ford owned 33.3% of Mazda for a long time (divested to ~2% in 2010) and has a long history of sharing D&D and joint projects with Ford.

    9. Re:Yeah, about that... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ford no longer has any stake in Mazda and Mazda is (thankfully) completely independent now, but even when they were involved, things like infotainment/interior controls and stuff like that are not shared. It's the chasses (and not even engines) that are the main things shared in projects like that, plus various under-the-hood parts. I also have a 2005 Volvo S40 which was part of the Ford/Mazda/Volvo team days, so that chassis shares a lot with Fords and Mazdas of that time, and there's a few other parts shared there too (like some exhaust hangar brackets I found when I installed a tow hitch). But the interior is nothing at all like a Ford of that time.

      Remember, Ford's touchscreen system is called "MyFordTouch" (or "MyLincolnTouch" or whatever). It's specific to their own cars. It was also singlehandedly responsible for Ford plummeting in the initial-quality rankings a couple years ago because it was so buggy and problematic (when MS did the software for it, though people are still complaining a lot about it now even though it switched to a different vendor IIRC).

      In short, it really doesn't matter how great your chassis or engine or transmission are if your driver controls are a disaster in human-factors design.

    10. Re:Yeah, about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno about parent but I learned that after one look at my new car's stereo controls. You know, since I don't have the memory of a goldfish.

      And why the bloody hell would I be putting in a CD or hooking up a phone to the USB port while driving? What kind of retard does that?

    11. Re:Yeah, about that... by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      It's the chasses (and not even engines) that are the main things shared in projects like that

      Ford and Mazda did share engine technology. For the longest time Mazda V6 engines were Ford designs, and ford I4 engines were Mazda designs. Not 100%, but certain parts, eg: Mazda block and Ford heads. In fact quite a number of Mazda 3 owners, when their 2.3L gave them problems, bought a more inexpensive Ford 2.5L from the junkyard, and put their Mazda head on it.

      Then you have the Mazda Tribute / Ford Escape that shared a lot, and the Mazda B2000 / Ford Ranger that were just badge engineered.

      Ford Festiva / Mazda 121 were also badge engineered.

    12. Re:Yeah, about that... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well badge engineering is a slightly different thing really than parts-sharing. Badge-engineering is where you take a whole, complete car from one automaker, and they build it on their assembly line but with different badges and then ship it to the other automakers' dealers to be sold. Mazda is doing that now with Scion: they're dumping the Mazda2, and instead what the rest of the world calls the "Mazda2" is now the Scion iA. Now looking at the price of that car, compared to the low-end Mazda3 models, I have no idea why anyone would bother with it, but regardless...

      There's been lots of that. Back around 1992 Chevy did that with their "Geo" sub-brand, selling Corollas among other cars.

      Parts-sharing involves a lot more working together than that.

  10. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of this stuff is pretty cool, but to be perfectly honest I don't plan on ever buying another car. I'll keep my decade old but still working perfectly Civic until I can buy a monthly subscription to a driverless car service, like a cross between Uber and a cellphone plan. If no one makes a service like that, then I'll start one.

  11. Tracking where you drive, and when? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

    "We know everyone who breaks the law, we know when you're doing it. We have GPS in your car, so we know what you're doing."

    -- Jim Farley, Ford Global VP/Marketing and Sales, 8 January 2014

    Unsurprisingly, he then retracted that statement on 9 January 2014.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  12. cars to mimic smartphone functionality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    your car will only accept vendor approved gasoline.
    The car cockpit display will only work for the first 1000miles after that you have to pay 99cents per day.
    The car will continuously send its location and all other possible personal information, back to the manufacturer, the reseller, the supplier of the aftermarket seat covers and floor mats, and the manufacturer of every smartphone that has even been paired with it.
    While driving on the motorway, a full windshield covering popup will remind you that you still have to upgrade to os 9.2. you can only delay it, not reject it.
    The car will be sold with an artificial mileage limit per month. If you exceed the limit you pay surcharges per mile. Or, if you have the unlimited plan, the cars maximum speed will be 15mph for the remainder of the month.
    If you take your car to another country, the gasoline quadruples in price, the miles per month your car can drive reduces by 90% and there is a 50% chance that the roads in the other country are not compatible with your car.

    sure, customers want cars to mimic smartphone functionality.

    1. Re:cars to mimic smartphone functionality by jewens · · Score: 1

      If you take your car to another country, the gasoline quadruples in price, the miles per month your car can drive reduces by 90% and there is a 50% chance that the roads in the other country are not compatible with your car.

      Yes, we have that already, it is called the United Kingdom.

      --
      That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
  13. Not interested by sinij · · Score: 1

    I am not interested in having insecure, locked-in, proprietary software getting attached to my car.

  14. Buzzwords by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or is the summary almost 50% buzzwords? All you're missing is "synergy" and "end to tend" and you have your average engadget post.

    1. Re:Buzzwords by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Let's try this, but without the buzzwords:

      Carmakers and their tier 1 parts suppliers at CES in January are expected to launch an...centered around...over-the-air updates. The number of in-vehicle processors continues to grow, and consumers have come to expect their car to mimic smartphone functionality. As hardware becomes more of a...increasingly cars will be... There will be about 464 automotive electronics exhibitors at this year's CES — a record number, according to IHS Automotive...will be a...at the show — ...and..., in the form of....and heads up displays, are expected to be among the most... ...speech recognition technology that uses ... to identify speech patterns more quickly will also be more commonplace. One development the analysts said they're "crossing their fingers" to see at the show is..., which allow carmakers to offer the latest electronic systems prior to a model launch. Today, car models are often launched with years-old electronics. ... and ... are also ... the native infotainment system makers' business. Analysts believe all carmakers will eventually offer both ... in future car models.

  15. S-D-V? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anothe fucking TLA that mean sweet F A to 99.9999999999% of the world.
    Who comes up with this shite?
    Pretty well any vehicle with an Engine Management System or ECU is already Software Controlled.

    What a fuckling load of crap.

    Coming soon, a multitude of converences discussion SDV's. Bah Humbug.\

  16. Out of date by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

    And it'll all be out of date in two to three years, but so embedded that replacement means your door chime stops working and you end up with a permanently-lit dashboard warning light.

    1. Re:Out of date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, minor problems that can be solved with a visit to your friendly neighborhood dealer.

      As long as you are willing to sign over your children in payment.

  17. Coffee-flavored coffee, beer-flavored beer.. by kheldan · · Score: 1

    ..and cars that are transportation. Is that so gods-be-damned difficult?

    Stop making your car a lifestyle. You're not 'accessorizing' your life with a car. Your car does not define you. Things like this that you think you 'own'? They end up owning you. How about a car that's just a car, transportation? Anything more than a radio that works decently and air conditioning is just more junk to distract you, to break down, and to cost you more money you probably don't have to start with. If we got rid of all this excessive crap in cars, they'd probably cost half as much. Come on, people, just say no to all this shit.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  18. quote by neminem · · Score: 1

    > "consumers have come to expect their car to mimic smartphone functionality."

    I have never heard *anyone* say this, ever. Integration with smartphones: yes. *Replacing* a smartphone: nope, not at all, ever, no thanks. Am I just behind the times, or is this more like how consumers have supposedly come to expect 3D and/or ultra-4k tvs that nobody actually needs or wants?

  19. in your face RIAA! by bazorg · · Score: 1

    We will finally download a car!

    other than that, yeah, I suspect that allowing something this important to turn into a rentseeking business is a terrible idea.

  20. All I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is:

    * A standard for onboard sensors, infotainment systems, etc. ODBII is a decent start on the sensor side, but needs a lot of work yet (in particular, in standardizing connectors and making those connection available in the right locations (i.e accessible to infotainment system).

    * A standard for modularity of the infotainment system (like the old DIN system)

    As little as 10 years ago, a guy could, in a few minutes, swap out a broken or obsolete radio in almost every vehicle sold. But then the greed set in, and instead of making nice, modular designs to allow this, new cars have "integrated" (read: vendor lockin) radios with custom head units and custom bezels that make it it next to impossible to swap out the as-sold unit with something better.

    The only thing that has changed, technically, since then is wheel mounted controls, nav systems, cameras and other things have become more common, but at the end of the day at that means is a few more wires and bigger/more connectors at the head unit.

    Yes, I know I will never get these things, because it would actually be consumer friendly instead of greed enabling.

  21. Seriously is this what everyone actually wants? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Is it really just me that wishes car manufacturers would make even just one new model without all this unnecessary crap in it?

  22. Who wants this garbage in their cars? by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 1

    I sure as hell don't, all I want is a big tach right in the middle, a speedo, gas, temp and boost gauges off on the side. I just want manual heat/ac controls and nothing else. Basically all I want is a lightweight car with no crap on it, manual gearbox, rear wheel drive, multi link suspension, low center of mass, lots of power, good sounding exhaust, and good looks.

    I've got no use for tarting a car up just for the sake of tarting it up. I drive a Honda S2000, and I think I might have literally turned the radio on once since I've owned the car, when the exhaust sounds this good with the top down, who needs a radio.

  23. Open source software driven project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there an open source project for software driven cars being worked on yet? I think the time to get started on this is now.

    Related video. https://www.adasworks.com/

  24. Software is not inherently more reliable by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Software is inherently more reliable than hardware, since it doesn't wear out.

    Yes, I know all about how much tech is already in modern cars - I wouldn't get rid of all of it, but there are already interactions I dislike with what is there. Sometimes glitchy acceleration because of fuel injection. Automatic shifters that shift at bad times. I'm just saying that after some initial large wins by adding software, adding lots more on top seems to cross into the realm of dubious value.

    Software is in fact inherently LESS reliable than hardware, because hardware generally fails gradually, in ways that can be predicted and checked ahead of time for (like checking for cracks on a belt). Software though, either works or generally fails spectacularly - because of two factors - one is that storage wears out or gets corrupted sometimes, the other is that sensors fail and with bad input comes our friend GIGO.

    Software is inherently less reliable because with a complex enough system you literally cannot predict what an infinite combination of partially or fully failing sensors and electrical connections will mean with software behavior... with mechanical systems the failure also generally is fairly isolated, while with software failure is much mire likely to be broad in scope.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Software is not inherently more reliable by swillden · · Score: 1

      Software is in fact inherently LESS reliable than hardware, because hardware generally fails gradually, in ways that can be predicted and checked ahead of time for (like checking for cracks on a belt). Software though, either works or generally fails spectacularly - because of two factors - one is that storage wears out or gets corrupted sometimes, the other is that sensors fail and with bad input comes our friend GIGO.

      Having binary failure modes (either works or fails spectacularly) makes it more reliable, because (assuming comparable complexity), hardware has more wear modes. The only reason you think those can be predicted and checked ahead of time is because you happen to know the common ones. If worn out or corrupted storage is sufficiently common then it is even easier to check for... in fact the software can (and often does) do it automatically in a power-on self-test.

      The only case where that breaks down is when the hardware running the software fails. That could be addressed with redundancy but generally isn't in automotive applications (unlike aerospace applications).

      Regarding sensors and GIGO, those issues also plague any purely hardware implementations that rely on sensors of some sort. It doesn't matter whether the sensor response is analog and mechanical or computerized and digital. Further, it's much easier for software to detect and work around garbage. In fact, this is exactly what a lot of automotive software does. For example, if your O2 sensor goes out and starts reporting garbage, the software recognizes the failure, attempts to work around it to keep things running somewhat well and flicks on the "check engine" light. If you then connect to the OBDII interface, it'll give you a failure code telling you that the O2 sensor is bad.

      Software is inherently less reliable because with a complex enough system you literally cannot predict what an infinite combination of partially or fully failing sensors and electrical connections will mean with software behavior... with mechanical systems the failure also generally is fairly isolated, while with software failure is much mire likely to be broad in scope.

      This just another way to state the point that I made, that software allows us to reach for much greater complexity than mechanical hardware does. Mechanical solutions tend to be simpler because complex ones are dramatically more failure prone and harder to test and debug than software solutions, as well as being harder to build in the first place. So it's not software that is unreliable, it's complexity. But complexity can be managed and minimized in software, as long as the effort is made to do so. And, actually, automotive software in reliability-critical components is pretty good at this.

      Software is inherently more reliable than mechanical hardware, at comparable levels of complexity. It doesn't wear out, has fewer failure modes which are easier to understand, can identify and adapt to hardware failures in ways that mechanical solutions cannot and can more directly and accurately report identified failures. Further, those characteristics mean that software can be more reliable than mechanical hardware even when the software is somewhat more complex.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Software is not inherently more reliable by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Having binary failure modes (either works or fails spectacularly) makes it more reliable, because (assuming comparable complexity), hardware has more wear modes.

      I can't read the rest because this is too wrong.

      Those "more we are modes" mean you can drive somewhere because something is partially working, instead of being stranded because software has decided you cannot.

      You aren't considering what failure means, what benefits partial failure yields in relation to sometimes life and death situations.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  25. Sofrware Defined Poop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next year Software Defined Poop will be all the rage at CES. Awesome new nano technology introduces software into your poop enabling bluetooth and 4g connectivity. And it's wearable too....

  26. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    consumers have come to expect their car to mimic smartphone functionality

    Seriously... wtf.

  27. automatically best free driver updater by mistryrak · · Score: 1

    Free Software and APPS download for any kinds of device, automatically best free driver updater available for your device when your driver is outdated. Allows antivirus download, free download games, free music app download . http://safensecuredaters.com/c...