20 ms·
Volkswagen’s plan to create a new car operating system
- castratikron 7y ago>some models simply won't run if the infotainment system is broken; the navigation GPS provides the vehicle's master time counter, and without that, the powertrain won't function :O
- kortex 7y agoThis is purely sloppy. Dealt with a similar issue on a UAV project. We elected to check for a gps time (which fails if, e.g. indoors), and fall back to os system time, with a note in the logs. It can't do anything mission critical without gps anyway, so this only even shows up in dev/debug settings.
- masklinn 7y agoI'd guess they use GPS as ntp (rather than direct time source which as you note would dangerously fail in plenty of normal situations). But since the infotainment already dealt with time, they just used that as a "system clock" straight, so without infotainment there's no "system clock" to be had.
- dwyerm 7y agoIs your OS time at least battery backed? I can tell you that nightmares start when all your clocks go back to 1970 on boot, and you need a clock to validate certificates on boot...
- mrtksn 7y agoThis sounds like a swoftware written by an oldschool electrical engineer or something. I mean, in electromechanical systems that do not have computers, engineers find interesting ways to do more advanced things. For example, ovens with clocks keep track of time through the grid frequency and if the grid frequency changes, the clocks diverge too.
- taneq 7y agoAny time you get cross-disciplinary stuff done by people significantly lacking in experience in one of the disciplines, you get stuff like this. Programmer art (shudder), artist code (double shudder), EE software, software engineer circuit board layout, mechanical engineer wiring... Smart people will figure something out but it always looks janky to specialists in the figured-out field.
- pingyong 7y agoEven just between different SE fields this can happen to a degree. Let a C++ programmer write a website with PHP and Javascript - it will probably work, but I'd guess for a web dev the code would look a quite weird.
- ivanhoe 7y agoAnd the same applies for people criticizing the fields they know little about. I'm pretty sure that not all electrical engineers in the world are idiots and that there's a solid reason why they've chosen the grid frequency as a standard way of doing it. One thing that comes to mind is that the crystal oscillators frequency is very temperature sensitive, so probably not ideal solution for using in ovens?
- mrguyorama 7y agoIt's because it saves several dollars on the BOM, and really an oven probably doesn't need a hyper accurate clock
- opencl 7y agoGrid frequency actually is hyper accurate in a lot of places. i.e. in the Western US the grid is regulated such that a clock running off it will never deviate more than 2 seconds from the atomic clock derived National Bureau of Standards time [1]. Compare to a typical quartz oscillator which will gain or lose around 15 seconds per month. [1] https://www.naesb.org//pdf2/weq_bklet_011505_tec_mc.pdf https://www.naesb.org//pdf2/weq_bklet_011505_tec_mc.pdf
- dognotdog 7y agoBalkanization is about right. In my experience developing driver assistance systems, there are enormous efforts spent on political turf wars instead of proper design and engineering. This is not surprising, as the team structures, at least as of a few years ago, were traditionally set up with tradtional manufactirng in mind, around parts and control modules, while the functionality exploded (within 1 or 2 generation of cars) and crossed those boundaries without adequate processes in place properly architect the interactions from a bird's-eye view, creating major computing power, network bandwidth, and most importantly to OEMs, cost bottlenecks. And as cost is king, nobody wants to budge on increasing cost on their own module, and critical architectural decisions aren't made as much as put off until there isn't any other choice left except to hacking in the most critical bits with one eye closed and hoping somebody else's jenga tower falls first. That, I imagine, is how you get that GPS time thing, I can see how it all started: "Oh, I can save $.30 on my module if I don't put in an RTC, that'll get me a nice bonus for cost saving, GPS is going to have one anyway ..."
- castratikron 7y agoI've worked in that environment before. It doesn't help when upper management has no software or hardware background whatsoever (e.g. MBA or "sales" or whatever) and in that case the only way they see things is in terms of dollars. One time I was working on a new project and I wanted to put an SD card on the board so that we could have a log. I was asked how much the log was "worth" so that they could justify the cost of the extra hardware.
- cameronbrown 7y ago> One time I was working on a new project and I wanted to put an SD card on the board so that we could have a log. I was asked how much the log was "worth" so that they could justify the cost of the extra hardware. Very much like testing. Incalculable if you need it (and you certainly do), but managers who don't understand, just assume that you're doing something wrong if you need to "waste time" reading logs or writing tests rather than adding features.
- TwoBit 7y ago
- mandeepj 7y agoAnd, they like to call themselves as "Tesla Killers" :-)
- qaq 7y ago10,000 people that sounds like an overkill
- codeulike 7y agoI don't know, how many cars do they have on the road? Must be at least 50 million or so. So 10,000 coders for 50 million users. And these users are, you know, driving cars around, so its kindof important to get the software right. This sounds like a smart move by VW. Essentially Tesla are showing the way forwards here, being the first automaker to take software seriously.
- hobofan 7y agoThe number of engineers working at Facebook is in the same ballpark and they have a few billion users. At the same time the number of car platforms is increasingly consolidated and in complete control of the manufacturers. > And these users are, you know, driving cars around, so its kindof important to get the software right. That's not something you achieve by throwing more engineers at the problem.
- codeulike 7y agoNo one said they were all engineers.
- lispm 7y agoIt's 5000-10000 people for the car software, connecticity, cockpit, autonomous driving, energy, mobility services, etc. Many of them already work in the Volkswagen Group, but will be centralized working on common platforms.
- LeonM 7y agoI think this is a result of automotive technical progress slowing down. And I don't mean that in a bad way. For the past 100 years, we have been developing better and better cars, with both breakthroughs and incremental improvements in the drivetrain, safety, comfort, reliability, etc. Now though, cars are consolidating. Most car companies only have a handful of 'platforms' on which they build various models. For example: Volvo currently only produces 3 models of combustion engines. We have reached a point where numerous subsystems are just 'good enough' and require little more R&D. During the past 20 years or so, the software had to keep up with all the new tech coming out in the automotive world. Now that development of automotive hardware is slowing down, it is time to focus on the software for the long run. Tesla has been doing this for a while now. Their electric drivetrain is at point where there is more for them to gain in software than improvement of the hardware. For other car manufactures it is a bit harder to accept that, as they have been developing hardware technology for a long time. Edit: fixed my wrong example about Volvo, thanks to C1sc0cat
- clouddrover 7y ago> Their electric drivetrain is at point where there is more for them to gain in software than improvement of the hardware. Tesla is working on a new drivetrain for the Model S, Model X, and the Roadster 2: https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/11/elon-musk-promises-to-take-tesla-model-s-to-plaid-with-new-powertrain/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/11/elon-musk-promises-to-take...
- solarkraft 7y agoArchive link: http://archive.is/qc7Gi http://archive.is/qc7Gi Consider not linking to TechCrunch directly, because they make it virtually impossible to opt out of data collection.
- codeulike 7y agoI think you're mixing up ICE and electric, which is a mistake. You might have a point about ICE, but there's a ton of hardware improvements to come for EVs. >Most car companies only have a handful of 'platforms' on which they build various models. Yeah and VW just spent years creating a completely new platform for EVs. Everyone else is going to need to do that in the next decade or so as well. > [Teslas] electric drivetrain is at point where there is more for them to gain in software than improvement of the hardware. Tesla are continuously coming up with hardware changes. Models S and X moved to a completely new 'Raven' drivetrain just back in April. Alongside that, they do try and find software fixes to improve the existing fleet, which I guess is what you're thinking about.
- Etheryte 7y agoThe key takeaway for me here is that they want to build an Android-based OS that will run both user applications and, say, your traction control on the same stack. Given the very mixed history of Android security, updates, and more, I simply can't see how this would end well.
- codeulike 7y agoAndroid will just be for the infotainment subsystem.
- kozak 7y agoAs first it's only for the infotainment system. And the rear view camera is already a part it. And then at some point the manufacturer lets you adjust your adaptive cruise control through it. Then more and more critical things are integrated into what used to be "infotainment", until very soon the entire car can't run without the screen.
- codeulike 7y agoI think on most cars the infotainment systems runs on a separate computer that is connected to the drive computer via a bus. With a bit of commonsense design it should be fairly simple to have a car thats still useable without the infotainment computer.
- kozak 7y agoIt indeed is fairly simple, but the manufacturer has no incentives to do that.
- vgoh1 7y agoThe article must be misleading. Android would never have the latency or reliability to run things like traction control and fuel management. The engineers at auto companies are well aware of this, but perhaps the author of the article is not.
- skc 7y agoAnd by new they really mean Linux, right?
- codeulike 7y agoYep and the source code will be a printout in the trunk.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoI was quite surprised when my new oven came with a sheet of paper listing all the open source software.
- anticensor 7y agoAnother possibility: 2pt emboss, applied to car's body.
- dagw 7y agoQueue discussion about Linux being a kernel and not an operating system.
- srbby 7y agocue
- jacques_chester 7y agoCue queue to correct queue
- adrianN 7y agoHopefully not Linux but some other existing system that is better suited for safety critical embedded systems. Maybe something like seL4.
- solidr53 7y agoThe article mentions they will use Android as the base platform. > Senger also revealed that VW Group will be using Android for future versions of the MIB infotainment platform, in large part because of the robust third-party app ecosystem with that OS versus Linux. Huh? Android is running on a modified linux kernel. But I get what he means...
- breakingcups 7y agoIteresting. On the user-facing side I hope the choice for Android will mean GPL compliance and a way to sideload apps. Can't wait for a LineageOS variant for cars. My experience with user-facing Volkswagen software has been terrible so far, so I hope a new mandate might improve that area drastically. As far as the underlying new operating system Volkswagen is developing for all their cars, seems like a smart move as long as the design by committee syndrome is somewhat curtailed.
- ashleyn 7y agoLineage for cars won't happen, too many questions surrounding roadworthiness/safety/security.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y agoIt's not like it's controlling anything critical, just the entertainment system that already ran Android.
- yk 7y agoAn entertainment system suddenly blinking is safety critical.
- fmntf 7y agoDespite I love to hack this kind of things, I really hope automakers will enable verified boot / secure boot / trustzone (or whatever the silicon provides). Having someone to remotely install malware on an ECU is scary.
- teddyh 7y agoOf all the possibilities, shouldn’t VW be the least trustworthy actor to make software for cars? EDIT: I am, of course, referring to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
- carapace 7y agoYeah, my first thought was, "Will it lie to me about my car's emissions?"
- krn 7y agoAn Android-based infotainment system developed in collaboration with Google has already been announced and demonstrated in 2020 Polestar 2 EV, Volvo's alternative to Tesla Model 3, which might have inspired this "Volkswagen's bold plan"[1]. I have nothing against it, if the update policy would be similar to Android One's. Otherwise, it can easily become a security nightmare. Imagine, if your 5-year-old Audi car was as secure as your 5-year-old Samsung Galaxy smartphone. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjeNoPJ25Jc&t=5m28s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjeNoPJ25Jc&t=5m28s
- Phenomenit 7y agoI think everyone is scrambling to not get Netflixed. Software is key!
- yk 7y agoBut in this analogy, VW is the mouse waiting in a dark alley for the upstart.
- amelius 7y ago> Senger also revealed that VW Group will be using Android for future versions of the MIB infotainment platform Yikes, can't they find an OS that isn't laden with adtech?
- whalesalad 7y agoCan you think of a better platform? What's the alternative?
- amelius 7y agoPure OS, https://pureos.net/ https://pureos.net/ And if that's not sufficiently capable perhaps VW can invest into making it so.
- Zhenya 7y agoVW is looking for a strong 3rd app support; I doubt pure OS is in the same ballpark as Android for ready-to-install applications from large developers like spotify, tomtom, etc etc
- dreamcompiler 7y agoWow. I just had a flash of my car playing me its own ads on the sound system in the middle of my roadtrip mix. Who am I kidding? It's probably already happening.
- spankalee 7y agoWhat adtech is in Android?
- Zhenya 7y agoAndroid is open source (https://source.android.com/ https://source.android.com/) and there is no "adtech" there at all.
- davidthewatson 7y agoI fail to see how an operating system causes 2 or 3 decades of divergent software engineering to coalesce. That's only probable if numerous components descend from the operating system group in an architectural style that is unified, congruent, and global. That's way beyond the bounds of what we traditionally call operating systems. You are more likely to wind up with a cargo cult.
- Neil44 7y agoA big driver not mentioned is differentiation in the market, now that the trend is for platform sharing across manufacturers. Essentially the same car being sold by several different manufacturers with the only differences being the badge on the back and things like the infotainment system fitted. By carving out a big ecosystem early they’re getting a head start in that area.
- dwyerm 7y agoWe're changing to auto market into the cell phone market? Oh no. "Well, I get Free Miles(tm) with the Chevrolet, but it throttles at 70MPH and the radio only plays Pandoa. Or I can get the exact same car from Crysler, with no throttling, but the miles come in bundles of 1000 and radio apps are $5/month."
- papermachete 7y agoHow long until car modifications are outlawed and reserved for overpriced proprietary mechanics shops?
- GrayTextIsTruth 7y agoHow long until low-tech cars are outlawed?
- PorterDuff 7y agoBetween the need for expensive training and diagnostic equipment, and the ever-widening view of things that are .gov mandated and covered under smog or safety laws including spare parts sourcing, we are largely there. I'll counter. In a world of electric cars (which I'm in favor of), how long until the politically well-connected emissions testing industry becomes repurposed into mandatory safety inspections at the same or higher price?
- rootusrootus 7y agoWe were already going in that direction, but perhaps EVs will push us over the edge. Tesla has certainly made it damn near impossible to work on their cars.
- close04 7y agoAs (not) discussed previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20973385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20973385
- PorterDuff 7y agoIt's just my own ignorance speaking (probably), but I can't say that I like the idea of Android getting near/intertwined with mission critical systems. Hopefully 'infotainment' implies something that is well clear of 'stopping' and the like...although I'd just as soon that they dropped the 'tainment' part and simply provided an interface for diagnostics, HVAC, &tc. What bugs me the most about the 'tainment' part is that not only do I find most of it irritating, but that you are binding technology that obsoletes quickly with an expensive product that should last 10-20 years. It's a shame that car companies have picked this as an area for product differentiation.
- alexis_fr 7y agoThe same was probably said 15 years ago about the computerization of the car engine and their rapid deprecation. Did the average lifespan of a car decrease since then? How ridiculous is it to drive a 4WD into the desert, full of electronics that can’t be repaired and where a single chip can cost 300$ and has to be shipped from mainland America... So yep, with car computerization they reduced the lifespan from 30 to 12 years, and with infotainment they’ll reduce it to 8 years. Same length as a Tesla warranty.
- potta_coffee 7y agoIt kinda depends on the manufacturer. Some have done a better job than others.
- criddell 7y agoVehicle manufacturers are just giving customers what they want. My family recently bought a new car (a Volvo FWIW) and for the first time we really didn't care about horsepower or fuel efficiency or anything really related to vehicle performance. It was all about the electronics and safety features.
- PorterDuff 7y ago"Vehicle manufacturers are just giving customers what they want." ...and they're giving it to them good and hard.
- stefanoco 7y agoMy two cents: - I'm asking myself why there's no reference to Autosar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUTOSAR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUTOSAR) which is not an operating system (whatever this means in this context), but yelds a sort of a standard architecture in the car and among third parties. It's a real mess, but it works in this sense. - rumors exist about VW and other manufacturers pushing for using ADA (more specifically Spark), anyone aware of this?
- molteanu 7y agoYes, it is a mess. At over 15.000 pages, AUTOSAR specifies not general utilities, libraries, battle tested data structures used in the automotive field or whatnot, but actual automotive components that in theory can be developed independently and combined to build the whole car. XML being the medium of choice for this standardization doesn't help either. You're left with tools upon tools that modify XML files and generate C code based on those files and very little opportunity to actually look/modify those C files by hand, even in trivial circumstances. In short, the AUTOSAR idea, from what I've experienced, is to hire an army of mouse-clickers that can use shiny tools to assemble and configure every aspect of the car. They would not learn C or any programming, but learn the actual standard and know what you need to click or check in each and every instance. The tools would then take care of bringing in the code and generate the header configuration files for you. Anyway, not mentioning AUTOSAR might be a sign that its days are numbered, perhaps?
- jacobush 7y agoThen, from my experience, when the mouse-clickers are done, you employ an army of C-coders to work around and/or abuse the (expensive) AUTOSAR components until the system (somewhat) does what you wanted it to. In my case it was AUTOSAR in name only. Our higher bosses thought we were running AUTOSAR, but the lower you went, the understanding was firmer and firmer that what we actually ran was custom software. Oh, the days numbered part - nah, I don't think so. AUTOSAR is for very low level stuff, I think unholy combinations will live on for a long time. AFAIK all the component (like hardware, Bosch for instance) vendors only provide AUTOSAR components for integration. Not sure, it was a few years ago I was in the loop.
- chicob 7y ago"But you also have to open up all the car's sensor data [to Google], and when I say all, it really is all sensor data" This is revealing. I'm glad my tractor GPS/guiding system does not run Android.
- Zhenya 7y agoAndroid and Google services are 2 different things. 1 is an opensource OS, the other is proprietary services.
- incanus77 7y agoWant to run Google Maps on this system? You must use Google services as a whole. Don’t want to? Look up the numbers on how many global providers of maps data there are...
- magduf 7y agoNot only that, the other providers are extremely deficient compared to Google Maps, from an end-user perspective. My 4-year-old car came with an infotainment system using HERE maps. It's laughably bad compared to Google Maps, and here's why: 1) The HERE maps aren't auto-updated. You have to go to some trouble to download updates twice a year, and then install them on the car with a USB stick. You only get 3 updates for free, and after that you have to pay a huge price for each update. Google Maps is updated constantly with new roads, construction outages, even when a street is going to be blocked for a parade. 2) The business data on the built-in system is sparse. With Google Maps, pretty much any brick-and-mortar business that exists is on there. And I can easily see the business's operating hours too, and it'll warn me if I'm going to get there too close to closing time. 3) Searching is far easier. Finding a destination on the built-in system is like something from the 90s, and you generally need to start with a state, city, etc. With Google Maps, you just start typing a name and it pops up suggestions, which usually gets you the place you want very quickly. 4) No traffic updates on the built-in system. It has no way to get traffic data; Google Maps has this by default unless you're in a "dead zone". I could go on and on.
- otroqueccorre 7y agoOMFG, In my opinion, the last thing I want is that google can havve all the data of my car too. Too much. I think the next step is to go into the thermomix to know what I'm eating and how I'm feeding my family. Or to monitor my bed to know how many time I have sex. Ah no, I forgot that this is happening because of Google Assistant... -_-
- growlist 7y agoMy cynical side tells me that if Germany weren't one of the world's largest car exporters, the EU would already be legislating to harmonise these systems globally.
- tt 7y agoOnce an OEM opens up its vehicle data and control to Android (and/or Google Automotive), it's game over for them. The OEM becomes a commodity hardware maker. Plenty of analogy with mobile phones manufacturers. The OEM will not make a dime after the sale of the vehicle while Google will build and strengthen a development platform to enable third-party applications and services and profit from them (something Google knows how to do really well). Think Turo/Getaround, cleaning, refueling, charging, insurance, package delivery, in-car applications, etc. One way out of this is for the major OEMs to band together and create their own standardized platform that works across OEMs. At minimum, that platform should expose a single standard interface to all third-party service providers.
- nexuist 7y ago>One way out of this is for the major OEMs to band together and create their own standardized platform that works across OEMs. At minimum, that platform should expose a single standard interface to all third-party service providers. This already exists, and it's why there's a slew of Bluetooth-enabled apps on the app stores that let you self-diagnose your own car. It's called OBD-II and it's federally mandated on every vehicle since 1996 in the US and since 2003 in the EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics
- tt 7y agoThe OBD interface is too cumbersome (vehicle owners have to mess with hardware installation, etc...) and is more geared towards aftermarket devices and software. This effort must be at the core of each OEM and be completely seamless to the end-users and even third-party developers.
- magduf 7y agoOBD-II isn't actually a real standard. The OEMs all tack on additional stuff to it, so none of the implementations are fully compatible with each other. Ford and Mazda, for instance, use a medium-speed CAN bus that other OEMs don't, so most OBD-II readers can't access anything on that bus. Also, the whole point of OBD was supposed to be standardizing diagnostic messages so anyone could read the trouble codes. However, all the OEMs have lots of proprietary codes that aren't in the standard. The whole thing is a mess. Finally, OBD-II isn't a standard bus anyway. It's an interface to the end user or technician. The various modules on the car are interconnected with a variety of buses: CAN (high-speed or low-speed or medium-speed), LIN, MOST, etc.
- spanktheuser 7y agoI'm also aware of a project from a major automotive supplier to attempt the same thing. From my understanding it's unlikely to succeed because manufacturers view suppliers as commodity producers of components they find boring like brakes, steering systems, sensors, transmissions, safety systems, fuel pumps, etc. Not as anything resembling a true partner. Not to mention that it would require competitors to collaborate closely in the production of a highly complex piece of software. That said, how many times have we seen this story in other industries? 1 Legacy corporation is warned that an integrated, consumer-friendly software architecture for [multi-billion product line] is needed, and failure to produce one creates an opportunity for an insurgent competitor and/or commodification by adjacent supply chain players. 2 Leadership laughs and ignores mounting evidence of just such a threat emerging for up to a decade. 3 Lo and behold, prophesied competitor finally emerges and finds immediate market success. 4 Legacy company announces that they'll bring a competing solution to market, promising investors that they'll produce a similar quality OS, but across 39 models, uniting 457 separate component suppliers AND the entire post-purchase product support infrastructure. They're starting today and promise to launch in 12 months. 5 Legacy company lights billion dollar bonfire to distract investors while CTO frantically tries to source a robust embedded operating system with consumer-grade interfaces and feature set. 6 Best case, no one who has such an OS will license it. Worst case, Google will. 7 Leadership jumps ship, legacy company craters or slowly slides into irrelevance, and CEO later gives interviews about how absolutely no one could have seen this coming, with a sidebar complaining about software engineering salaries. Honestly, this whole narrative is becoming a bit boring at this point. VW is at stage 5. The fact that its leadership consists entirely of charlatans is self-evident.
- ravedave5 7y agoI wonder if this is fallout from Tesla. They must have a huge advantage in a way here having a clean sheet architecture only a decade old. Between this and superbottle I think the idea to use suppliers as little as possible may pay off.
- Shivetya 7y agoOwn a Tesla Model 3. Over the air updates is vastly under estimated by many people. It is just as much of a revolution in the automobile industry as the electric drive train. As more cars move to electric and electrified drive trains the value of over the air updates that Tesla employs will become more evident. it frees you from being forced to buy a new car to get new and or improved features. plus building a system like that allows Tesla to add new hardware to their cars with ease as the mindset is in place already. A model S bought five years ago enjoys most if not all the updates a newly purchased model S has today. that is not something any other maker can claim and I doubt that any even want to go there because not only does it free the consumer from having purchase a whole new car for exciting features but obligates the maker to providing updates to an existing car.
- NohatCoder 7y agoI get a little bit worried when I read that they want one platform for everything, the security needs of different systems are too different. I'd say a modern car needs at least 3 separate systems: A low level system for all critical features, this should be coded as safely as possible and run on a slow almost unbreakable computer. A selfdriving features module, doing all the computations that are too intensive for the low level system. The low level system must be able to detect malfunctions in this system and act accordingly. An infotainment system, just assume that it has been hacked when designing the other systems. It should be simple to prove that this system cannot take over the rest of the car.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoIn some ways I wish they abandoned infotainment systems completely and just relied iOS/Android to provide those services. Stick a dumb screen in the car with USB/Bluetooth connectivity to my phone.
- ElijahLynn 7y agoWith all the car operating systems (OS) that will no doubt be connected to the internet AND abandoned in the coming years. We need a car OS that is fully open source so companies can offer security updates after they are abandoned, so they don't get hacked and taken over as a full autonomous bot army of cars.
- stefanoco 7y agoA bit out of context but worth mentioning: anyone here having knowledge of the trend regarding using ADA/Spark in the automotive industry?
- AcerbicZero 7y agoI can see what VW is trying to do here, and honestly out of the various rental cars I've driven over the past 6 months, my Golf R's Android Auto/Car Play integration has probably been one of the best. VW also has a history of people doing minor modifications of their cars electronics, both via the intended menus and for more complicated things, via the outstandingly named vagcom (VCDS)* I think this is the direction more automakers should go. I drove a friends Tesla the other day, and it shares some the same features, allowing you to make fairly specific customizations of certain things through the built in menu. *Some items which can be customized via the VCDS - DRL's, Windows Auto-Up/Auto-Down/etc, and a bunch of other things I can't remember anymore.
- test2016 7y agoExciting but slow
- hwj 7y agoI wonder what language this new OS will be writtin in. C?
- hkai 7y agoI'd prefer a car without an operating system.
- sangnoir 7y agoYou can probably get one with no software/microchips, but it won't be new.