8 ms·

Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars

106 points by sethbannon 14y ago

ImprovedSilence 14y ago
Nice, I like the forward thinking by ford on this. I only wish next they open up the engine controller, and let the real hackers in!
- untog 14y ago
  I can't imagine the amount of penetration testing they'd need to do before opening up core components of a car. I would not want to be in charge of that project.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    I can't imagine any halfway competent legal department ever endorsing such a thing.
  - ImprovedSilence 14y ago
    Of course they'd never open that up, that was just me dreaming.
    - sukuriant 14y ago
      Isn't that what stage 2 systems for cars already does? Updates the car's internal computer, as well as changing out physical components?
- dsl 14y ago
  The real hackers are already in. ;) The Nissan Pathfinder for example has a pin on the ECM that when grounded loads the engine profile from the upper 256K of RAM vs the normal lower 256K of RAM. If you modify an engine profile to set limits of 5 MPH and 1000 RPM and load it into the upper 256K and wire that pin to the dome light switch, you have an amazing anti-theft system.
  - sjwright 14y ago
    Security through obscurity. Works well until it becomes a popular tactic. Anyway, haven't immobilizers all but stopped drive-away car theft?
    - dsl 14y ago
      I'd label it more as "heterogenous security." If everyone modded their own car, a thief is forced to develop novel attacks for each car. Immobilisers have two major issues. The first is code weakness. Many of the early ones used static keys. In '98 when Germany mandated them for new cars, BMW and others switched to using the odometer reading as a shared secret. Newer ones often use weak 40-bit keys. The second issue is that most immobilizers simply cut the ignition circuit and the fuel pump circuit. If you know where the relays are on a model of car you can short circuit them.
      - sjwright 14y ago
        You're seriously proposing BYO security? Immobilisers have dramatically reduced rates of drive-away car theft in Australia where they became mandatory a while ago. They might not be completely foolproof, but they certainly do stop the vast, vast majority of criminals.
- starik36 14y ago
  Ford has offered this type of functionality (read-only, of course) for the last 15 years at least. They had at that time a parallel cable (remember those printers) interface to their engine that would let you get all kinds of information. I coded to it - it was quite fun.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  This doesn't seem like the sort of thing you'd want to expose to the general public. With computers, you are generally pretty safe from breaking anything permanently. Engines, on the other hand, are not only subject to a host of regulations but also very easy to destroy with a few errors. Serious hackers would of course be very interested, but allowing the general public to cause thousands of dollars in damage to their engine with a few keystrokes seems like a setup for a PR nightmare. Also, I mentioned the regulations- I doubt the EPA and CARB would be happy.
  - drcube 14y ago
    I don't like this reasoning. We already give people physical access to their cars' engines. They can do as much damage just as easily, but they don't because they'd rather have a functional car. Open up access to the computer and it would be the same thing. Most people would leave it alone and those who didn't would know ahead of time what they're getting into.
- joezydeco 14y ago
  They're getting a bit closer with OpenXC. Doubtful they'll ever let anyone all the way in, but you never know... http://openxcplatform.com/ http://openxcplatform.com/
  - peplin 14y ago
    As an addendum to this, we (finally) were able to release OpenXC just now.
    - joezydeco 14y ago
      That's great news, congrats on making 1.0^H^H0.9.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jakejake 14y ago
This sounded awesome right up to the point that they said that this was a hotly pursued space due to advertising potential to a captive audience. If I am in my own car and my music is interrupted with an ad every time I drive by a McDonalds - I would find that extremely annoying. On the other hand, if you could lease a car at a subsidized price in exchange for ads, that might be an attractive offer to some.
- alexanderh 14y ago
  Yea I couldnt believe that when I read it. Once you got past all the requirements these 'ads' would have to adhear to, to not be distracting or dangerous, it becomes a pretty limp form of advertising. The reason people own nice dash-systems, and iPods is so they dont have to listen to ads. There is absolutely no way anyone would buy a car that forces ads on them unless it was HEAVILY subsidized. This is beyond retarded, and if advertising really is their motivation, this will fail hard. Why isnt having a cool fancy dashboard without ads enough? Doesn't that do enough to make the car desirable, and competitive?
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  My new BMW has a Yelp app, which might be the kind of thing they're talking about. I'm pretty sure your car isn't going to advertise to you without you asking for it; that sounds like a regulation nightmare.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- rprasad 14y ago
  The NY Times added the part about the captive audience and advertising potential. Ford's developer page and its press release concern themselves with apps of the type they already bundle with Sync (i.e., ad-free). Indeed, Ford's developer page warns that content which distracts the driver (including but not limited to visual distractions) will not be accepted into the Sync app store.
- ssharp 14y ago
  A chocolate company in Cleveland ran a promotion where the company would pay you $150 per month for three years if you bought a specially wrapped and painted Volkswagon Beetle with their colors and logos plastered on it. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/08/would_you_drive_around_a_malle.html http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/08/would_yo...
nthitz 14y ago
So can I get a free car? Er I mean dev kit? :)
- pal_graham 14y ago
  jokes aren't allowed here.
jbigelow76 14y ago
When I bought my 2009 Ford Fusion it was marketed as having "Microsoft Sync", the Sync name has stuck around but I haven't seen any mention of Sync being or derived from Microsoft technology in Ford's marketing in the last couple year (nor in the article). I wonder if that is still the back end of it or if Ford rebuilt Sync from the ground up?
- baddox 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Sync#Exclusivity_agreement_with_Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Sync#Exclusivity_agreement...
jjtheblunt 14y ago
Perhaps the article mentioned advertising as an example of a source of apps; perhaps non-advertiser-funded apps are just what the SDK lets anyone build.
revelation 14y ago
Since we are on the topic: I wish Tesla would finally live up to their obligations and release the GPLed parts of their product (that includes, at a minimum, the Linux kernel with all modifications).
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  GPL compliance (sigh) and a new SDK for a vehicle aren't really the same topic. They just happen to have cars in common. If I left a comment about the camshaft on my Jeep, that wouldn't be on topic, even though it's about cars. That aside, what do you hope to gain from their GPL compliance? Pop open the GPL compliance kit from, say, a Netgear router and you get a kernel, a few drivers, and the toolchain used to build it. And BusyBox. How useful will the drivers for things in a Tesla be to you? Do you own a Tesla, or is it just curiosity? If it's curiosity, well, I wish we weren't enforcing that with the GPL.
  - Niten 14y ago
    > If it's curiosity, well, I wish we weren't enforcing that with the GPL. It's simple, either you comply with the GPL or you don't distribute GPL-based code. As an author of GPL licensed software, I think it's pretty damned arrogant for someone like you to imply curiosity isn't a good enough reason to get back modifications in accordance with the chosen license. Who are you to judge? And anyway, what reason could possibly be more worthy than curiosity? It's the authors' choice, not the peanut gallery's; and if they hadn't intended for all distributed modifications to be made available under the GPL, they would have chosen BSD or another license instead. And if you don't like that, too bad.
    - i386 14y ago
      Because "for curiosity" isn't a term stated in any GPL license. You can be offended as much as you want for them not releasing it but unless you own a Tesla they don't have to share their modifications with you. If you are unhappy with that, I suggest sharing your work under a different license.
zgchurch 14y ago
This video explains better IMO: http://cnettv.cnet.com/ford-touts-car-app-development/9742-1_53-50138474.html http://cnettv.cnet.com/ford-touts-car-app-development/9742-1...
tom68 14y ago
This is Kind of Old news SYNC APi has been around a while
- blcArmadillo 14y ago
  Yes, it's been around for awhile but the general public hasn't been able to develop apps for it until now.
gps710 14y ago
It is going to make a huge difference whether dealerships work to set up accounts for customers. If ford apps try to survive on ad support it is going to turn into a pile of garbage apps and irritating ads.
31reasons 14y ago
Would developers have to buy a Ford Car to test Apps on the device ?
- zgchurch 14y ago
  The video below mentions that there's a hardware "SYNC in a box" available, and a software emulator in the works. http://cnettv.cnet.com/ford-touts-car-app-development/9742-1_53-50138474.html http://cnettv.cnet.com/ford-touts-car-app-development/9742-1...
manicho 14y ago
I was notified today that GM also came out with there API today. Seems a bit odd that they would both release the exact same feature on the same day. I wonder how similar their SDK's will be. http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Jan/0108-sdk.html http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/...
- dcesiel 14y ago
  GM's is cool too because they have an API that allows you to remotely get vehicle data through Onstar. This allows approved apps to get data like fuel level, vehicle alarm alerts, oil life, fuel economy, remote start/stop, location, speed and direction etc. Not sure Ford has anything like that..
- zgchurch 14y ago
  Ford's AppLink-enabled apps run on your iOS/Android phone and the vehicle's voice control and buttons are additional interfaces to control the app that's running on your phone. So regular Pandora from Google Play or the App Store has the code to integrate with AppLink vehicles in it already. This is different from GM's approach, where the apps are built to run on the vehicle's own hardware.
- wmblaettler 14y ago
  We just entered a GM Connected Car app in the ATT Hackathon in Las Vegas this past weekend. GM provides an Eclipse plugin that has the SDK and emulator. GM's API is Javascript-based and your app is HTML5/CSS and JS code.
reginaldo 14y ago
Which means that briefly we'll live in a time where a stack overflow vulnerability will cause your car to break or accelerate at very inappropriate times. Just google for "researchers car software vulnerability" (without quotes) to see what I'm talking about. [1] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229919/Car_hacking_Remote_access_and_other_security_issues http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229919/Car_hacking_R...
- gizmo686 14y ago
  It seems like you know that hackable cars are already the norm. Hopefully, with a focus on security and open software development, cars will become more secure.
rem1313 14y ago
"Certain kinds of apps will be barred, like games, elaborate video and anything that would require extensive reading." .. "Ford also announced nine new apps that would be part of the Sync system, including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today..." Good that these don't require extensive reading
- mandlar 14y ago
  I would assume like NPR it would be for controlling audio streams of news?
runn1ng 14y ago
I am looking forward to playing Angry Birds while driving.

106 points by sethbannon 14y ago

Nice, I like the forward thinking by ford on this. I only wish next they open up the engine controller, and let the real hackers in!

untog 14y ago
I can't imagine the amount of penetration testing they'd need to do before opening up core components of a car. I would not want to be in charge of that project.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  I can't imagine any halfway competent legal department ever endorsing such a thing.
- ImprovedSilence 14y ago
  Of course they'd never open that up, that was just me dreaming.
  - sukuriant 14y ago
    Isn't that what stage 2 systems for cars already does? Updates the car's internal computer, as well as changing out physical components?
dsl 14y ago
The real hackers are already in. ;) The Nissan Pathfinder for example has a pin on the ECM that when grounded loads the engine profile from the upper 256K of RAM vs the normal lower 256K of RAM. If you modify an engine profile to set limits of 5 MPH and 1000 RPM and load it into the upper 256K and wire that pin to the dome light switch, you have an amazing anti-theft system.
- sjwright 14y ago
  Security through obscurity. Works well until it becomes a popular tactic. Anyway, haven't immobilizers all but stopped drive-away car theft?
  - dsl 14y ago
    I'd label it more as "heterogenous security." If everyone modded their own car, a thief is forced to develop novel attacks for each car. Immobilisers have two major issues. The first is code weakness. Many of the early ones used static keys. In '98 when Germany mandated them for new cars, BMW and others switched to using the odometer reading as a shared secret. Newer ones often use weak 40-bit keys. The second issue is that most immobilizers simply cut the ignition circuit and the fuel pump circuit. If you know where the relays are on a model of car you can short circuit them.
    - sjwright 14y ago
      You're seriously proposing BYO security? Immobilisers have dramatically reduced rates of drive-away car theft in Australia where they became mandatory a while ago. They might not be completely foolproof, but they certainly do stop the vast, vast majority of criminals.
starik36 14y ago
Ford has offered this type of functionality (read-only, of course) for the last 15 years at least. They had at that time a parallel cable (remember those printers) interface to their engine that would let you get all kinds of information. I coded to it - it was quite fun.
sliverstorm 14y ago
This doesn't seem like the sort of thing you'd want to expose to the general public. With computers, you are generally pretty safe from breaking anything permanently. Engines, on the other hand, are not only subject to a host of regulations but also very easy to destroy with a few errors. Serious hackers would of course be very interested, but allowing the general public to cause thousands of dollars in damage to their engine with a few keystrokes seems like a setup for a PR nightmare. Also, I mentioned the regulations- I doubt the EPA and CARB would be happy.
- drcube 14y ago
  I don't like this reasoning. We already give people physical access to their cars' engines. They can do as much damage just as easily, but they don't because they'd rather have a functional car. Open up access to the computer and it would be the same thing. Most people would leave it alone and those who didn't would know ahead of time what they're getting into.
joezydeco 14y ago
They're getting a bit closer with OpenXC. Doubtful they'll ever let anyone all the way in, but you never know... http://openxcplatform.com/ http://openxcplatform.com/
- peplin 14y ago
  As an addendum to this, we (finally) were able to release OpenXC just now.
  - joezydeco 14y ago
    That's great news, congrats on making 1.0^H^H0.9.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jakejake 14y ago

This sounded awesome right up to the point that they said that this was a hotly pursued space due to advertising potential to a captive audience. If I am in my own car and my music is interrupted with an ad every time I drive by a McDonalds - I would find that extremely annoying. On the other hand, if you could lease a car at a subsidized price in exchange for ads, that might be an attractive offer to some.

alexanderh 14y ago
Yea I couldnt believe that when I read it. Once you got past all the requirements these 'ads' would have to adhear to, to not be distracting or dangerous, it becomes a pretty limp form of advertising. The reason people own nice dash-systems, and iPods is so they dont have to listen to ads. There is absolutely no way anyone would buy a car that forces ads on them unless it was HEAVILY subsidized. This is beyond retarded, and if advertising really is their motivation, this will fail hard. Why isnt having a cool fancy dashboard without ads enough? Doesn't that do enough to make the car desirable, and competitive?
jspthrowaway2 14y ago
My new BMW has a Yelp app, which might be the kind of thing they're talking about. I'm pretty sure your car isn't going to advertise to you without you asking for it; that sounds like a regulation nightmare.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rprasad 14y ago
The NY Times added the part about the captive audience and advertising potential. Ford's developer page and its press release concern themselves with apps of the type they already bundle with Sync (i.e., ad-free). Indeed, Ford's developer page warns that content which distracts the driver (including but not limited to visual distractions) will not be accepted into the Sync app store.
ssharp 14y ago
A chocolate company in Cleveland ran a promotion where the company would pay you $150 per month for three years if you bought a specially wrapped and painted Volkswagon Beetle with their colors and logos plastered on it. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/08/would_you_drive_around_a_malle.html http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/08/would_yo...

nthitz 14y ago

So can I get a free car? Er I mean dev kit? :)

pal_graham 14y ago
jokes aren't allowed here.

jbigelow76 14y ago

When I bought my 2009 Ford Fusion it was marketed as having "Microsoft Sync", the Sync name has stuck around but I haven't seen any mention of Sync being or derived from Microsoft technology in Ford's marketing in the last couple year (nor in the article). I wonder if that is still the back end of it or if Ford rebuilt Sync from the ground up?

baddox 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Sync#Exclusivity_agreement_with_Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Sync#Exclusivity_agreement...

jjtheblunt 14y ago

Perhaps the article mentioned advertising as an example of a source of apps; perhaps non-advertiser-funded apps are just what the SDK lets anyone build.

revelation 14y ago

Since we are on the topic: I wish Tesla would finally live up to their obligations and release the GPLed parts of their product (that includes, at a minimum, the Linux kernel with all modifications).

jspthrowaway2 14y ago
GPL compliance (sigh) and a new SDK for a vehicle aren't really the same topic. They just happen to have cars in common. If I left a comment about the camshaft on my Jeep, that wouldn't be on topic, even though it's about cars. That aside, what do you hope to gain from their GPL compliance? Pop open the GPL compliance kit from, say, a Netgear router and you get a kernel, a few drivers, and the toolchain used to build it. And BusyBox. How useful will the drivers for things in a Tesla be to you? Do you own a Tesla, or is it just curiosity? If it's curiosity, well, I wish we weren't enforcing that with the GPL.
- Niten 14y ago
  > If it's curiosity, well, I wish we weren't enforcing that with the GPL. It's simple, either you comply with the GPL or you don't distribute GPL-based code. As an author of GPL licensed software, I think it's pretty damned arrogant for someone like you to imply curiosity isn't a good enough reason to get back modifications in accordance with the chosen license. Who are you to judge? And anyway, what reason could possibly be more worthy than curiosity? It's the authors' choice, not the peanut gallery's; and if they hadn't intended for all distributed modifications to be made available under the GPL, they would have chosen BSD or another license instead. And if you don't like that, too bad.
  - i386 14y ago
    Because "for curiosity" isn't a term stated in any GPL license. You can be offended as much as you want for them not releasing it but unless you own a Tesla they don't have to share their modifications with you. If you are unhappy with that, I suggest sharing your work under a different license.

zgchurch 14y ago

This video explains better IMO: http://cnettv.cnet.com/ford-touts-car-app-development/9742-1_53-50138474.html http://cnettv.cnet.com/ford-touts-car-app-development/9742-1...

tom68 14y ago

This is Kind of Old news SYNC APi has been around a while

blcArmadillo 14y ago
Yes, it's been around for awhile but the general public hasn't been able to develop apps for it until now.

gps710 14y ago

It is going to make a huge difference whether dealerships work to set up accounts for customers. If ford apps try to survive on ad support it is going to turn into a pile of garbage apps and irritating ads.

31reasons 14y ago

Would developers have to buy a Ford Car to test Apps on the device ?

zgchurch 14y ago
The video below mentions that there's a hardware "SYNC in a box" available, and a software emulator in the works. http://cnettv.cnet.com/ford-touts-car-app-development/9742-1_53-50138474.html http://cnettv.cnet.com/ford-touts-car-app-development/9742-1...

manicho 14y ago

I was notified today that GM also came out with there API today. Seems a bit odd that they would both release the exact same feature on the same day. I wonder how similar their SDK's will be. http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Jan/0108-sdk.html http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/...

dcesiel 14y ago
GM's is cool too because they have an API that allows you to remotely get vehicle data through Onstar. This allows approved apps to get data like fuel level, vehicle alarm alerts, oil life, fuel economy, remote start/stop, location, speed and direction etc. Not sure Ford has anything like that..
zgchurch 14y ago
Ford's AppLink-enabled apps run on your iOS/Android phone and the vehicle's voice control and buttons are additional interfaces to control the app that's running on your phone. So regular Pandora from Google Play or the App Store has the code to integrate with AppLink vehicles in it already. This is different from GM's approach, where the apps are built to run on the vehicle's own hardware.
wmblaettler 14y ago
We just entered a GM Connected Car app in the ATT Hackathon in Las Vegas this past weekend. GM provides an Eclipse plugin that has the SDK and emulator. GM's API is Javascript-based and your app is HTML5/CSS and JS code.

reginaldo 14y ago

Which means that briefly we'll live in a time where a stack overflow vulnerability will cause your car to break or accelerate at very inappropriate times. Just google for "researchers car software vulnerability" (without quotes) to see what I'm talking about. [1] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229919/Car_hacking_Remote_access_and_other_security_issues http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229919/Car_hacking_R...

gizmo686 14y ago
It seems like you know that hackable cars are already the norm. Hopefully, with a focus on security and open software development, cars will become more secure.

rem1313 14y ago

"Certain kinds of apps will be barred, like games, elaborate video and anything that would require extensive reading." .. "Ford also announced nine new apps that would be part of the Sync system, including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today..." Good that these don't require extensive reading

mandlar 14y ago
I would assume like NPR it would be for controlling audio streams of news?

runn1ng 14y ago

I am looking forward to playing Angry Birds while driving.