Auto Makers To Standardize On Open Source

Lucas123 writes "There are efforts underway within the auto industry to create a standard, Linux-based platform for In-Vehicle Infotainment (IVI) systems so that cars will act more like smartphones instead of having only about 10% of that functionality today. For example, Tesla's Model S IVI system, which is based on Linux, is designed to allow drivers to navigate using Google Maps with live traffic information, listen to streaming music from any online radio station and have access to an Internet browser for news or restaurant reviews. Having an industry-wide open-source IVI operating system would create a reusable platform consisting of core services, middleware and open application layer interfaces that eliminate the redundant efforts to create separate proprietary systems by automakers and their tier 1 suppliers like Microsoft. By developing an open-source platform, carmakers can share upgrades as they arrive."

Re:No, bad idea

[capnkid]

What about receiving engine info, warnings regarding brake pads, fuel consumption, etc, etc? An established protocol that could link this to a mobile device would make sense. Not sure why this wasn't done with bluetooth ages ago...

Re:No, bad idea

[MBGMorden]

I don't know about you but I've grown tired of effectively connecting a dongle to my car in order to do things like GPS navigation. The main problem as to why phones are better than the built-in stuff is because its updated when the built-in stuff stagnates.

Processing power is cheap - dirt cheap (a Raspberry Pi, Beaglebone Black, etc is less than $50 and contains more brains than most in-dash systems need). In today's age when so little data is actually stored locally on the devices anyways it makes far more sense to build an open system that can access the same profiles (ie, synced data from things like Google accounts) than to force users into connecting their phone to their car.

This is inevitable.

[dtjohnson]

Microsoft still licenses their software like it's 1982 and they are the toll collector on progress. You buy a copy of their newest [whatever] program and pay them the fee that they set. They never look at what they provide and ask themselves 'are we providing value equivalent to what we are collecting in tolls?' Auto companies, in contrast, have to do that with absolutely every thing that they provide since cars are very complex performance-driven devices that are competitively mass-produced and consequently sell for little money relative to their high cost of manufacture. Moreover, cars must be both reliable and supported/maintained for 20 years after they are sold. All of these are foreign concepts to Microsoft which can't see any reason why they should not just release V x.x of their 'car OS' and sell it to manufacturers who would eagerly link everything to it. The manufacturer's, though, need to have control over the source code for critical updates, control over the licensing and distribution, and control over the overall structure and software design. Manufacturer's have been putting software in cars for over 20 years and they could never settle for Microsoft's way of doing things...so turning to OSS is inevitable for them.

Re:No, bad idea

[ArcadeMan]

If you don't want to be hacked than you better use an Atmel instead of a Microchip.

Just trolling, no real reason other than I hate PIC and its mess of banks when coding in assembler, AVR is much cleaner.

Re:Show of hands ...

[David_Hart]

Interestingly enough, I haven't caused any accidents yet. Go figure....

Like to dance with the devil, do we?

Key operatives in your statement: "I" and "yet."

Nope, I'm just a good enough driver to keep my eye on the road at all times and use technology to my advantage instead of letting it distract me.

Isn't your rant the same thing that they said about radios, GPS devices, etc.... You forget that people eventually adapt and learn how to use new technology safely.

Not according to the NHTSA, [wikipedia.org] who I'm more inclined to believe than some random Slashdotter.

From the article:

The NHTSA states that 80% of accidents and 16% of highway deaths are the result of distracted drivers

Did you miss the point in the Wiki that distracted driving can be anything from drinking, eating, checking on your kid in the rear view mirror, watching that cute girl on the side of the road, etc... (see the article you linked to). Are we now going to mandate that people can no longer drive their kids around, eat, drink, etc.? Not likely!!

If someone is a bad driver, they are going to be a bad driver no matter what they have in the car to distract them. The point of technology is to provide solutions that reduces this distraction to a minimum level. As an example, current technology allows you to text and read texts using voice through the car system. This will reduce the potential distraction of cell phones. Most cars also now have avoidance and lane change warning systems.

You forget that most people are selfish, irresponsible jerks with their heads nested firmly in their rectums.

I agree that there are a decent amount of jerks and idiots on the roads, but most people are responsible decent drivers. I drive a very busy interstate between home and work every day. If people were as bad as you think they are, there would be tons of accidents every day. As it is, there are very few in comparison to the amount of traffic.