Cars as client devices

Bob O'Donnell

Posts: 80   +1
Staff member

It’s no secret that an enormous amount of advanced tech hardware is making its way into today’s automobiles. Whether it’s for assisted or autonomous driving features, advanced infotainment systems or simple safety enhancements, modern cars are getting a big injection of cool new hardware.

Software, on the other hand, has been a bit more muted. Oh sure, there’s the user interface (UI) on the ever-expanding main entertainment and navigation display, but the truth is there are a lot more software efforts going on beneath the hood (literally in this case). In fact, at the upcoming CES show in Las Vegas, I expect to see several announcements related to car-based software and services that turn your automobile into a nearly full-fledged client computing device.

Traditionally, auto-based services were called telematics, but early versions were limited to basic functions such as what’s been found in GM’s OnStar: a separate telephony service for roadside assistance and beaming back car diagnostic data to the auto company’s headquarters.

Today, there’s an enormous range of different software built into cars, from middleware, RTOS (real-time operating systems—such as Blackberry’s QNX or Intel’s Wind River), to artificial intelligence-based inference engines, and beyond.

In fact, there can be over 10 million lines of code in a modern luxury car, working across all the car’s various computing elements, from 150+ ECUs (engine control units—each of which typically runs a particular auto subsystem, such as heating and air conditioning, in addition to portions of the engine, etc.), to more traditional CPUs and GPUs from the likes of nVidia, Intel, Qualcomm and others.

While much of that software will never be seen or directly interacted with by individuals—it’s part of a car’s overall controls—more and more of it is starting to surface through the car’s driver and passenger-focused displays. Many assisted or autonomous driving systems, for example, do provide some visual cues or messages about what they’re doing, though most of their work happens in the background automatically.

In the case of entertainment interfaces, of course, we’ve started to see the implementation of Apple’s CarPlay and Google’s Android Auto. In neither case, however, do Apple and Google provide the entire user interface for the vehicle for two key reasons. First, carmakers are very reluctant to give up the entire user experience to an outside brand. They want and need to “own” the relationship with their customer by making sure it’s a GM experience or a Ford experience or a Porsche experience, etc. Second, neither Apple nor Google have access to the vast majority of software running on the automobile because of the hardened walls between subsystems. As a result, they can only interact with a tiny fraction of the software running in a vehicle. (Waymo, the recent autonomous car spinout from Google, and Apple’s rumored Titan car project, are likely working on many pieces of this more invisible software, among other things, FYI.)

In the near term, however, the next set of auto-related software developments are likely to be extensions and additions to popular software and services that get more fully integrated into cars and turn them into first-class client devices. Now that PC and mobile phone-like hardware is being embedded into cars, along with cellular connectivity and larger, high-resolution displays, it just makes sense to do so.

The next set of auto-related software developments are likely to be extensions and additions to popular software and services that get more fully integrated into cars and turn them into first-class client devices.

At a basic level, think about entertainment services like Spotify, Netflix and others coming natively to cars, or imagine tighter integration with good ‘ol PIM (Personal Information Management) software, such as contacts, calendars, etc. Incorporating things like meeting updates, conference call dial-in information, and other elements directly into your car instead of via a smartphone app could prove to be very beneficial. Not only would it improve the convenience and integration of using them in your car, it could have a dramatically positive impact on safety. In addition, if texting and other forms of messaging are directly integrated into car displays, for example (and more importantly, can therefore be automatically disabled based on the car’s speed), that could do more to save lives than any autonomous driving system.

Note that because many of these capabilities will be delivered as services, the car doesn’t need to be running a full mobile OS and the apps won’t have be to delivered in a native OS format. An HTML5-capable browser is likely all that’s necessary, making it easier for car vendors and Tier 1 OEMs to incorporate these software features into their designs, as well as increasing the useful lifetime of the car’s technology.

Looking forward, it’s clear that we’re still at the very early stages of bringing significantly more intelligence and capabilities into our cars. Progress is being made, but when you start thinking more deeply about the potential, the full promise of smart cars is yet to come.

Bob O’Donnell is the founder and chief analyst of TECHnalysis Research, LLC a technology consulting and market research firm. You can follow him on Twitter . This article was originally published on Tech.pinions.

Permalink to story.

 
The biggest problem with infotainment systems is that the technology dates the car. It's better to have an infotainment system that only focuses on basics: car mechanics, safety features, basic radio/data/RDS systems and GPS/Navigation. App integration with smartphones comes and goes. You're better off just providing an AUX, Bluetooth A2DP and an SD card slot.

as for automated tech, the system itself is never going to allow "driverless cars". They always want a human (with a wallet) to be accountable if/when something goes wrong. NDA with these corporations are designed to place the blame squarely on the driver. Autonomous systems are nothing more than "advanced cruise control".

You won't see "driverless cars" until you can walk out of a bar, stone drunk, click a button, have your car come to you to pick you up, get in the backseat, go to sleep and wake up at home.

Cops are NEVER going to let that happen.

Insurance companies are NEVER going to let that happen.
 
I dont want any "smart" tech in ym car. Just a basic radio with an aux input, heat, AC, and thats it.

No USB, no bluetooth, no auto driving tech, no electronic stuff that is expensive to fix, no wifi, no LTE radio, no built in GPS. Hell, no powered windows. Manual windows actually work properly in the ice up north, whereas powered windows tend to get stuck.

Keep it simple, cheap, and reliable.
 
Hell, no powered windows.

Been up north. In the icy cold. In cars with manual windows.

Anyone who advocates for them is automatically disqualified from speaking about vehicle features and should be banned from the internet on principle.
 
"Incorporating things like meeting updates, conference call dial-in information, and other elements directly into your car instead of via a smartphone app could prove to be very beneficial"
Why? People use smartphones as PIM's precisely because you carry it everywhere and has features like "can be used inside buildings". If your phone were treated like a car (left in the car park for 8 hours during the day plus all night), it would make a rather rubbish "personal assistant"...

Nor would I want a "smart car" until there is clear separation of critical vs non-critical systems and grown up security for once (remember when security researchers took control of the steering and transmission of a Jeep Cherokee travelling 70 miles per hour on the highway?) I know gushing IoT advocates like Bob O Donnell churning out endless 'connectivity' infomercials think security is mere 'window dressing' to be tacked on afterwards once all the "important" bits are done (if it's even mentioned at all), but many of us are a little more aware of the utter absurdity of a core design consisting of merging everything onto one data-bus then connecting the whole lot to the net and hoping entertainment apps won't have holes in whilst sharing the same memory-space as drive controls...
 
I dont want any "smart" tech in ym car. Just a basic radio with an aux input, heat, AC, and thats it.

No USB, no bluetooth, no auto driving tech, no electronic stuff that is expensive to fix, no wifi, no LTE radio, no built in GPS. Hell, no powered windows. Manual windows actually work properly in the ice up north, whereas powered windows tend to get stuck.

Keep it simple, cheap, and reliable.
I'm up north and have had cars with power windows for 22 years now. Never had any problems with them even in sub-zero (F that is) weather.
The biggest problem with infotainment systems is that the technology dates the car. It's better to have an infotainment system that only focuses on basics: car mechanics, safety features, basic radio/data/RDS systems and GPS/Navigation. App integration with smartphones comes and goes. You're better off just providing an AUX, Bluetooth A2DP and an SD card slot.

as for automated tech, the system itself is never going to allow "driverless cars". They always want a human (with a wallet) to be accountable if/when something goes wrong. NDA with these corporations are designed to place the blame squarely on the driver. Autonomous systems are nothing more than "advanced cruise control".

You won't see "driverless cars" until you can walk out of a bar, stone drunk, click a button, have your car come to you to pick you up, get in the backseat, go to sleep and wake up at home.

Cops are NEVER going to let that happen.

Insurance companies are NEVER going to let that happen.
Well, it is already happening, so your comment is outdated.
 
Back