MeeGo conference: Intel's and Nokia's visions of MeeGo

Posted Nov 19, 2010 16:39 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
In reply to: MeeGo conference: Intel's and Nokia's visions of MeeGo by wookey
Parent article: MeeGo conference: Intel's and Nokia's visions of MeeGo

I believe the car computers are a separate system from the computers under discussion; they're not planning to run MeeGo on the car computers. All sorts of devices actually contain computers (I've heard of compact fluorescent light bulbs having computers to manage the process of turning on the light, because it's a bit complicated and a microcontroller is cheaper than the high-precision passive components you'd otherwise need). The expansion of network-connected devices is an interesting topic, but really one for a different article; I suspect that the vast majority of these devices will be in the class that uses FreeRTOS and not Linux and certainly not something like Meego's userspace.

MeeGo conference: Intel's and Nokia's visions of MeeGo

Posted Nov 24, 2010 16:12 UTC (Wed) by n8willis (subscriber, #43041) [Link] (9 responses)

They absolutely _are_ talking about running MeeGo on the car computers. That's what the IVI UX is.

Nate

MeeGo conference: Intel's and Nokia's visions of MeeGo

Posted Nov 24, 2010 16:25 UTC (Wed) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link] (8 responses)

>They absolutely _are_ talking about running MeeGo on the car computers. That's what the IVI UX is.

So the fuel injection system gets to watch The Simpsons? :P

As someone else said upthread, "I think you are conflating 'computer' and 'display screen'".

GP was talking about the computers that actually *control* the car, not extra devices that you can add in for entertainment but aren't intrinsically *car* computers.

I think he was intending simply to point out that nobody is proposing running an entertainment system on the computers that control critical operations, so including them in the count is arguably unfair.

MeeGo conference: Intel's and Nokia's visions of MeeGo

Posted Nov 24, 2010 19:15 UTC (Wed) by n8willis (subscriber, #43041) [Link] (7 responses)

I went to the IVI talk; they're talking about distributed systems with multiple heads, some for rear-seat-entertainment, some for driver-facing applications, some for telematics, some for vehicle data, some for safety equipment.

And there's not a bright line separating the "entertainment" front-end from the the location/safety/other systems -- they are all interconnected. Your audio player must be able to override a music stream to play an alert when the proximity sensor detects that you're backing up into another car. Your hands-free phone support allows you to keep your fingers safely on the wheel, but it has to overlay video message pop-ups onto the same screen displaying your turn-by-turn navigation, which also has to overlay a message when the tire gauge detects low pressure. The same networking stack that delivers IP radio also must route sensor data to and from the roadside assistance service. You disconnect all of those systems and you don't have a working system at all.

Nate

8 years, dealer upgrades

Posted Nov 24, 2010 19:46 UTC (Wed) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (1 responses)

The average car in the USA is 8 years old. Who is still using the same entertainment devices for 8 years in the home? People get a new CD/DVD/Blu-Ray player, whatever. The only option for the car is aftermarket devices, which don't integrate well with on-wheel controls and which the dealer doesn't get a piece of (they way they do for high-margin options like in-car entertainment.)

What the dealers need is an in-car platform for selling upgraded entertainment devices that locks out the aftermarket. So you wire in some safety-critical systems to the same network, then you have an excuse to make it dealer-only.

8 years, dealer upgrades

Posted Nov 24, 2010 20:59 UTC (Wed) by n8willis (subscriber, #43041) [Link]

I get what you're saying, but I'm not that convinced that's how the carmakers think.

What percentage of car owners ever replace their factory head unit? Most of the people I know don't have an aftermarket audio unit; they definitely don't install RSE video units in great numbers.

There are a lot of makers that sell-up their higher-end models by advertising things like Alpine/Monsoon/Whoever speakers & head units, plus satellite radio compatibility. I suspect that they get a non-zero chunk of the satellite and navigation monthly service fee as revenue, too. Over 8 years, that ongoing revenue stream is better than whatever their margin is on a particular head unit. Plus by maintaining good working relationships with the head-unit OEMs, they get year-after-year business on the new models. Ticking them off by locking out 3rd-party upgrades can't be worth that.

Anyway it seems like car makers and head-unit OEMs *are* interested in some standards; that's what MOST is for, and XM/Sirius makes lots of add-on units to retrofit different brands.

The interesting thing to me was when Rudolf Streif said that carmakers are wanting to leverage their IVI systems as "app platforms" like the smartphone market is giddy on. There may not be a ton of possibilities for driver-facing apps (though I'm sure the 4square types are already dreaming up something useless), but rear-seat gaming is sure to garner some sales. Anyway, it almost necessitates a replaceable "IV unit" to upgrade processing power and network standards. That would be a real big change. In any case, the IVI working group already talks about separating vehicle sensors and data from the head unit, connecting them instead on existing bus standards like CAN.

We'll all see who's still impressed with the locked-in, Ford-only nav unit they can get today ... when 2017 rolls around.

Nate

MeeGo conference: Intel's and Nokia's visions of MeeGo

Posted Nov 24, 2010 19:56 UTC (Wed) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] (4 responses)

Even so, I think the electronics that control engine timings and such (which is what has been called the "car computer" for a while now) will stay a separate system, which gets probed by the IVI system so that it knows to display the "check engine" alert.

For that matter, the average desktop computer probably has a dozen parts which are computers in the traditional "car computer" sense, and it would be nuts to consider running Linux on them (or having the main system take over their functions). You're not going to run MeeGo on your optical mouse, or have your optical mouse provide light-sensor data to the CPU; similarly, the IVI system is not going to handle all of the processing needs within a car.

There are two simultaneous processes going on: people are putting recognizable computers (operating system, multiple independent programs, user interaction, system image with processes and dynamic memory allocation and such) in more places; and people are replacing physical mechanisms with software implementations on special-purpose hardware (with general-purpose processor architectures). Both of these lead to there being lots more computers in the world, but it's the first and not the second that's relevant here.

MeeGo conference: Intel's and Nokia's visions of MeeGo

Posted Nov 24, 2010 21:13 UTC (Wed) by n8willis (subscriber, #43041) [Link] (3 responses)

There is actually a pretty popular open source ECU called MegaSquirt, and yeah, it doesn't need a full multi-user OS. It's mostly popular with racing types. In any case, I'm not really sure I follow what you're upset about, though. You talk about "running MeeGo" on a hardware peripheral device without a processor; I don't understand who you think is saying that.

Besides, if the central IVI box that is connected by CAN bus or whatever to the ECU, the sensors, the security system, etc. *is* running MeeGo, when those other systems are essentially microcontrollers, how is "the computer" *not* "running MeeGo"? Do you say that your desktop box "isn't running Linux" because there's someone else's code running in the BIOS, the hard disk firmware, DVD drive, and Ethernet ROM?

Nate

MeeGo conference: Intel's and Nokia's visions of MeeGo

Posted Nov 24, 2010 22:01 UTC (Wed) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] (1 responses)

I think the discussion has wandered away from my original point, which is that putting computers in front of people who can't spare much attention for interacting with the computer is a significant new thing. Someone responded by mentioning the ECU that's been in front of drivers for ages, and I was arguing that that's not actually relevant, since it's not that sort of computer.

MeeGo conference: Intel's and Nokia's visions of MeeGo

Posted Nov 24, 2010 23:07 UTC (Wed) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

Lost drivers are more at risk of an accident, and changing CDs/cassettes/radio stations is in the top 10 for distractions. So a good car computer with nav software that gives accurate directions (with plenty of time to change lanes) and a good predictive audio system could make things safer. (Turning the dashboard into a conventional PC desktop would probably make things worse.)

MeeGo conference: Intel's and Nokia's visions of MeeGo

Posted Nov 29, 2010 15:28 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Optical mice do have processors (they work by doing motion detection on an incoming video stream), just dedicated ones.