Apple’s next generation CarPlay allows auto manufacturers to license the OS | Don’t look now but Apple is back to licensing an operating system after decades::undefined
Apple’s next generation CarPlay allows auto manufacturers to license the OS | Don’t look now but Apple is back to licensing an operating system after decades::undefined
Isn’t this just QNX?
QNX is a real-time operating system, and it is not open. QNX is not a network accessible API.
I don’t know what you’re referring to.
But no, I don’t see an open protocol for car infotainment that any 3rd party dev can utilise to make an alternative to Android Auto/CarPlay
E: by the looks of it, QNX is just a mostly closed source base software that BlackBerry licences out to automakers, and runs entirely on the cars, not phones.
I’m talking phone-powered infotainment that goes on the car display. Like CarPlay/Android Auto.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you looking to add any app to your phone that would fulfill the CarPlay features like maps/music/phone on the car’s display? I’m only using Apple’s OS these days so I can’t speak to Android, but presently you can use any music app, any maps app, and any communications app that supports Apple’s API. Are you saying you want other apps to be able to send that experience to the car, and/or are you looking for a FLOSS system to run on the car itself?
Right now, Apple and Google each have their own proprietary system for communicating with cars and showing their system.
If a new smartphone OS came out, or, say, Samsung wanted an Android Auto alternative, it wouldn’t work on any existing cars, and even for new cars, they’d perhaps struggle to get automakers on board in supporting them.
I want that back end that exists on cars to be replaced with an open, standardised system that Apple, Google and anybody else that wants to can use to provide a CarPlay/Android Auto-like experience.
Gotcha. That kind of thing will have to be mandated by our governments because no automaker has anything to gain from that kind of open system.
Friend…I don’t think you know exactly what you’re talking about here, because you’d want a standardized API running ON THE CAR as an interface for what you describe. Client -> API -> Control.
Also, QNX is a real-time OS bought by Blackberry back in the day. It literally runs the car (most models on the road), so would probably interface with whatever to control things at some point.
With respect, yes I do.
Yes, I know. That’s what I said, see:
“There needs to be a standardised set of APIs that automakers comply to for smartphone-powered infotainment.”
Notice I said automakers. That means on the car…
Then I said:
“Car infotainment systems need an open protocol for [blah blah blah]”
I’m clearly talking about the car…
Yes, which is a completely different thing to Android Auto or CarPlay.
The fact that lots of cars run some BlackBerry software is completely unrelated to my belief that there should be an open set of standards for phone-connected car infotainment to facilitate options from more than just Google and Apple. Because as of right now they hold a captive market.
Nice edits there 😂
My point is you’re using words that you clearly don’t know the context of. You can say open this or that all day long, but you very clearly do not understand what QNX is, how it runs, or what it runs. You therefore don’t understand the comment you replied to, which I explained for you in my reply, which you then replied with the some gibberish you don’t understand, because you don’t understand what an API is or where it should run.
Now, let’s say some uniformity comes into existence by an ISO/ISSA or 20022 group that makes a generic framework of calls clients can make to control whatever in a car. Then automakers need to define the backend controls for direct hardware interfaces, which would not be universal since any car models will have different parts. The translation layer there needs to run on something directly connected to the car hardware. This is what QNX does. If there was a shift away from something like an RTOS as a controller mechanism, you’d still need whatever the control layer runs on to be able to directly interface with the hardware. You can just call something an API and then wave your hands around like you know what you’re saying, but not understanding how it all fits together.
My edits changed a few spellings/grammar. Where there was an addition, I used an “E:” tag.
No, you completely misunderstood my comments then said I don’t understand.
It’s you who isn’t understanding. Trying to pull an umm ackshully☝️🤓 only to get it wrong.
My comments were very clear.
And I’m a full stack web developer who does bits on the side for various Linux-related projects. Yeah, I know what an API is.
Go feign intelligence to somebody else, I can’t be bothered with this useless, unrelated chatter. It’s not what I made my comment for.
Pick one
But really, I actually work on automotive firmware and you’re entirely correct.