4 ms·

The thing is that if you mandate updates for x years, automakers will just push "empty" updates to fill the quota. Because of this, it should be mandated that

The thing is that if you mandate updates for x years, automakers will just push "empty" updates to fill the quota. Because of this, it should be mandated that 3rd parties be allowed full hardware access/documentation once the warranty period expires. Automaker wants you to use their software forever? Good. They can out-compete the third parties. You are allowed to buy third party auto parts, no reason you shouldn't be allowed 3rd party software.

tpxl 2y ago
> You are allowed to buy third party auto parts They're working damn hard to prevent that with signing.
- bzzzt 2y ago
  That's difficult with oil though. At least my airbags aren't stolen every few months like with some brands here since the manufacturer made it hard to swap them between cars.
bzzzt 2y ago
> Because of this, it should be mandated that 3rd parties be allowed full hardware access/documentation once the warranty period expires. Mandating that would also mean the 3rd party also would have to take responsibility that the updated software conforms to spec and doesn't kill someone. Who's going to pay for that?
- CogitoCogito 2y ago
  Haven't third parties been repairing cars for all automotive history?
  - bzzzt 2y ago
    Repairing by swapping parts is a bit different than completely rebuilding the software stack.
    - CogitoCogito 2y ago
      How so? Swapping parts can still result in people's deaths. That is what concerned you right? Besides it's not like people have only "swapped parts". People have basically entirely rebuilt engines and many other systems in the car. You are underselling what what has commonly always been done. So yeah, I don't really feel like you've answered my original question: > Haven't third parties been repairing cars for all automotive history?
      - bzzzt 2y ago
        Ok, let me state it like this: Car repair consists of diagnosing a finite amount of components with known failure states and swapping them with known parts that are pre-approved and suitable for the car that's being repaired. Software 'repair' consists of managing thousands of dependencies and building new firmware from scratch. Modern cars contain a lot of mandatory safety systems, from ABS to emergency braking, pedestrian detection, emergency SOS calls, active steering with lane assist, speeding notifications, driver fatigue detection etc. Knowing how software companies operate, I presume they got it just about working per spec. I don't know if you can expect a third party to manage such a complex stack and update it in a way that's up to spec and satisfies all legal requirements. And even if that's possible I don't think it will be cheaper anyway. Computers are a very different world, just as car manufacturers are still discovering.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
paxys 2y ago
You don't mandate updates, you mandate support. So if a key piece of functionality breaks after N years, or if there's a new security exploit discovered, the manufacturer is obligated to fix it. They can't say "well it's been 2 years, the car isn't supported anymore, just buy the new model".
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  "We are still investigating the issue"
- xethos 2y ago
  "Upon investigation, we do not believe this to be a serious issue" is a thing that affects even software-focused companies [0]. The chief difference, in this case, is that you cannot impersonate the CEO to publicly state that there is, in fact, a security issue. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/technolog/one-way-get-facebooks-attention-hack-zuckerbergs-personal-page-6C10952867 https://www.nbcnews.com/technolog/one-way-get-facebooks-atte...
- PontifexMinimus 2y ago
  Why not mandate that the car must still work if you take the computers out?

tpxl 2y ago

> You are allowed to buy third party auto parts They're working damn hard to prevent that with signing.

bzzzt 2y ago
That's difficult with oil though. At least my airbags aren't stolen every few months like with some brands here since the manufacturer made it hard to swap them between cars.

bzzzt 2y ago

> Because of this, it should be mandated that 3rd parties be allowed full hardware access/documentation once the warranty period expires. Mandating that would also mean the 3rd party also would have to take responsibility that the updated software conforms to spec and doesn't kill someone. Who's going to pay for that?

CogitoCogito 2y ago
Haven't third parties been repairing cars for all automotive history?
- bzzzt 2y ago
  Repairing by swapping parts is a bit different than completely rebuilding the software stack.
  - CogitoCogito 2y ago
    How so? Swapping parts can still result in people's deaths. That is what concerned you right? Besides it's not like people have only "swapped parts". People have basically entirely rebuilt engines and many other systems in the car. You are underselling what what has commonly always been done. So yeah, I don't really feel like you've answered my original question: > Haven't third parties been repairing cars for all automotive history?
    - bzzzt 2y ago
      Ok, let me state it like this: Car repair consists of diagnosing a finite amount of components with known failure states and swapping them with known parts that are pre-approved and suitable for the car that's being repaired. Software 'repair' consists of managing thousands of dependencies and building new firmware from scratch. Modern cars contain a lot of mandatory safety systems, from ABS to emergency braking, pedestrian detection, emergency SOS calls, active steering with lane assist, speeding notifications, driver fatigue detection etc. Knowing how software companies operate, I presume they got it just about working per spec. I don't know if you can expect a third party to manage such a complex stack and update it in a way that's up to spec and satisfies all legal requirements. And even if that's possible I don't think it will be cheaper anyway. Computers are a very different world, just as car manufacturers are still discovering.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

paxys 2y ago

You don't mandate updates, you mandate support. So if a key piece of functionality breaks after N years, or if there's a new security exploit discovered, the manufacturer is obligated to fix it. They can't say "well it's been 2 years, the car isn't supported anymore, just buy the new model".

Workaccount2 2y ago
"We are still investigating the issue"
xethos 2y ago
"Upon investigation, we do not believe this to be a serious issue" is a thing that affects even software-focused companies [0]. The chief difference, in this case, is that you cannot impersonate the CEO to publicly state that there is, in fact, a security issue. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/technolog/one-way-get-facebooks-attention-hack-zuckerbergs-personal-page-6C10952867 https://www.nbcnews.com/technolog/one-way-get-facebooks-atte...
PontifexMinimus 2y ago
Why not mandate that the car must still work if you take the computers out?