4 ms·
That's FUD and a bit of a straw man. No one is debating whether or not you should be able to personally tinker with your car (electric or otherwise) because th
by mi100hael 9y ago
That's FUD and a bit of a straw man. No one is debating whether or not you should be able to personally tinker with your car (electric or otherwise) because that's going to be possible regardless of compatibility of parts. You're perfectly welcome to go attempt to to swap your engine and fail horribly right now on your 20 year old gas guzzler or 20 years from now on your high tech electric car. That's not a reason to keep parts from being interchangeable across cars/manufacturers.
- pwthornton 9y agoThe biggest argument against interoperability is speed of change. Telsa, the leader in electric vehicles, makes a lot of their own components and algorithms. Standardization in fast moving areas slows down the pace of change. We are at the dawning of the electric car age and even earlier in the self-driving car age. Standards tend to either work well with mature areas or in areas where people need to pool resources together either for money or legal reasons (see codec standards).
- RealityVoid 9y agoAutomotive SW is quite mature. The kind of information you're sending to the different control ECU's in the car are quite small and simplistic. I see no reason why you could not implement dynamic and state-of-the-art algorithms on the image recognition part and push the comparably small result output on the control bus.
- aanm1988 9y agoStandards enable alternatives to spring up, so long as they interface properly. That helps with both innovation and competition.