[HN Gopher] Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war
___________________________________________________________________
Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war
Author : rntn
Score : 128 points
Date : 2025-05-11 17:51 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (insideevs.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (insideevs.com)
| FrankWilhoit wrote:
| Embedded-systems programming is not taught, and no one is willing
| to pay for training. The result is that development is outsourced
| to entities that claim, falsely, to have the knowledge.
| Eventually the consequences of the fact that they do not have the
| knowledge surface in an undeniable manner, and the only way to
| cover is to make a great show of a fresh start. (This affects all
| industries, not just automotive, but right now that is where the
| spotlight shines.)
| tehjoker wrote:
| I'm not sure this is exactly the problem. It sounds like
| turning the car into a platform with changeable parts has
| caused both organizational and technical problems.
|
| To be fair, im still not sold that this is an advancement
| except maybe in simplifying the number of components. I'd
| prefer the car to work without "updates" and DLC. Why does my
| car need a firewall??
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| It needs two! One to keep engine fires out of the passenger
| compartment[1] and one to keep unauthorized users or code out
| of your infotainment and control systems.
|
| [1] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(engine)
| DonHopkins wrote:
| All cars and should be equipped with two firewall
| extinguishers, one for the network and one for the
| passenger compartment.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| It's not practical to produce a car that never needs updates.
| That would be a bug-free system, which is impossible. Since
| they're going to ship updates anyway, a lot of focus is on
| minimizing the cost and hence OTA.
|
| For what it's worth, I work in this industry and the general
| rule of thumb is that every increase in validation from QM
| (standard quality) up to the various levels of safety
| critical code has up to 10x the cost per line of code of the
| previous level.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > It's not practical to produce a car that never needs
| updates
|
| Exactly that was done for decades.
| miohtama wrote:
| But those cars are no longer competitive. There is only a
| marginal buyer group who wants to drive these "bricks",
| which would also unlikely pass the requirements set for
| new cars.
| bronson wrote:
| Until 1994, the year of the first software-only recall,
| maybe. Things have changed.
|
| Heck, manufacturers were issuing service bulletins to fix
| the fuel maps in their cars in the 1980s.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| It was not. Recalls have included software updates
| (sometimes via component replacement) since ECUs became
| common in the 1980s. Reverse engineering the binaries and
| flashing updated parameters is actually how ECU tuning
| used to be done.
| rjsw wrote:
| Updating the software in the computers that control the car
| has traditionally been combined with providing diagnostic
| support for it through the dealerships, not done OTA.
| Having an OBDII connector has been mandated in vehicles for
| a long time, you plug something into it that lets you
| either listen to CAN bus traffic or reprogram an individual
| Electronic Control Unit (ECU).
|
| Now that all vehicles have entertainment systems connected
| to the internet, I guess it is tempting to use that to
| reprogram ECUs, I haven't been working in this area
| recently though.
|
| The first use case of connecting entertainment systems to a
| vehicle bus that I can remember was to read some engine
| settings and turn up the volume on the radio at higher
| speeds.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > The first use case of connecting entertainment systems
| to a vehicle bus that I can remember was to read some
| engine settings and turn up the volume on the radio at
| higher speeds.
|
| Is anyone actually begging for this though? And why do
| you need a full bus? This feels like a luxury car problem
| that could be solved over I2C or something.
|
| I'm reading this whole SDV thing, and outside of using
| less ECUs, it seems like an overengineered solution to
| what was hardly a problem. If we can update ECUs already
| with OBD-II, step 1 is just making a virtualized OBD-II
| port that the infotainment system can talk to. Everything
| else can then stay unchanged until later.
| rjsw wrote:
| One problem is that the ECUs are fairly dumb, they each
| have a limit on how fast you can send CAN frames to them
| without overflowing receive buffers. The protocol to
| reprogram them starts by asking the target ECU how much
| of a delay is needed between each frame then needs to
| keep to quite tight timing constraints when sending the
| new flash image, I have written a Linux network protocol
| module to do this.
| vel0city wrote:
| I absolutely enjoy speed compensated volume. It's nice to
| have about the same apparent volume inside the cabin as
| road noise increases while not being very loud when going
| slow speeds or stopped.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| I2C is also a bus, just one that's less reliable and
| involves more custom work to use.
|
| A "virtualized OBD-II" is really just a UDS server if I
| understand what you're trying to convey. UDS is a
| dumpster fire of a protocol that should be expunged from
| existence, but my personal feelings aside can be run
| anywhere you want. That exists. I'm not aware of many
| systems that directly connect the infotainment processors
| directly to critical CAN buses. Usually there's an
| intermediary component to isolate them.
| encom wrote:
| >That would be a bug-free system, which is impossible.
|
| Yes, but code that doesn't get written does not have bugs.
| And I don't want to control the rear window defroster,
| wipers, climate control, fog lights or whatever, on a touch
| screen menu buried 7 levels deep while going 130 km/h. It's
| bad enough that coffee makers, light bulbs and tooth
| brushes now have updatable firmware.
| v9v wrote:
| > That would be a bug-free system, which is impossible.
|
| Why? If the rest of the car can function within design
| specifications for years, why can't the firmware?
|
| I'm fine with updates to add compatibility with new
| protocols and such, but to me a bug implies there's a
| standing problem with the current system that's not due to
| some sort of wear/changing standard/component damage etc.
| While one can point to examples of cars with defective
| mechanical designs, I don't think anyone considers it
| impossible to create designs without such defects (where
| defects are defined wrt. specifications), why is this the
| view in software engineering?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The rest of the car _doesn 't_ function within
| specifications for years. That's what recalls are fixing.
| These days, a lot of software recalls are being issued to
| work around physical design "bugs". The Tesla cybertruck
| frunk pinching issues are a well-publicized example.
|
| But, do you have an example of a software project
| anywhere that's bug-free? I'd include the space shuttle
| code, but even that famously high quality development
| process produced a (low) number of bugs.
| tehjoker wrote:
| If you get updates at the dealership, you don't need a
| network firewall.
| tonetegeatinst wrote:
| This is all the more frustrating as I'm in the security side if
| IT, and have been trying to teach myself C and assembly for
| embedded development and understanding how malware and
| vulnerability exist in this ecosystem and how I can help
| address these issues.
| maldev wrote:
| You can find router firmware sourcecode online and find
| pretty egregious vulnerabilities if you're really trying to
| learn.
|
| Alot of embedded stuff is outsourced and doesn't want to
| waste the computing power for stuff like stack canaries. I
| recall the following from making a tool for a dlink? router?
|
| //Reads a file name foo ReadFilePath() { // Get file name //
| TICKET 21321: Fixed crash by increasing buffer size char
| FilePath[100]; ReadFileName(&FilePath); }
|
| It sticks out to me, since the crash was clearly from a
| buffer overflow, and they had this documented in the source
| code that increasing the buffer size fixes it. What they
| didn't realize was that the bug would still happen and you
| could get a buffer overflow from this and do whatever you
| wanted. This is the level of programmer you're dealing with
| who's writing embedded software in an overseas sweatshop. And
| the talent isn't even there domestically since they're
| severely underpaid compared to someone writing simple
| javascript.
| FrankWilhoit wrote:
| The people who _actually can_ do it are _not_ underpaid.
| These days they are brought in to do cleanup. They can name
| their price and pick their assignments.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >The people who actually can do it are not underpaid.
|
| The pipelines to create more such people are sorely
| lacking though
| tcmart14 wrote:
| I took an embedded course in university where we programmed the
| AVR AtMega 328p on the Arduino UNO not using the Arduino
| libraries and compiler. Make files and setting up an
| environment.
|
| But yea, a single class probably isn't sufficient and also I
| image a lot of embedded companies have a preference to hire
| someone already familiar with the chip they are targeting and
| the toolchain for the stack. I also see a lot of asking for
| experience with RTOS, which in my class, we didn't use an RTOS.
| nickff wrote:
| RTOS-based development varies significantly from RTOS to
| RTOS, so I'm not sure how much it'd help to learn to use one.
| On the other hand, most fundamental OS knowledge is fully
| transferable to RTOS, so that would be helpful for embedded
| developers to understand.
| ghaff wrote:
| Yes, there's a ton of specificity. Could probably say that
| about kernel dev too. But there is a ton of things people
| do that's a lot more generalized. Of course I've used very
| little of specific things I got tested on in my day to day
| over the years.
| FrankWilhoit wrote:
| Programming embedded devices is not the same thing as
| "embedded-systems programming". The latter means, first and
| foremost, that the software is not allowed to crash, ever,
| for any reason, else it is people's lives.
|
| I did some initial requirements work on a system to monitor
| continuous-web papermaking machinery; the line had to be
| stopped, physically and completely, within 100ms if anything
| went wrong, because an uncontained web of paper can literally
| cut people in half. They wanted, in order to be able to hire,
| to use one of the embedded flavors of a well-known consumer-
| grade OS, and I had to prove to them that there was no way to
| make any of them safe, at any cost. And they knew their
| hardware, because they had built it themselves.
|
| The absolute last resort is a watchdog timer that hits the
| reset button if N milliseconds go by without the software
| telling it it's okay. This is what you have to implement if
| you are dealing with buggy and undocumented hardware -- as,
| all too often, you are. Sometimes you can get some doco for $
| and an NDA, but then in order to get the _real_ doco it is
| much more $$$ and a much tighter NDA, and the existence of
| that option is not even divulged until after things have
| already gone very far south.
|
| If it were only a matter of reading the top-level doco for
| this or that chip, there would be no issue.
| sillystu04 wrote:
| Why do the hardware companies make things so difficult?
|
| If I were selling hardware I'd want it to be as open and
| well documented as possible. So that more people buy it and
| so that I get credit for all the great stuff people make
| with my products.
| bigfatkitten wrote:
| Because then customers would see how rubbish the hardware
| actually is.
| blueflow wrote:
| It is safe to say that Computer Engineering has a problem with
| enabling knowledge transfer.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Yes! But it's also obvious that the industry doesn't have a
| prayer to ever reform. Stuck between proprietary and NDA's
| chips everywhere, using proprietary and NDA's toolchains and
| development kits, to product proprietary DRM'ed products.
|
| This is an industry that is about as far from the light of
| science & enlightenment as it is possible to get, ensnared as
| deeply in the entangling anti-human anti-science Intellectual
| Property qualgmire-hell as can be got. Oh sure plenty of
| science goes it! It's fantastically interesting & technical!
| But aside from some Application Notes write-ups trying
| desperately to help move the practice along, move it out of
| jank, knowledge goes in, but it doesn't ever come out!
| There's such a lack of peershios with which to practice
| science, to report your findings to, to replicate works on.
|
| The software world talks about its patterns and practices.
| The biggest industries on the planet are building software
| like wild AND are mad into open source. But... computer
| engineering is the shadowland, where no talk nor victories
| that happen there are allowed to be shared, where nothing
| escapes confinement. What a fucking plagued awful land of
| people unable to ever do the right thing, unable to bring
| their work out of the dark & into real civilization.
| odiroot wrote:
| I've been taught 8051 programming at my university. But I'm an
| older Gen Y, this could be going away for all I know.
| dmoy wrote:
| Embedded programming is definitely still taught... in EE.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Automotive has the problem of overwrought frameworks and no-
| code tooling that make it hard to fix problems and make
| improvements. Once the original devs are burned out or laid off
| the codebase rots and gets handed off to maintenance devs who
| barely know how anything works.
|
| I'm waiting for a recall fix for the underpowered Sync 2.5
| system to correct a backup camera problem. I'm not looking
| forward to worsening of all the current bugs with USB audio
| file playback that cause the UI to hang or not show a fully
| rendered display.
| bluedino wrote:
| Everything is just outsourced to the lowest bidder anyway
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| ok but why tho??? I have a lot of interest in embedded system
|
| can someone tell me if there are any course that taught this??
| jeffrallen wrote:
| I learned embedded in the school of hard knocks.
| bitwize wrote:
| Companies are not willing to pay what the people who know
| embedded deserve. $150,000, $200,000 and up for a JavaScript
| webshit "engineer", $100,000 max if you work in embedded,
| unless you have a _super_ specialist knowledge maintaining
| software on NASA 's remaining PDP-11s or whatever that they
| _can 't afford to lose_.
| sarchertech wrote:
| My CS degree concentration is embedded systems. I love embedded
| programming, but it would probably cost me $200k a year to do
| it versus the backend distributed systems stuff I do now.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| > These legacy companies have poached big hitters from Apple,
| Tesla and Google. They've sunk billions into it.
|
| Part of the problem might be poaching high title people from
| embedded tech companies while not doing anything for developer
| compensation.
| x0x0 wrote:
| it's a lot cheaper to pay one exec a couple million than to
| staff a medium-sized software engineering org: even 500 people
| at an average fully burdened cost of $250k is $125m/y.
| christophilus wrote:
| Cheaper, sure. But it's been ineffective. That's the point.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Yeah I get this is their calculus and am suggesting it's
| exactly why they are failing.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| One major issue has been that paying a developer market rates
| is practically unthinkable to traditional automakers. If you
| were to apply to a mid/senior job in Michigan, you might get
| offered $125k. The typical workaround has been to establish
| "software offices" on the west coast with separate pay scales
| and separate corporate structures that largely function as
| internal "external" vendors. The C suite are able to pretend
| they're not overpaying, and the teams getting work done are
| able to attract people closer to market rate.
| ghaff wrote:
| Well, it's not just about pay scales. The developers just
| don't want to live in Detroit (or even Ann Arbor) for the
| most part. And coastal East isn't really that much cheaper
| for the most part.
|
| I'd probably add that the pay scale for software vs.
| electrical/mechanical people probably wasn't notably
| different in the 90s or so. And California rates didn't
| compensate for CoL in general. Very different.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Old car is massive amounts of mechanotechnical engineering,
| with some software for keeping the beast under control and
| provide some basic entertainement.
|
| New car is basically a computer on a simple chassis with an
| equally simple drive train. Software and battery tech is
| everything.
| Zigurd wrote:
| One of these things is not like the others. Tesla, for good or
| ill, needed to write a full stack for their EV. Not only did
| they need to do it, but they did in fact do it and ship it and
| develop it over several years. Recruiting a Tesla software guy
| is probably the best choice between these three. And he'll cost
| you less.
|
| Both Google and Apple have car software, and who knows if Apple
| actually developed a full stack of the way Tesla did. But
| anyone can download and play with android automotive. It's
| unclear what getting one of the android automotive developers
| would do for you.
|
| Whoever convinced the people writing requirements documents for
| car user interfaces that they needed to use Unreal Engine to
| show you what your own car looks like and spin it around in.
| 3-D deserves some kind of salesmanship Nobel prize. That is the
| most pervasive useless thing I've seen in a long time.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| > One of these things is not like the others. Tesla, for good
| or ill, needed to write a full stack for their EV.
|
| And so did traditional manufacturers, they just had the
| benefit of being able to phase it in if they so chose. Or
| they could have done a hard cutover, either way, the failure
| is on them for ignoring the benefits of the Software Defined
| Vehicle discussed in the article.
|
| > It's unclear what getting one of the android automotive
| developers would do for you.
|
| Do they do vehicle control systems or just infotainment?
|
| > they needed to use Unreal Engine to show you what your own
| car looks like and spin it around in. 3-D deserves some kind
| of salesmanship Nobel prize.
|
| I mean that's exactly the kind of thing that makes Tesla
| fanboys rave endlessly about their car. It just needs to be
| decoupled from the actual software system, like any UI.
| Propelloni wrote:
| I have driven several different, rather new, cars over the last
| two years. The most hassle-free experience was the second
| cheapest of the bunch, a 2024 Opel Corsa GS (a Stellantis brand).
| I actually was sad when I had to give it back.
|
| Now I read that Stellantis is behind on the software game and I
| wonder if there is a relation. Seriously, I'm all for cost-
| effective cars but reading the article I do not get the feeling
| that so-called SDV are in the interest of me, the consumer.
| Jiocus wrote:
| The author mentions "military grade firewall", as a must have in
| a vehicle. Genuine question; What's a military grade firewall?
| PeterStuer wrote:
| I guess it's the same as a 'bulletproof firewall'. Just a
| colloquial saying indicating both high importance and required
| quality expected for operation in strong adverserial
| environments.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| An idiom meaning strong and resilient.
| peanut-walrus wrote:
| As someone who has been working in security for past 10 years
| and systems / network admin for another 10 before that, I don't
| even know what a firewall is supposed to be any more.
|
| Also, since I've worked on military systems a lot, I suppose a
| military grade firewall is just iptables for which someone has
| written a shitty gui (that might as well just be a webshell)
| and packaged it into a green rugged box.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| A stupid requirement.
|
| Consider this. Almost every car on the road today has an
| unsecured bus going back to like the 1980s. However you need to
| actually access the car to do something malicious so the threat
| vector is zero; since if you have access to the car you can
| also just cut brakes or put in a pipe bomb.
|
| The only reason why this paradigm changes in the EV era is
| because the insistence on having EVs phone home. Now you can
| concievably hack all EVs of this model at once and that is now
| realistic and even attractive to do. But again not a necessity
| for running a car. Just something that modern software focused
| companies want to see that leads to a host of expensive
| security issues that didn't exist before. The car could be
| airgapped with the dealer network used to flash software
| updates like they do with most other cars before EV era.
| cibyr wrote:
| The threat is not exactly zero. In some cases, thieves can
| get physical access to the bus from outside the car, and then
| inject messages to unlock it, start the engine, and drive
| away: https://kentindell.github.io/2023/04/03/can-injection/
|
| Sure someone in that situation could also "just cut brakes or
| put in a pipe bomb" but car theft is a lot more common than
| assassination, at least where I live.
| fn-mote wrote:
| > Almost every car on the road today has an unsecured bus
| going back to like the 1980s. However you need to actually
| access the car to do something malicious
|
| See [1] from 2023, where popping the headlight gives access
| to the bus. Lack of internal security then gives a way to
| steal the car.
|
| The threat just isn't the same as the one you are modeling.
|
| Security will come eventually, if only to prevent bad
| publicity.
|
| [1]: https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2023/04/crook...
|
| ETA: Just as the sibling says...
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| A firewall built by the lowest bidder, that barely functions,
| but is robust to even bored Marines deciding to play with it.
| klysm wrote:
| I think anybody using this term has a shallow understanding of
| network security and just bundles it all mentally into a
| "thing" that stops all the bad stuff from happening.
| reliablereason wrote:
| I wonder if that is a "Genuine question"..
|
| "military grade" is often used as a marketing term used for
| things that pretend to be built to be extra strong.
|
| In this case it is a stupid term to use to describe a firewall
| cause a firewall either works or it does not.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Such a thing exists though usually not called "military-grade"
| per se. It is more similar to a data diode [0] than a classic
| firewall but has significant differences from either.
|
| Data streams are converted into a sequence of objects that are
| required to have and satisfy certain formally verifiable
| properties as a pre-condition of forwarding. Any data or
| objects that cannot satisfy formal analysis requirements are
| dropped. Forwarding policies are only applied to objects that
| meet the prerequisite of being rigorously analyzable.
|
| This behavior is bidirectional. It applies equally to data
| egress to mitigate internal threats and accidental data
| leakage. The internal mechanics can be pretty complicated and
| they necessarily operate on a store-and-forward basis. The data
| objects may be "laundered" by the firewall, what you send may
| not be exactly what the other side receives.
|
| To make this work, the wire protocol, data representation, etc
| must be designed specifically to allow this kind of rigorous
| analysis and work well within these constraints. It usually
| won't work on a random web stream and the data representation
| often sacrifices efficiency of storage for efficiency of
| verification and analysis at runtime.
|
| In reality, virtually no one uses this type of tech outside of
| defense and intelligence because it won't let almost any of the
| standard web stack slop through.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidirectional_network
| anotherhue wrote:
| > These are companies that have typically seen software as a
| problem to be solved, not a design to be experienced.
|
| Some unexpected Kierkegaard in there (I only recently learned
| Dune was referencing it).
| smartmic wrote:
| So I have serious thoughts about driving "software defined
| vehicles" in the future. I mean, and the article has confirmed
| this sufficiently, the core competence of the established car
| manufacturers is not software. I don't trust the newcomers like
| Tesla or the Chinese manufacturers for the time being. In my
| opinion, the same standards should apply to software in motor
| vehicles as in the aviation industry. And there can't be things
| like permanent internet connectivity, on-the-fly updates or
| anything else that is suitable for consumer entertainment
| devices. So I'm seriously considering whether my next car should
| be an "analog" one - but it's going to be difficult, a Lada [1]
| (not so exotic in Germany, where I live) is only available
| second-hand because of the Russia sanctions. I'm happy to accept
| alternative suggestions!
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_Niva
| tehjoker wrote:
| Aviation standards are the way they are because if you have an
| engine problem you can't pull over to the side of the road. But
| yes, something approximating these for road conditions is a
| good idea imo.
|
| Part of me thinks the reason they are doing an integrated
| system is a combination of economics and convenience for 3
| letter agencies to remotely assassinate ppl.
| smartmic wrote:
| Having an engine problem on a back road is one thing, having
| a software-system-integration-what-the-hell problem on a
| Autobahn at 180 km/h +/- is a different story. And yes, I do
| not want my family in the car at that moment.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Yea if it affects brakes, acceleration, or steering it's a
| huge huge problem.
| bornfreddy wrote:
| Or even just AC (think visibility).
| WWLink wrote:
| Having an AC problem in death valley in the summer could be
| troublesome.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Hey... I hear the crowd yelling "let's have a speed limit
| on the Autobahn, 100kph, see how we fix many problems at
| once" /s
| mihaaly wrote:
| Projecting that "software had to be fully _validated_ and
| _finalized_ before the product entered production " was the
| stale old days and "make the car better over time" (i.e. out
| being driven) is the bright future by the automotive industry
| is far beyond worry.
|
| Basically sitting inside a Windows that can kill you.
|
| They all lost their minds putting stakes on software makers. I
| intentionally avoid the word engineering, engineering is far
| far away what is built up by the software making industry that
| is now tasked with being the babckbone of vechicles you put
| your and your family's life into. The cultures are
| incompatible.
|
| (disregard mission critical software, their engineers are not
| proud members of the 'do not finalize, fix it later' bunch, not
| at all, they are nowhere here)
| HPsquared wrote:
| There are safety standards for automobile software: ISO 26262.
|
| Software for steering or braking systems is of high quality.
| It's not the same team that does the infotainment.
| stahtops wrote:
| How do you square this with the article?
|
| It states that consumer reports, (a for profit company
| providing independent reviews, and not a regulatory body)
| said the Model 3 stopping distance was not good. Allegedly
| due to a "bad ABS calibration". Tesla released an OTA SW
| update.
|
| Why wasn't the bad calibration and degraded performance
| caught by regulators testing automobile safety standards?
|
| The article also posits that this ability to make OTA updates
| expands the (IMO very very bad) SWE perspective that "it's OK
| to ship unfinished and buggy products" into safety critical
| systems.
| HappyJoy wrote:
| Consumer reports is a non-profit last I checked
| HPsquared wrote:
| Ah interesting, I wonder if Tesla is an exception and if
| their systems do in fact follow ISO 26262. Standards are
| not necessarily legal requirements, and not necessarily
| checked by external people.
|
| It sounds like their ABS system wasn't designed as
| carefully as conventional systems if there was such poor
| braking performance. Reading around, it might have been
| related to the emergency brake assist functionality not
| being calibrated properly.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The role of US regulators in the automotive industry is
| pretty different from what you seem to be expecting. They
| see their main goal is to set minimum, testable benchmarks
| for safety and give manufacturers freedom to achieve that
| in any reasonably justifiable way. The consequence of this
| is that almost nothing is _required_ beyond meeting FMVSS
| and passing the tests it prescribes. ABS stopping distance
| is one of those tests, but a quick glance at the CR tests
| doesn 't look like an FMVSS failure. The stopping distance
| simply wasn't up to industry norms.
|
| Another consequence is that ISO-26262 and most other
| standards are completely, 100% norm-based in the US.
| They're used because the industry expects them, not because
| there's a legal requirement. You can deviate all you want
| and the only consequence is that regulators might take a
| closer look at your paperwork in the event of issues
| because they look unusual.
| ta1243 wrote:
| My car randomly braked today because it thought a car on a
| side road was pulling out. Not just sound the alarm but
| actually apply the brakes. Fortunately I didn't have a
| tailgater behind me.
|
| I disable the "land assist" every time (which often tries to
| steer me into wildlife or other cars and was clearly not
| built for use on a single track country roads with hedges and
| random verges), but this was the first time in 3 years that
| the "front assist" caused problems.
|
| If that's "high quality", I dread to think what low quality
| would be.
| jim180 wrote:
| Same thing happened to my wife, while driving at about
| 110km/h...luckily no one was behind her.
| izzydata wrote:
| This happened to be on a highway when driving my friends
| car with all these assisted driving "features" while in
| cruise control. I was going up a small hill and for
| whatever reason there was a car stopped right at the top
| that I couldn't see. So the car slammed the breaks while I
| was in the middle of swerving out of the way. Which caused
| me to swerve more than I had intended. After I regained
| control it removed the breaks and attempted to return to
| the 80mph I was at previously which caused more problems
| because I wasn't ready for that.
|
| I am now of the opinion that a car should never under any
| circumstance drive for you. If a car has cruise control it
| should cruise control you into a wall. That I can at least
| anticipate.
| timewizard wrote:
| > ISO 26262.
|
| That is a piece of paper.
|
| > Software for steering or braking systems is of high
| quality.
|
| There's literally no way for me to know that before I trust
| my life with it.
| turtlebro wrote:
| Just buy a car from the people, who dedicate their career/lives
| to making cars and have done so for decades. You aren't smarter
| then them. Your "serious thoughts" and "opinion" about what
| standards should apply are not yours to worry about.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > Just buy a car from the people, who dedicate their
| career/lives to making cars and have done so for decades. You
| aren't smarter then them.
|
| Is this then logic that gets airlines to buy from The Boeing
| "Are door plugs supposed to stay in?" Company?
| stahtops wrote:
| BMW i3 is great for city/town if you're OK with electric. Not
| 4x4, but minimal "assist", just traction control. Internet
| remote stuff is optional but nice.
|
| In the fully autonomous future the car I want to own and drive
| will still be my 6MT 911! :-)
|
| If I want to be driven, I'll just book a waymo.
| ghaff wrote:
| >If I want to be driven, I'll just book a waymo.
|
| So move to one of the 2 or 3 cities in the US that have
| Waymo?
| stahtops wrote:
| I think you missed the part about the fully autonomous
| future.
|
| We aren't there yet.
| ghaff wrote:
| And won't be for a very long time.
| dboreham wrote:
| To be fair: only small parts of those cities. E.g. no Waymo
| to LAX.
| andoando wrote:
| By aviation standards, wed be stuck with 1950s tech. Even for
| aviation, aviation standards hold saftey back
| pc86 wrote:
| You seem to be confusing aviation standards with aviation
| regulation.
| decimalenough wrote:
| They're not separable. Who do you think is coming up with
| the standards?
| serial_dev wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand everything you said but I went with
| Dacia Duster, it's the affordable brand, but I like that I can
| have a new car that has the controls and everything like a car
| from a decade ago... (lol) physical buttons, relatively good
| quality as they get to rely on Renault's everything, I don't
| need to go to settings to open the glove box, they don't try to
| "out-innovate" everybody with ads, subscription heating, goofy
| scroll-knobs, or non rectangle screens. You can put CarPlay and
| Android Auto in it if you want.
|
| Also, you can just buy older cars, that works too.
|
| BTW, I thought about buying a Lada Niva, because I love the
| looks, but I heard it is not that reliable as you would assume,
| and they are pretty pricey for a car that is basically the same
| for forty years...
| greenavocado wrote:
| A fender bender is lethal in a Lada
| pc86 wrote:
| The core competency of most software companies is not software,
| I'm not sure how GM thinks it can do anything halfway decent
| (it can't).
| mulmen wrote:
| I visited Detroit last year and went to the GM headquarters.
| It's open to the public with no appointment. You can wander
| around the Escherian maze with no guidance. A physical
| manifestation of every business decision GM has made in the
| last four decades.
| shrx wrote:
| Are you talking about the Renaissance Center? Of course
| it's open to the public, there's even a hotel inside.
| teekert wrote:
| That Niva is so nice! Just very very fuel inefficient, but man
| can it do off road in the hills of Albania. Take the one with
| the low gear and the diff-lock (and heated seats!). It's a joy
| to ride that thing (although not on the freeway). I also
| considered it, but even before sanctions is was very expensive
| due to taxes (here in western Europe). But it's so much fun.
| sweeter wrote:
| I'd trust BYD more than Tesla but I don't want to have to trust
| anyone. I drove a 20 year old Honda still to this day, but
| literally every new car has software in it and it won't be an
| option in the future. It's just too profitable to gather the
| data that they generate. It's a privacy nightmare. I'm still
| appalled that Tesla got caught pulling footage of people having
| sex in their own vehicles, but the legal world has no intention
| of doing anything about it.
| pnw wrote:
| How is Tesla, a 21 year old company that has shipped seven
| million cars across the world (including the worlds best
| selling car) a "newcomer"?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Terrible mobile website for what its worth. Two sentences per in
| paragraph ad and I couldn't fully read the article because it
| bogged my se2 down to a crawl. How I wish I could jailbreak this
| phone and install a real adblocker but alas not on magic version
| number.
| paul-tharun wrote:
| If ios allows private dns you can set it to adguard dns, to get
| some level of adblocking
| egypturnash wrote:
| If you want to know the many ways this is going to suck, then
| think about everything you've ever heard someone bitching about
| in the modern video game ecosystem, then multiply it by "but
| instead of people not being able to play a video game, someone
| might die".
|
| Is this how we get the Butlerian Jihad? Because part of me sure
| does want to learn how to identify cars built like this and learn
| ways to disable them when I see them parked somewhere around
| town, before one of them fails to recognize me on my bicycle as
| something that should be avoided.
| api wrote:
| I am awaiting a hatchback or sedan like this:
|
| https://www.slate.auto/en
|
| Give me a car that is perfectly 100% autonomous, or give me a car
| with three gauges and basic controls only. Everything else is an
| uncanny valley: all the downsides of complex tech without being
| useful enough to justify it.
|
| Until then I like my Nissan Leaf: physical controls, phone just
| docks with infotainment screen, and reliable.
| perlgeek wrote:
| After using it for 3+ years, I'd really miss automatic cruise
| control.
|
| You can an intuition pretty quickly for what it does and what
| it doesn't, and in certain situations it really takes a lot of
| attention off your plate (stop-and-go traffic, and long
| distances on the highway).
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Remove the LTE chip and all functionality related to ads, support
| wireless CarPlay and android auto, and use physical buttons.
| You'll win every award in the industry.
| nicce wrote:
| I have heard CarPlay royalty is quite big - has anyone some
| numbers?
|
| Edit: maybe my information was old - some sources say it costs
| nothing
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Wait till you see how much it costs (in sales) to NOT have
| it. Eg: I won't buy a car without it.
| gambiting wrote:
| Generally yes, but I would buy a car that has no screen at
| all, just give me a phone holder on the dash.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Yeah all I want is something that holds the phone and
| gives it a USB-C port that charges it, lets me play media
| through it, and lets buttons on the wheel control the
| phone (volume, next/previous, and programmable go
| forward/back x seconds buttons).
|
| USB-C is so powerful, it can do everything Bluetooth does
| while charging, but for some reason that's just not an
| option in a lot of cars? Make it make sense.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's the latency that kills me. Let alone the stupid
| "you're an idiot if you let this screen distract and kill
| you" message that pops up, it seems to take a good 10+
| seconds to sync with the phone and "come alive".
|
| This is with USB, too.
|
| I want the car to start and CarPlay to be operational; we
| have no time to be wasting on whatever formalities
| software wants to have.
|
| Maybe someday wireless CarPlay could start syncing with
| the system before you even get to the car, so it's
| already loaded when you sit down and start.
| imp0cat wrote:
| But some do, don't they? It seems to me that Hyundai will
| initiate the phone connection right when you open the
| driver's door. Then, as you sit down and start the car,
| the infotainment has already booted up and the phone
| connection comes online almost immediately.
|
| Also, during short stops, the screens go black but the
| connection is kept up, so when you re-start, there is no
| delay.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| This is what the Slate truck is promising. I won't buy it
| without CarPlay, personally, but you can put your money
| where your mouth is, supposedly.
| mulmen wrote:
| The Slate truck won't have CarPlay because it won't have
| infotainment at all. If you want Carplay buy one of the
| dozens of offerings from companies like Alpine and have
| it installed at one of the thousands of stereo shops
| across the country. You'll get exactly what you want from
| experts in what you want.
| elcritch wrote:
| Or 3d print a mount for my old iPad and not need CarPlay
| at all.
| ncruces wrote:
| Then you want the Dacia Media Control.
|
| It has a phone holder where other trim levels would place
| the screen, and USB power around there.
|
| Other than that, the car is mostly Bluetooth a speaker.
|
| They actually have an app that allows you to tune the FM
| radio, otherwise I don't think you can listen to radio
| broadcasts.
|
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dacia.d
| ngo
| calmbonsai wrote:
| You might be interested in the Slate truck when it comes
| out. It's too early to tell, but I like their philosophy.
| gambiting wrote:
| I mean I have that already, a Volkswagen E-Up that has a
| cradle for a phone with a USB port behind it for
| charging. They even have an app that connects to your car
| directly(through Bluetooth! No fancy subscription based
| nonsense) and shows you all charging/energy consumption
| figures.
|
| I just mean I'd totally buy a much higher end car that is
| like this, I don't need a screen with all the nonsense on
| it.
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| I'd rather have a big screen for GPS.
| ghaff wrote:
| My car even has a relatively small console screen but
| still prefer it over my (non-plus size) iPhone. I could
| live with just my iPhone on USB but consider the center
| screen a plus. (The vehicle is pretty good about climate
| control etc. on buttons.)
| mrloop wrote:
| My old ford tourneo custom has a well placed phone
| holder. I use this and a MagSafe charger plugged into usb
| port on dash. Works great, I can use my phone, or anybody
| else can use the van and their phone, it's really easy.
| Just looked and newer models have great big touch screen
| instead :(
| ryanbrunner wrote:
| Physical controls are worth it for me. Having a press to
| talk button, track advance and volume controls on my
| steering wheel is a pretty nice quality of life feature.
| I could do without a screen if the car has that.
| ghaff wrote:
| And what happens when phone sizes change? I've certainly
| had phone clips that didn't comfortably fit a new phone
| with case.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I think phones are about as big as they can get, unless
| we genetically engineer larger hands.
| gambiting wrote:
| You get a new holder. The one that came with our e-Up was
| too small for my S24 Ultra, so I just got an adapter on
| eBay for like PS3 and installed a new holder(with
| wireless charging!). Where there's a market need someone
| will provide a solution.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm not sure why you have the downvotes. Even it's mostly
| just about GPS, the built-in screen is better than iPhone
| on a somewhat dodgy clip attached to a vent someplace.
| Unless the car were otherwise compelling--and it's a pretty
| competitive market--not sure I'd buy a car without CarPlay.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| I want a car with a phone holder built in! My phone will
| always be higher powered and more update than any tech in
| the car.
|
| Give me a car with no computer, but a phone stand and
| charger built in!
|
| Oh oh, we could even use a standard like monitor stands.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| There are no licensing fees or royalties for CarPlay or
| android auto.
|
| It does cost time/money to integrate, like any feature
| joezydeco wrote:
| Can you implement CarPlay now without the MFI chip?
| sokoloff wrote:
| Does anyone prefer wired CarPlay over Wireless CarPlay?
|
| I was annoyed enough that our used/new-to-us 2020 vehicle
| only supported wired that I bought a wired-to-wireless
| adapter and brought it with me on test drives to ensure
| that whatever I bought would work well in wireless mode
| [or else I was buying a different car].
|
| I installed a wireless charger under one of the cubbies
| that was well sized to hold my phone on long drives. No
| need to faff around with cables.
| nicce wrote:
| Someone was so annoyed that they built Raspberry dongle
| themselves, and based on the stars, someone else was too:
| https://github.com/45clouds/WirelessCarPlay
| bigfatkitten wrote:
| > Does anyone prefer wired CarPlay over Wireless CarPlay?
|
| Yes, for the main reason that I have a Starlink Mini on
| my roof rack.
|
| My phone can connect to the vehicle via wifi, or it can
| connect to the internet over Starlink via wifi, but not
| both simultaneously. With wired CarPlay, that problem is
| solved.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Remove the LTE chip
|
| You can't, it's required for eCall which is a mandatory feature
| in Europe.
|
| Unfortunately, it's fraught with issues, especially for the
| very first eCall modules where the hardware supported only 3G
| (HSPA)... which is being phased out across Europe together with
| GPRS (1G)/EDGE (2G), leaving these cars without a working eCall
| system - and no upgraded hardware modules in many cases.
| ryanbrunner wrote:
| Wouldn't be the first or the last time that a car has a
| different build out for different locales - as differences
| go, that's pretty minor.
| mulmen wrote:
| Ok but that doesn't really solve the problem in Europe.
| lukan wrote:
| I mean we can also change laws again in europe (in favour
| of that) - but we could also keep it as a separate
| module. So the LTE chip only gets used for an emergency
| call and nothing else. No remote control.
|
| Unlikely to happen, but possible (not 100% safe, but good
| enough).
| paulddraper wrote:
| > required
|
| That's...terrible
| ratatoskrt wrote:
| ...why? Seems pretty sensible to me?
| kortilla wrote:
| Some people don't like built in trackers
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| It's not a tracker. It activates during an accident, or
| via manual action.
|
| Hopefully those same people know what ANPR is and how
| does it affect them.
| mousethatroared wrote:
| Of course it is. We're just told differently until a
| leaker proves differently. Twenty years too late to do
| anything about it
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| There are so many things in a modern car that track you.
| eCall is the smallest problem.
| koolba wrote:
| Indeed there are:
| https://medium.com/@doctoreww/day-2-your-car-is-
| trackable-by...
|
| And "modern" is going back over a decade. So most cars on
| the road.
| XorNot wrote:
| And naturally of course you don't carry a cellphone with
| you while you drive...you know, that device with
| accelerometers, GPS and an LTE chip that you leave
| powered on all the time on your person?
| timewizard wrote:
| I can actually remove my number plate. One tool, five
| minutes, car still drives.
|
| And of course it's a tracker. It reports my location to a
| third party. There is no other definition for it. That it
| purportedly only does this during an "emergency" is not
| something I can verify nor trust.
| hshdhdhj4444 wrote:
| https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/smart-
| mobili...
|
| Can you explain why these protections are not sufficient
| for privacy?
|
| > 112 eCall is not a black box. It does not record
| constantly the position of the vehicle, it records only a
| few data to determine the position and direction of the
| vehicle just before the crash and these data are only
| transmitted to emergency call centers if there is a
| serious crash.
|
| > eCall cannot be used to monitor motorist's moves. The
| SIM-card used to transmit the eCall data is dormant, i.e.
| it is only activated in case the vehicle has a serious
| accident (e.g. the airbag is activated).
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Because you have to just believe that they are followed,
| and cannot verify it.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Almost everyone has a phone you don't need a second one
| built in to your car.
| therein wrote:
| Oops somehow a switch has attached itself to the fuse of the
| LTE module in my vehicle.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Nice. I wish mine had a dedicated fuse for that.
| lttlrck wrote:
| Slate have done this and it's really quite compelling. You even
| get window winders.
|
| https://www.slate.auto/en/personalization
| archon wrote:
| "Have done this" implies Slate has delivered even one
| vehicle. They have not. I hope Slate succeeds, but let's not
| get caught up in the preorder hype.
| almostgotcaught wrote:
| This is the same way that hn proclaims every single arxiv
| paper as revolutionary. I really wonder sometimes who is
| this gullible on the internet (kids? bots? I influencers?)
| saurik wrote:
| I mean, they did something, for sure, but they sure as hell
| didn't do "this" ;P. What they are doing is more in the line
| of not providing even hardware, much less software, which is
| an entirely different paradigm... like, they don't even
| provide speakers?!...
| Tagbert wrote:
| The window winders I can do without. Not sure that even saves
| a noticeable amount of money at this point with electric
| windows such as commodity.
| Tsiklon wrote:
| All depends on how they market it. Wind down windows to me
| today is an aesthetic statement - "we are selling a cheap,
| no frills vehicle - look see! Even wind down windows"
|
| Such positioning could be what the intended customer base
| react well to.
| XorNot wrote:
| Which turns it into more uselessness for marketing rather
| then practicality.
|
| For example, mechanical window winders would need a whole
| extra disengagement or locking mechanism for child
| proofing.
| bjelkeman-again wrote:
| But that car isn't intended for customers transporting
| kids. Two seats.
| hedora wrote:
| My biggest concern is lack of a stereo. Did they include
| speaker cutouts and wires, or are you looking at a $1000
| labor bill, minimum?
|
| I'd much rather they included a $200 system, since ~ 100%
| of their customers will want to be able to have speakers
| in the doors and a mic in the dash (at the very least).
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Add handles like winders, but make them only have 5
| degrees of travel up and down, so that they operate like
| the regular buttons :)
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| I seem to remember Jeep saying manual window winders were
| actually more expensive once you factor in the costs of
| having them as an option given how cheap electric ones are
| when they dropped them for the new Wrangler. Might still be
| cheaper if you only manufacture with them and don't offer
| electric but the price difference can't be that high.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| Is it about price or reliability?
|
| I never had a manual window winder fail to work, but
| electric window buttons breaking or the motor getting
| stuck (e.g. in icy conditions) has happened at some point
| in every car I've owned.
|
| The convenience factor hugely outweighs the rare failures
| for me, but I could see why someone buying a Wrangler for
| its intended purpose might actually prefer the manual
| option.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Manual windows can and do fail, but in my experience not
| as often as electric ones. There's just less to go wrong.
| giantg2 wrote:
| It'd be great if they make an engine swap package for
| existing trucks with optional battery sizes.
| anon7000 wrote:
| Mazda has done a great job at this so far, very minimal screen
| which automatically just shows CarPlay, and buttons for all the
| normal car stuff, which also isn't overdone. The only flaw is
| the scroll wheel to interact with the screen, which is just
| slightly too clunky in apps with too many options
| ak217 wrote:
| Mazda also managed to squander a huge brand and structural
| advantage by falling into lockstep behind other Japanese
| automakers in underinvesting in EV manufacturing
| infrastructure. Now they have to rely on their JV partner
| Changan to lead the way in producing EVs, giving up the core
| structural strengths that Mazda previously had in designing
| and building their own components - including software and
| controls, which in the Changan-led models have no continuity
| at all with Mazda's domestic models. They just superficially
| copy the Mazda exterior design language while wholly
| dependent on Chinese supply chains (and some Android Auto for
| the software, it seems) for manufacturing the actual EV.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| A lot of people still don't want or can't really afford EVs
| given their limitations. I'd say it's the majority where I
| live. I directly know only one person who has a full EV
| (not a hybrid).
|
| I don't think the Japanese automakers have squandered
| anything, yet.
| hedora wrote:
| We paid maybe a $10K premium for a used EV truck. It gets
| 2mi/kWh. Most parts of the country are paying ~ $0.125
| per kWh, so that's &0.06 of a dollar in electricity per
| mile.
|
| A comparable truck gets 18mpg mixed. At $3/gallon, that's
| $0.16 per mile. So, the price premium pays back after
| 100K miles. That's comparable to milage driven during a
| long car loan.
|
| I ignored oil changes, tax breaks on used cars, and
| picked the form factor where EVs are the least
| economical.
|
| It's still basically break-even.
| wbl wrote:
| For commuter with charging access at office or home EV
| makes sense. For me making 300+ mile round trips with no
| charging infra (pull in at the gas station in the
| foothills) and low overall mileage EV is trickier.
| adriand wrote:
| Hopefully they figure it out because I love my Mazda 3
| hatchback and would buy an EV version of it in a heartbeat.
| Not only is it very fun to drive (I have a manual
| transmission) but the interior design is excellent.
| BoingBoomTschak wrote:
| Mazda's target market is quite different from the EV buyers
| one, at least here in Europe.
|
| Its reputation is that of a brand for people who really
| like cars, who can appreciate the care put into proper
| engineering and a wonderful manual transmission; or people
| with an eye for a "conservative" kind of quality. It's
| basically the new Volvo, but sportier.
| flax wrote:
| My 2017 Mazda cx5 refuses to not play the radio. There is no
| "off" for the audio, you have to choose a source. I use my
| phone, via bluetooth. But sometimes, for unknown reasons, the
| car does not connect with the phone. It then falls back to
| the last source chosen before BT, which is radio. Okay, so I
| created a flash drive with an mp3 of 30 seconds of silence,
| played that, then went back to bluetooth. This failback
| strategy worked one time, then it also failed to recognize
| the flash drive, and failed back to radio, again.
|
| I will never want to listen to the radio. I would love to
| remove radio as an option. I would love to have no fallback
| as an option. But no, the car just f-n loves the radio and
| will not stop trying to force it on me.
|
| Oh yeah, and the radio is buggy and could get stuck if I tune
| into the wrong station.
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60333765.
|
| This car definitely tries too hard to be smarter than it is.
| There's all sorts of exceptions that keep the doors from
| auto-locking when I walk away, and I would turn all of them
| off, but I can't. Walk away too fast? doesn't lock. Open the
| rear? won't auto lock. Car just doesn't feel like it? doesn't
| auto-lock.
|
| And god forbid you hit the unlock button when the passenger
| has already unlocked it. Anxious beeps from the car for
| several solid seconds. That is not an error condition!
|
| Performance and reliability have been great though. They just
| need to stop trying to be smart. They're not.
| deergomoo wrote:
| I bought a Mazda3 a few months ago and I love it. It is
| exactly what I want as a driver.
|
| I even adore the scroll wheel and wish it could be in any car
| I own in future. Yeah it takes slightly longer to do certain
| actions in CarPlay, but I can do it so much more safely than
| I could in the Civic I had before. The infotainment boots
| basically instantly; as you mentioned CarPlay starts itself,
| and the patronising-but-mandated "don't use this in motion"
| warning dismisses itself. In the Civic I would be half way
| down the road already by the time it booted, blindly prodding
| at the screen to try to dismiss that warning so I could pause
| the podcast that started playing itself because I plugged my
| phone in.
|
| And, while my 2022 car predates the stupid auto-re-enabling
| ADAS requirement in Europe, the 2024+ models have single
| button deactivation. I dunno how, cause it's supposed to
| require a minimum of two presses legally, but it sure makes
| me wanna stick with Mazda.
|
| However that makes the upcoming 6E that much more
| disappointing. They've partnered with a Chinese manufacturer,
| I assume because they don't have an EV platform of their own
| ready yet. Looks fantastic from the outside, but the inside
| is a sea of touch screens with barely a physical control in
| sight.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Physical buttons are a huge need. Its so distracting navigating
| through screens to change the temperature while driving.
| ericmay wrote:
| That's interesting - what vehicles require you to do that? I
| know the usual suspect is the Tesla, which I have, but I
| never have to navigate through menus to change the
| temperature while driving.
|
| As an aside a lot of people like to levy criticism on the
| infotainment screens which I think is very well deserved, but
| then people text and drive, watch YouTube videos, and do all
| sorts of crazy things too.
|
| Instead of levying criticism on these distractions (let's
| include billboard too) we should instead focus on just
| reducing car usage since we won't stop people from being
| distracted.
|
| The safest car is the one in your garage.
| hiatus wrote:
| > As an aside a lot of people like to levy criticism on the
| infotainment screens which I think is very well deserved,
| but then people text and drive, watch YouTube videos, and
| do all sorts of crazy things too.
|
| Instead of levying criticism on these distractions (let's
| include billboard too) we should instead focus on just
| reducing car usage since we won't stop people from being
| distracted.
|
| This argument to me reads like one for abstinence from sex.
| The world is not so binary, we can both criticize
| distractions and build communities where car use is not a
| necessity. Not to mention in most jurisdictions some of
| these distractions are criminalized.
| ericmay wrote:
| We can - but we don't need to clutch our pearls about
| infotainment screens as if they are some sort of special
| moral insult relative to what's very common in today's
| driving communities.
|
| Criminalization of texting and driving and such doesn't
| matter unless you enforce, and we don't enforce. So it's
| de facto legal. Who cares about infotainment screens at
| that point?
| timewizard wrote:
| Ford SYNC.
|
| https://pictures.dealer.com/s/surprisefordvtg/0292/10a2adba
| 8...
|
| It's like a window into hell.
| bigfatkitten wrote:
| I've got a Ranger with SYNC 4. HVAC has its own set of
| buttons and dials below the display, but you can use the
| touchscreen widgets too if you want to.
|
| https://www.ford.com.au/content/ford/au/en_au/home/owners
| /te...
| gkhartman wrote:
| As a Linux fan and owner of a Sync 1.0 vehicle I feel
| your pain. I want to replace it with something
| aftermarket, but the cost of a dash kit is pretty steep
| if you want one of decent quality. I reboot it weekly,
| which takes minutes, so it doesn't freeze during the
| week. I'm guessing there's memory leak that takes a while
| to accumulate.
| DragonStrength wrote:
| Subaru require you navigating to second screen for climate
| modes. Simple temp adjustment has buttons, but the screen
| interactions for basic usage feels dangerous as a driver.
| ericmay wrote:
| I'm being pedantic but the OP did specifically say they
| need to "navigate through screens to adjust the
| temperature" which I think is different than setting
| climate modes. Not that I'm defending that you might have
| to do that specifically, but I was responding to the OP's
| specific wording.
| PLenz wrote:
| This is the feature I dislike most about my outback. Some
| systems just need buttons so you can operate without
| looking
| femto wrote:
| The Nissan Leaf is (was?) what you describe, apart from the LTE
| chip. The LTE doesn't seem to do much without NissanConnect
| (which was actually written by Bosch).
| pnw wrote:
| Removing LTE would remove key features that drivers want,
| including real time traffic updates, remote controls and
| streaming media? What's your objection to LTE?
| fideloper wrote:
| I think the idea is your phone will do that for you via
| carplay (etc)
| bluGill wrote:
| Why does your car need an internet connection? I don't use the
| built in maps since my phone has a map and a connection.
|
| what is the killer app of a connected car? businesses might want
| to watch their fleet but does anyone else care
| tacker2000 wrote:
| to be honest, we are now at the stage where everything that CAN
| get an internet connection, WILL get one eventually. Be it your
| god damn dryer or fridge or lawnmower...
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Why does your car need an internet connection?
|
| It requires at least a basic cellular module for eCall in
| Europe since 2018, so car manufacturers use the already present
| hardware to provide more services. Maps and updates (live
| traffic view), internet hotspots for passengers (IIRC, Tesla
| does that one), entertainment that doesn't rely on a phone,
| firmware updates, feedback of driving data to insurances (yes,
| some insurances offer discounts in exchange for proving you
| "drive safely"), position data for leased/financed cars in case
| they need to be repo'd, synchronizing stuff like seat and
| mirror position across a fleet, remote pre-heating, "put
| packages in my trunk" access for parcel deliveries to thwart
| porch pirates, uploading data from real-world traffic
| situations to train AIs (again, Tesla does that one)...
|
| There's quite the laundry list of nifty to nasty things that
| can be done with a connected car.
| perlgeek wrote:
| Some features I've found useful:
|
| * giving me the current fuel and battery levels in the app
|
| * giving me an ETA on when charging is finished
|
| * locating my car
|
| * telling me if the car has been sitting there for a few
| minutes with ignition off but doors unlocked, giving me the
| option to lock them remotely
|
| * telling me about open windows, giving me the option to close
| them remotely
|
| None of them is really crucial, but for a hybrid or EV, getting
| the ETA for when the charge is finished is pretty useful.
| tacker2000 wrote:
| Software defined vehicle? Never heard of this term. More
| marketing buzzword BS.
|
| Yes, Tesla has one of the best user interfaces in a car, and has
| set the bar high. But just because they have OTA updates it's now
| called a "Software Defined Vehicle"?
| vardump wrote:
| It's not just the user interface. UI is just the tip of the
| iceberg. It's also firmware for all those controllers all over
| the car as well.
| topherPedersen wrote:
| General Motors was in the lead then they just quit. It was
| stunning to see all of their incredible self driving Cruise cars
| vanish and then overnight see them all replaced by Waymos. It was
| like watching the downfall of Xerox PARC.
| Hobadee wrote:
| I've long wondered why no car manufacturer has gone for an open
| source model. Certain things should absolutely be locked down
| (for example, the airbags and other critical safety features) but
| there is absolutely no reason the HVAC and Infotainment system
| need to be closed source. Open it up and let hackers go crazy,
| then just "borrow" the best options out there for next year's
| model and everyone wins!
| hengheng wrote:
| I have been wondering the same, but slightly differently.
|
| Tier 1 suppliers have enough resources in both know-how and
| manpower that I have been wondering if they could do a platform
| car. Provide a basic frame that passes crash, provide a basic
| engine that passes emissions, provide basic safety, etcetera.
|
| Then invite other parties to upgrade components. Package lots
| of air between components to simplify compatibility.
|
| I suppose the only way to get this going in the real world is a
| big military contract, but I am wondering if it wouldn't be
| smart play for everyone involved. It would be deadly for a
| bunch of traditional automakers, but they can't do anything
| preventing it.
| ghaff wrote:
| Automotive-grade Linux is actually a pretty big thing but cars
| being put on the roads still need to pass through approvals.
| It's not "hackers" doing anything they feel like.
| avidiax wrote:
| There could be a sort of "ARM" or "Android" but for cars.
|
| Come up with few general hardware modules, enough to replace
| the head unit, body controllers, ECU, climate control, and
| ideally driving automation, and software to run them.
| Everything minus safety modules like the airbag controllers,
| and then license them under Fair/non-discriminatory terms.
|
| Then, a variety of automakers get access to core functionality
| and cheaper hardware to run it. That means that the cars
| themselves can have higher quality software, cheaper hardware
| (from cutting out companies like Bosch that charge exorbitantly
| for things like a windshield wiper controller), and thus
| deliver more value to customers.
| deergomoo wrote:
| > "Android" but for cars.
|
| Is this not just Android Automotive? A lot of Volvos use it,
| it's a lower-level OS type thing that sits below Android Auto
| or CarPlay.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Related plea from someone how hacked their Hyundai's head unit:
| https://programmingwithstyle.com/posts/howihackedmycarpart5/...
|
| And past HN discussion
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32447650
| djoldman wrote:
| Somewhere in the last decade I became a curmudgeon who yells at
| clouds.
|
| I'd like a car with zero screens, no internet connectivity
| possible, and maybe one audio input and a radio.
|
| Also I drive a manual, which here in the US seems to be almost
| unheard of.
|
| As an aside, what's next? You can't buy a chef's knife without
| wifi?
| noman-land wrote:
| Check out some listings on bringatrailer.com.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| From the article: " _Evidence of that dichotomy is not hard to
| find. As automakers have introduced vehicles with more advanced
| computing and electrical architectures, they have also struggled
| to deliver bug-free software on time._ "
|
| This was something that really hit me when the Internet allowed
| game developers to ship a game that wasn't done. You got the
| game, and the first thing you did was download a "patch" that was
| at least as big as the CD the game came on (several hundred MB).
| I've got "released" Windows98 games on CD that are essentially
| unplayable because what was shipped on the CD was unplayable and
| without the update server on the network sending out those
| critical fixes, its never gonna work. For game archivists that
| means finding a fully patched install and then preserving _that_.
|
| This is a shitty experience that serves manufacturers but not
| their customers. I don't expect it to get better any time soon
| but I wish it would.
| jvdvegt wrote:
| https://archive.is/dQ7oH
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| It's not just about the software but about the hardware
| architecture of the car. Legacy manufacturers are coming from a
| situation where they are integrating hardware and software from a
| lot of different suppliers. This makes upgrading the car a very
| tedious process and slows down the process of getting suppliers
| to fix issues and provide new firmware in a timely fashion. It's
| worse for them because they often want to do ICE and EV variants
| of the same car. Which means sticking with the same supply chains
| and associated issues.
|
| Vertically integrated companies do this very differently. Tesla
| pioneered this. The Chinese copied this and at this point you
| also have companies like Rivian and a few of the legacy
| manufacturers that are doing the same. Effectively they in house
| all the software and e.g. Rivian runs the software on a handful
| of hardware subsystems instead of having hundreds of chips with
| their own firmware for things like the wind screen wipers, the
| software that controls the windows, the AC, the keyfob, AI
| driving features, and so on.
|
| I mention Rivian here because they just did a deal with VW to
| start doing the same for them.
|
| The issues here are not just technical but cultural. I used to
| work in Nokia when it was in the (slow) process of figuring out
| that they were a software company rather than a hardware company.
| Then Apple and Google came along and they were slow to adapt
| their internal processes and management. Apple makes firmware
| that goes on their phone. They provide OTA updates. There's only
| one supported version of that firmware: the current & latest one.
| It's the same for all phones they still support with updates.
| Nokia did the opposite. They forked their software for each
| product variant (dozens per year). And they did not do OTA
| upgrades. So most of their phones weren't updated at all (by
| users), and would typically ship with bugs that had already been
| fixed on other branches of the software. And it would ship on the
| schedule of the manufacturing process, regardless of the state of
| the software. With all the obvious consequences. Nokia got a well
| deserved reputation of shipping half baked software.
|
| By the time MS bought them out, they had learned and improved a
| lot but Apple and Google were running circles around them by then
| and it did not matter anymore.
|
| You see the same with car manufacturers currently. It's all about
| the buttons and the bling. They have a gazillion of upsells,
| features, special trims, and what not. And it all adds up to a
| whole lot of nothing if the software experience isn't great.
| That's why VW is paying billions to Rivian to fix that for them.
|
| Their cars are too expensive, have too many chips and wires, and
| their software just isn't good enough. And they don't have ten
| years to figure this out for themselves. That's what Rivian is
| supposedly fixing for them.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Cars now have computers, cellular internet connections, cameras,
| microphones, _privacy policies_... I can barely find the words to
| describe just how frightening the status quo is.
| accrual wrote:
| Indeed. Reading the comments here makes me a bit more grateful
| for my early 2010s vehicle. I added a Bluetooth module so I can
| play music wirelessly. My phone magnetically connects to an air
| vent and starts charging. I open Maps and tell it where I want
| to go. Done. :)
| wave100 wrote:
| I can confirm that Volkswagen is borderline incompetent when it
| comes to software - a few months back, my 2020 Audi A4 (and those
| of tens to hundreds of others) all started having the same issue,
| where the infotainment will randomly reboot every 5-30 minutes
| (taking out nav, the backup camera, and the parking sensors with
| it, and requiring a PIN to get back into the system).
|
| Despite the problem having the hallmarks of a backend issue (many
| cars with the same software running into the same issue on the
| same week), corporate is still insisting that it's a hardware
| issue and trying to sell us on $5k hardware replacements. I love
| the car for its build quality, but almost kind of wish I'd gotten
| a Tesla given how bad VW is at software.
| gitroom wrote:
| Pretty cool seeing how all those little gripes with car tech
| stack up, kinda makes me question if adding more software
| actually makes things better or just adds more mess. you ever
| feel like simpler is actually safer when it comes to stuff like
| this?
| teekert wrote:
| Just talk to Canoncal, or IBM, make a NixOS config, or just do
| something. How hard can it be? My father's 5 yo Volkswagen van
| has an 80's looking UI, the touchscreen is already failing. Going
| from the normal UI to CarPlay is just jarring, any 2024 Linux
| distro looks, feels and acts more modern. What are they doing
| over there??
|
| I could probably whip him up something nicer if only there was
| just a Nuc or something in there somewhere.
| kats wrote:
| > Consumers have had it with clunky, slow automotive technology
|
| No. I don't want it. I want Not to have it.
|
| I don't want a touchscreen. I don't want a computer car. And I
| definitely don't want an internet-connected car.
| amelius wrote:
| Where is the Apple car? Was the project canceled, and why?
| 1a527dd5 wrote:
| I would really rather that cars didn't run software, or at the
| least the minimal software to get the job done where there is no
| other option.
|
| My current car is a Kia; I love it. But the door locks are
| software controlled (you can tell from the lag). The issue is I
| like to lock my doors as soon as I'm in the car.
|
| The software can't cope with this; about 500ms later it unlocks
| the doors again and won't let me lock until the software has
| realized that I can now lock the doors again. So there is a 3-4
| second gap in which I want to lock the doors but I can't.
|
| This is appalling for safety; I grew up in a dodgy area and all
| my then cars kept me safe by allowing me to lock as soon as I
| entered. Now I have to more cautious than ever.
|
| The other issue is that it has collision detection and automatic
| braking; it works great 99% of the time. But one time it got
| confused with over head sun and road markings and decided to
| emergency stop on a school road. I was lucky there was no car
| behind me.
| minusLik wrote:
| The cars I know lock their doors automatically when they go at
| a certain speed (e. g. mine does at 20 km/h). Doesn't yours?
| 1a527dd5 wrote:
| It does. But that isn't what I want it to do. I want to
| manually lock the doors as soon as I close my driver side
| door.
| minusLik wrote:
| Does it work better when you use the key fob from inside
| the car? I would expect that because they surely tested a
| "unlocked accidentally and locked again right away" kind of
| scenario.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| > it works great 99% of the time
|
| You summed it up. I want the minimum required electronic in my
| cars and above all no software managing critical features like
| abs breaking that could be updated on the air, like the Tesla.
|
| Humans aren't perfect by any means, software might be better
| than us by a few percent at avoiding crash but damn, when I
| crash i want it to be my own fault.
|
| If tomorrow I run over a kid because my abs had a bug, go prove
| that in court. And yes it actually happened in France with the
| speed control, some manufacturer managed to fuck that up and
| people who had crashed (without killing themselves) have a hard
| time to dismiss the so called expert calling them basically
| retards incapable of pressing the break pedal, that they press
| the clutch pedal instead of the break one...
|
| There are reports of people being stuck in their car for up to
| an hour, while on call with the police, trying everything, and
| you're telling me that they are not capable of pressing the
| break pedal during that entire hour ?
| whinvik wrote:
| Hardware companies trying to build software, without actually
| understanding software.
|
| There's a reason why Apple, Nvidia, Tesla got where they got to.
| davidmurphy wrote:
| It's an absolute shame Apple killed their car project
| arakageeta wrote:
| These companies fail because vertical integration, and even a
| monorepo, is needed to make these efforts successful. This is
| completely at odds with the existing OEM/Tier 1 business model
| and engineering process grown up around it. Also, neither OEM nor
| Tier 1 have software cultures up to the challenge.
|
| This is why the Chinese OEMs, Tesla, and Rivian are able to move
| fast.
| acheron9383 wrote:
| As someone who works professionally on embedded software devices
| that update over the internet, car companies are stuck not
| because they can't get software talent, but because they have no
| ability to actually build the electronics alongside the software,
| which is ultimately what constrains embedded software. Without
| the right hardware, the constraints are just insurmountable, you
| can not do X feature because board A doesn't have the API to your
| MCU, or it runs some dogshit speed communication system that
| means you have 500ms lag. The feature is just unworkable, and if
| the PMs push it anyways you get what happens for the legacy car
| makers, terrible underpowered infotainment systems with no
| central design philosophy, stuck in an awkward, bad, middle
| between a full software stack and all buttons for everything.
| Their model of integrating 3rd party vendor computers just
| doesn't really work for this kind of thing; Tesla, Rivian, and
| the Chinese EV makers all manufacture all their own electronics,
| which lets them achieve the outcome. But you can not just roll
| all your own electronics in a year.
| averageRoyalty wrote:
| I understand the concept, but the question I have is why?
|
| These companies have huge wallets, and can surely scoop up a
| smaller automative microcontroller company and bring it in-
| house? It seems like a problem than enough money could solve
| quickly, but they've been doing horribly at this for decades
| now.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| There have been attempts at it. Unfortunately, they
| consistently botch the execution so badly that most of the
| executives in the business have PTSD from the experience. And
| these were very expensive failures that become lore inside
| the companies. When they do acquisitions of small companies
| entering this market those end up getting smothered by the
| culture of the automotive companies.
|
| Everyone has spent a mountain of money on this problem but
| spent it all assiduously avoiding addressing the root causes.
| trhway wrote:
| >Tesla, Rivian, and the Chinese EV makers
|
| The iPhone on wheels paradigm shift has been stated like a
| decade ago and as usually the incumbents just can't cross it
| while new companies are exploiting it.
|
| Not surprisingly it coincides with EV transition - both are
| enabled by cheap electronics and EV void's incumbents' ICE tech
| moat.
| typewithrhythm wrote:
| This is only half the story, working for a major vendor, we
| sell both hardware and software, the whole way up to a full
| customisable well integrated platform. The manufacturers are
| deliberately choosing less capable systems, or taking thing
| piecemeal.
|
| Most of our customers simply don't believe good interfaces are
| worth the money... They tend to either want either a set of
| features checked off (only for existence, not quality), or
| something along the lines of get as close to a rivian with
| thirty cents per unit more than we paid last year.
| gU9x3u8XmQNG wrote:
| There's another huge constraint that the article and a lot of
| responses do not seem to mention:
|
| - Compliance and,
|
| - Regulation.
|
| In Australia, for example; we have very strict requirements for
| manufacturers - and it seems mostly out of regulatory
| incompetence that vendors like Tesla are able to deploy and
| bypass in the way they do.
|
| I've been told, by stakeholders in industry, that the systems
| that facilitate the software of vehicles to align with such
| requirements historically were strictly controlled.
|
| (The same applied to the hardware)
|
| Whilst it's also over simplifying it;
|
| - I am not excited at the prospect that `developer-a` can `git
| commit` functional changes to my vehicle.
|
| I'm not sure you should be, either!
| deergomoo wrote:
| I want a 7-10" central display that spends 99% of its time
| showing CarPlay but also has a radio if I need it, the backup
| camera when I'm in reverse, and lets me change a couple of
| settings for convenience features like auto locking etc.
| Everything else can be dials, knobs, and buttons. My Mazda3 is
| perfect for this and I'm quite sad that I'm almost certainly not
| going to be able to find anything like it by the time I come to
| replace it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-11 23:00 UTC)