joekiser writes "In 2010, Ford Motor Company was rated as top-five automotive manufacturer in terms of quality, per J.D. Power and Associates. This was a major turnaround for the automotive giant, which had faced bankruptcy just two years prior. This high reliability rating would be short lived however; Ford began installing touch screen hubs powered by Microsoft SYNC, which were both confusing and buggy.
By 2012, Ford quality rankings had dropped to 23rd, even after numerous software upgrades and a rebranding of SYNC to "MyFordTouch." One customer reported:
"The voice controls typically do not work until the vehicle has been on for five to 10 minutes, meaning short trips require dialing phone calls by hand, only to have the call cut off when the system finally starts up."
This slide continued into 2013, when Ford ranked 27th of 28 brands (as an aside, Ford's premium brand, Lincoln, ranked one slot higher that year at 26th).
Apparently, Ford Motor Company has had enough. On Friday, the Detroit News reported that Ford will make the switch to QNX on future vehicles. This is the same platform currently used by Acura, Audi, BMW, and Land Rover."
[ED Note: "Ford Motor Company's decision to move to QNX aside, I'll be heavily considering a Blackberry for my next phone, especially with rumors of a 64-bit octa-core model for later this year. BB10 also has gotten rave reviews for its design and ease-of-use."]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LookIntoTheFuture on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:17PM
How about a removable, upgradable and open source entertainment system that works in all vehicles? Nevermind, you can't lock people in that way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:19PM
It doesn't even need to be opeb source, although that's always a bonus. There should be a standard, open API though, so entertainment and communication systems can talk to the car's systems while being upgradable. Basically, the system is the OS and the car is a set of peripherals.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @07:35PM
My Honda's OS had a rogue process that used up the battery and bricked my car! But because the body work is so thin it was a soft-brick and I could pry the bonnet open with little effort and jump start it with iTunes jump-starter and iBattery iLeads. It just worked. I'm so happy!
(Score: 1) by weilawei on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:34PM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:46PM
People have been building CarPCs for at least a decade now, usually based on miniITX systems. They never got any farther than a hobbyist's toy. There's a lot of big problems with the idea of building a CarPC if your vehicle is less than 20 years old or so: many cars make it very difficult to remove and replace the factory stereo system. Frequently the factory system is integrated with other systems, usually the HVAC system or controls. Moreover, on many cars there's just no good place to put the LCD screen for your CarPC system, unless you're really handy with plastic (or fiberglass) fabrication. Back in the 80s and 90s, with many cars (esp. non-American cars), they followed the DIN standard, so it was really easy to remove a factory stereo and replace it with an aftermarket unit. Not any more; there's just too much integration, a lot of stereos aren't even rectangular (they are inside, but the dashboard panels they hide behind aren't).
If you're talking about building some kind of aftermarket system that anyone can install in a modern car, these challenges are probably too big to overcome without significant engineering and manufacturing resources. There's already companies in this market, such as Kenwood, Pioneer, etc.: they make replacements for certain vehicles. But they're not nearly as universal as they used to be. And there's no way you can compete against them, unless you build very high-priced systems for a very small niche market that only owns a very small number of vehicle models that your system is compatible with.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by weilawei on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:16PM
I think you raised a lot of really good points about the high barrier to entry.
On the cars I've replaced stereos, I've never run into HVAC integration--but I've also only replaced stereos, not full-blown in-car entertainment systems that can control other aspects of the vehicle. Also, the vehicles I've worked on are primarily 90's vehicles, with a few in the early 2000's (94, 97, 03, 03, offhand).
I think that the modifying the body work and integrating new plastic/fiberglass/carbon fiber panels has become easier, with the advent of 3D printing and readily available sheets of fiber and resin, and tutorials on YouTube, et al. Most of the time, my issues with removing and replacing interior body panels in a car is breaking the little tabs and plastic "screw" type things, which aren't intended to be removed and replaced often--a necessity when trying to tweak something.
I don't think that focusing on selling a specific product is the correct approach. I think that the best approach would be to design a small base system, around an embedded processor like an ARM chip, on something like a Mini-ITX motherboard, as you mentioned. Then, publish the design of the system, from soup to nuts. Let a community form around the needed methods of modifying the bodywork of specific makes and models.
As for integration with the car: I think you're spot on here. This is going to be the most difficult area. However, many vehicles have a wide open CAN for integration, with no encryption or obfuscation. Barring troubles like that, it seems feasible to begin with a small set of makes/models, enumerate the capabilities accessible via the CAN (or other in-car network). Then, define an API that supports enumerating device capabilities and provides a generic function to access a given capability. When the system is loaded into the car, an appropriate driver can be loaded for the specific capability of a given make/model. CAN in cars commonly allows access to pretty much everything, from any point in the network.
As for making it user friendly--that's a function of time. At first, you need to show a working proof-of-concept that is also extensible. Trying to shoehorn one particular piece of hardware or one particular driver into all cars is a recipe for nothing fitting. Once we have an API (think POSIX), we can develop hardware for specific cars, drivers for specific cars, but it can all follow a single API, allowing userland programs to query capabilities and perform useful tasks.
Phew. It's a ton of work, but it's not impossible. You raised a really good point there. It does require a wide ranging set of skills--but hey, look, we're on SN. There's plenty of REALLY smart people here, some of the smartest in the world (and some of the trolliest), if the comments from /. are any indication, and assuming that some of them migrated. I think the core problem is developing for a specific car first, rather than assuming a generic car and implementing an API to abstract the differences of specific implementations. The problem with in-car systems is that we're stuck in an embedded mindset, when these devices keep acquiring more and more functionality, and their relation to the actual act of driving becomes secondary. The development model should be closer to that of desktop development or possibly smartphone/tablet development.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by sjames on Sunday February 23 2014, @08:11PM
Even with 3d printing, etc it's a lot harder than it used to be. In the late '70s and '80s, you could just go buy a radio anywhere and expect it to work. All you had to do was splice power and speaker wires (the antenna connection was standard). The knobs were adjustable for different dash cutouts. You could generally choose either the knobs from the OEM radio or the new ones.
That's not to say trying to get the old radio out through the crowded space behind the dash wasn't a pain in the ass, but it wasn't like your car would suddenly not start anymore or the door locks would malfunction if you had trouble.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @09:26PM
>However, many vehicles have a wide open CAN for integration, with no encryption or obfuscation.
Not really. You can plug into the CAN bus directly, of course, and there is no encryption or obfuscation, as you say. However, this bypasses the filtering hardware that's in front of an IVI to prevent it from crapping onto the CAN bus in the event of a bug.
(Score: 1) by weilawei on Sunday February 23 2014, @11:33PM
What do you think it would take to replace the functionality of that filter, but for a generic in-car infotainment computer? If you had a well-defined set of boundaries between modules (each implementing a specific task, either as a driver or in userland), perhaps you could have a core kernel enforcing and/or mediating their interactions with the CAN.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by joekiser on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:38PM
I always thought the touchscreen on newer cars should be replaced by tablets. Music, maps, movies can be provided by the tablet. Standardize on one connector, and let the user BYOD. Instead of upgrading the car, the owner can upgrade to a newer tablet later on.
Any dealer or brand-specific software can be pushed to the application stores.
The World is Yours.
Former
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ButchDeLoria on Sunday February 23 2014, @07:33PM
If not standardized on a single connector, maybe allow some inset adapters for Lightning and microUSB to whatever connector.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NCommander on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:56PM
To be honest, the head unit on most cars is relatively easy to replace, and the connection between the stereo and the rest of the car has been standardized for years. I don't know commerical units off the top of my head that are "hacker friend", but this proves that people have done it: http://lifehacker.com/power-a-car-stereo-with-a-ra spberry-pi-1491617303 [lifehacker.com]
Still always moving
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:00PM
Picture me stupid but, for the life of me, I don't get it: am I buying a car or a smartphone/tablet on wheels?
I mean, from the POV of the driver, what's the point of having a GPS navigator/mobile phone embedded in your car? What's wrong with having the smartphone of your choice (if you so much like to use a smartphone as a navigator), mounted somewhere you can see/hear?
How about a car that comes only with speakers and, maybe, lcd displays for the back seats and has only has HDMI input - let the user plug whatever s/he likes?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday February 23 2014, @09:22PM
Well, you've hit on the most obvious solution.
Bluetooth integration with the phone already in your pocket.
Stop making me upgrade my In-Dash Maps.
Stop making me have to add music to the in-dash music storage.
Stop making the goddamed car system obsolete the minute I drive off the dealer's lot.
There is enough capabilities in Bluetooth stacks to handle every thing a phone can
provide, so when Google Maps improves, you car gets smarter, and when you book mark a cool restaurant it follows you to the car.
Cars are never going to keep up, so they just might as well Give Up trying.
Even if you have to install one App per brand of car it would be better than expensive built in stuff going obsolete.
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Grishnakh on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:00PM
Stop making me have to add music to the in-dash music storage.
Actually, many cars these days have built-in USB ports (frequently hidden inside the center console) so you can plug in your own USB thumb drive with your music. If you need more space, just buy a bigger thumb drive (and they're dirt cheap these days). The only problem with this scheme is that you probably can't keep your music in Vorbis or Opus formats, but still, it's fairly convenient. When you want to update your car's collection, just pop out the thumb drive, plug it into your computer, and run rsync.
The rest of your points are dead-on, however. Trying to build stuff into cars isn't working, because computers and software change and are replaced much faster than cars.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:22PM
My car has USB and SD car inputs, as well as the Bluetooth audio on the phone, which the car finds, and indexes, and makes available for selection.
The problem comes when I get out of the car, and my gets in, it takes it a while to grind through all that music to build it into a catalog for selection from the dash. So for me, its just as easy to drag my entire music collection to the SD card, and let it index that. I can then just speak the command to play an artist or title and do it all hands free.
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by c0lo on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:04PM
I just had another occasion to see how old I am (at least as a mind-set): somebody mentioned that "Zimbra allows you to share files". My immediate reaction: "Why would I want to do file sharing through Zimbra?"
Turned out that the UNIX philosophy [wikipedia.org] is not quite in the nowadays users' attitude, but rather "convergence" and "integration".
Well, my mobile does have a camera (which I don't use - but couldn't find a mobile without one), much less Bluetooth (and no HDMI output for sure). But at least I managed make sure that:
If in the future I won't be able to buy "just a car" but only "mobile phone or a flying circus on wheels", it's very unlikely I'll use those modules (probably I'll spend some extra effort to understand how to disable them).
(Score: 1) by weilawei on Sunday February 23 2014, @11:26PM
I think you're definitely right about the convergence approach. People want their one gadget to do all the electronic stuff, and don't want to carry 14 different pieces of kit.
I do think that the UNIX philosophy and convergence are compatible. Think about how an OS is usually (roughly) structured: kernel, libraries, CLI programs, GUI programs. Transmission [debian.org] as a great example of UNIX philosophy: it uses a core library, libtransmission, and each GUI/CLI/daemon relies on this core library. They don't try to do it themselves, they simply solve their part of the problem.
If you build your system in a modular fashion, with modules that do only one thing, and do it well, you can more easily maintain larger systems--and you can layer stuff over it with ease: a GUI, a CLI, a daemon, a web interface, etc.. The real issue with infotainment systems (and many other products) is that they're designed in a monolithic fashion, instead of being composed of smaller, self-contained units which communicate over well-defined protocols with known semantics. You don't need a lot of overhead here, but you need, at a minimum, a generic convention for boundaries and communication across them.
I'd like to see modern cars designed with this sort of modularity in mind--heck, you can even pitch it as a way for car companies to segment the market further, by downloading new modules for new functionality. Those of us who like our cars for their ability to transport us (instead of being a mobile theater) would be free to skip over the options and save some cash. I'll keep buying older cars, until I can buy something without all the bells and whistles. However, I'd still really prefer to see an open-source implementation. I think a real draw would be a manufacturer supported API (a real one; I'll leave you to argue over the definition of that), but good luck with that, despite the incredibly beneficial effects of fostering a community around your product.
(Score: 1) by mojo chan on Sunday February 23 2014, @07:14PM
Check out Mirrolink and Miracast. Basically mirroring your phone's screen, complete with touch control, on the head unit. All the power and apps of your phone, but on the head unit's screen that is much easier to reach and operate (phones wobble about in the holder when you poke them). Works with most Android phones and I believe the iPhone as well. AOSP if you want fully open source.
If my car had a double DIN slot I'd get that kind of set up. Wireless charging so I can just chuck the phone in the slot below the head unit and have it powered, and an NFC tag to automatically start "car mode" with a special home screen. Almost zero boot time because the phone is already on, fully internet access to live traffic or streaming audio, and obviously things like voice dialling and SMS dictation work very well.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by ArhcAngel on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:25PM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:35PM
What are they going to do for all the current owners of these shitty SYNC/MyFordTouch systems? Nothing? Let them continue to suffer? Yeah, that's a great way to treat your loyal customers, or keep vehicle resale value high.
I'll be avoiding Ford vehicles of all model years because of this. It's too much trouble figuring out if a particular car has the shitty MS-based crapware or the supposedly-better QNX-based OS; I can just cross Ford off my list altogether, and look for other brands that didn't shoot themselves in the foot.
(Score: 1) by Mykl on Sunday February 23 2014, @08:45PM
I guess you don't need to worry about keeping a blacklist of SYNC-enabled Ford devices, as long as they offer an upgrade for them.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:28PM
Could easily does not mean will likely.
You just about have to beg for upgrades of anything in your dash. The concept never occurred to them.
I finally got Chrysler to force Garmin to send me an upgrade to the Garmin Map engine that Chrysler uses because it wouldn't do one little thing that the manual claimed it would (Tone alerts for custom Points of Interest like speed cameras etc).
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.
(Score: 1) by photong on Monday February 24 2014, @03:09AM
The obvious solution is for the car to provide some basic input (buttons, knobs) and basic output (screen, speakers). Let the user supply the entertainment system. Please stop adding media "solutions" to TVs and cars that become obsolete security nightmares well before product end of life.
(Score: 5, Informative) by wjwlsn on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:44PM
Supports HTML 5, OpenGL ES, Qt 5 for development. Can now run Android apps. More info at:
http://www.qnx.com/products/qnxcar/ [qnx.com]
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ArhcAngel on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:06PM
(Score: 1) by ngarrang on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:28PM
QNX has been around for a long, long time. It is well-established in the industry. Back when they offered a version that could install on a Pentium PC, I downloaded it and still have the disc. But, they stopped that little project. It was a FAST and efficient little OS that didn't use many resources. This is a good move by Ford.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by beckett on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:12PM
my car is 2001my, so it has an OBD and fuel injection, but it doesn't have that horrible, distraction-filled, touch-screen based, multi-purpose centre console that seem to be built into every new car and truck. I still have a 'normal', single-din radio, and these seem to be endangered species as well.
I realize my particular car proclivity is basically extinct if i ever decide to upgrade, but there is something to appreciate with a sijmple car that was just meant to drive around, carry things and people, and not have it auto-bluetooth pair with every piece of equipment in my knapsack and share my address book and browsing history with the onstar operator every time i lock my keys in the car.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by smurd on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:41PM
Car companies are totally incapable of keeping up with consumer electronics.
Now I have my little bluetooth receiver in it, and the transport controls are on my pebble watch.
I can upgrade the electronics anytime for much less then $35K.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @06:26PM
And a cheapskate. :-)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @07:28PM
why throw away something that works and runs properly?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @08:05PM
Who told you to throw stuff away?
(Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:04PM
but it doesn't have that horrible, distraction-filled, touch-screen based, multi-purpose centre console that seem to be built into every new car and truck.
Have you only been looking at high-end vehicles? Go look at the econoboxes, and it should be pretty easy to find cars without touchscreens. The Mazda 3, for instance, I'm fairly sure does not have any kind of touchscreen (either standard or optional).
(Score: 1) by beckett on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:47PM
(Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Monday February 24 2014, @04:45PM
Wow, that's depressing. Who the heck still wants a factory nav system anyway? I can tell from the photos in the article that this car's nav system is clunky and already obsolete, and the car is brand new!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:33PM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by linsane on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:43PM
Personal opinion; editor comments containing personal preferences is a fine line that you will have to read carefully on if you wish to maintain credibility.
I'm a long time bb fan but recently ditched to something else due to a number of hardware flaws / bugs as well as some things I found unintuitive about their latest user interface.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Dopefish on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:57PM
Hi linsane. Editor here. Thanks for your insight and advice on the matter. I do want to maintain journalistic integrity and not choose sides like a fanboy would. That being said, if a legitimate review of the product were presented by me, warts and all, on a product and I give a recommendation or not, that should be allowed on the basis of informing the readership.
(Score: 1) by linsane on Sunday February 23 2014, @06:19PM
Absolutely, I think in this case there is quite a big step between a car o.s. and what might be a good choice (or even stimulate debate) with regard to a handset. Perhaps one to follow up on in the comments?
Keep up the great work and hope you've all caught up on the missing sleep from last week!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Dopefish on Sunday February 23 2014, @06:26PM
Yeah. Going forward, I'll keep such notes like my mention of the BB phone in the comments and gauge the feedback that way.
Thanks for the complement, linsane. I was up till 3 AM last night working on getting submissions approved, so we aren't out the woods entirely yet, but things have improved quite a bit since the launch. :)
(Score: 1) by electron on Sunday February 23 2014, @09:26PM
I recently traded in my Galaxy Nexus for a Blackberry Z10 and have to say I'm really happy with it. I live in Canada and people still buy them here, but I know in the US they aren't too popular anymore. I had a lot of issues with my Android, but mostly I didn't like the Nexus style "no SD card"(but I know you can get Androids with SD) and had some email trouble. The new BB10 OS is pretty cool, the email has been very reliable for me, I put a nice big SD card in it, I can transfer files by mounting it as USB storage or via smbclient from my OpenBSD desktop. I encrypt and password my phone, when I get emails, I can glimpse at the sender and subject on the lock screen. It seems really smooth and not underpowered. I also like the time shift in the camera but I take very few pics.
Mostly I'd say, and I don't want to upset anyone here, but I'm happy to ditch the whole Google thing. But maybe you should take one for a test drive, if you have a friend with one - swap sim cards for a week.
(Score: 2, Informative) by bogibear on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:48PM
I happen to have a car (2013 Focus ST3) with the full MyFordTouch - phone integration, bluetooth stereo, navigation, etc. It certainly less that what I would hope for an in-car system, but it's not completely terrible. Since the last software update, it's been relatively bug-free (other than a brief sound cut-off about 3 minutes into my drive). Overall, I'm satisfied with it.
How long with Blackberry be solvent enough to produce this product? I think they could do better by partnering with Samsung or Apple. It remains to be seen if Ford chooses to trickle this down to their entire product line or not.
The world's cumulative IQ is a constant. The population is growing.
(Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:07PM
As large as Ford is, and as many cars as they sell, this deal alone could be enough to keep them solvent.
(Score: 2) by Popeidol on Monday February 24 2014, @01:09AM
The good news is that QNX has been building automative software for a while. Quite a bit of customising will be required, but it's not like they're building a new product from the ground up.
While I haven't seen recent figures, QNX was profitable before Blackberry bought them (1) and they've been gaining customers since then. I wouldn't put money on Blackberry keeping their handset division, but I'm pretty sure QNX isn't going anywhere.
1: http://www.harman.com/en-us/newscenter/pages/Q4201 0.aspx [harman.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by kaalon on Sunday February 23 2014, @06:54PM
So now we have the same untested and buggy code that goes into Microsoft "operating systems" but now in our cars. Honestly, how does this broken code get published. The next thing is having to pull over to the side of the road because a required windows update is loading.
(Score: 1) by ButchDeLoria on Sunday February 23 2014, @07:39PM
That's what happened to Michael Hastings, only it BSODed while pulling over.
(Score: 3, Funny) by dilbert on Monday February 24 2014, @09:58AM
(Score: 1) by tibman on Sunday February 23 2014, @07:57PM
In the middle of driving 60mph/100kph, "Please wait while restarting the car to complete the updates"
Not sure why parent is modded troll. Restarting the OS to update user-space applications is just silly and honestly very primitive.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:10PM
How does it get published? How do you think? Employees at some company (MS in this case) write it, the company releases it to their customers (Ford in this case), and it's built into manufactured products (cars). Then people buy it. Managers give it the OK because they want to meet their deadlines and contractual agreements, and end-users continue to buy products using this broken code.
Obviously, in this case at least, it's caused so many problems with sales that Ford has decided to switch vendors.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Acabatag on Sunday February 23 2014, @08:18PM
I would hesitate to call it "Blackberry's QNX" because it's something they bought, not something that BB built themselves. QNX has a long history, and isn't just an artifact of the cellphone OS era. It's kind of sad, really, for it to now be owned by just one of the entities that embeds it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jt on Sunday February 23 2014, @08:45PM
Well, it's 100% accurate to say it's "BlackBerry's QNX" as they own it 100%. Maybe in a few years the firm will rename to QNX if they drop out of the mobile comms business completely. QNX is very good at what it does, is used in a number of markets, and in the long run its acquisition may prove to be the best business decision RIM/BlackBerry ever made.
(Score: 4, Informative) by demonlapin on Sunday February 23 2014, @09:32PM
(Score: 1) by electron on Sunday February 23 2014, @09:35PM
They didn't just buy it at let it sit, they are actively developing it aren't they?
(Score: 4, Funny) by pk on Sunday February 23 2014, @11:04PM
Just like using Slashcode to power a website.