... on earth2tech
... on earth2tech
For the love of all that is freedom and openness, I hope not...
open source yes, but Google controls it (the Open handset Alliance is a joke). Sure, you can fork it. But forking and trying to maintain an OS is expensive in terms of keeping it secure and porting upstream improvements to your fork.Quote:
Being open source means vendors can access the Android source code freely and add proprietary extensions — something that could hold appeal to automakers looking to maximize both control and upgradability of operating systems for next-gen vehicles.
Strange though, GM is part of the GenIVI alliance which is using, IIRC, MeeGo as the platform. Maybe android is a "stop-gap" until MeeGo matures? Who knows.
EDIT: GM is "considering" Android for onstar. Also, GM is a founding member of GenIVI according to http://genivi.org/ABOUT/OurMembers/t...8/Default.aspx
Well I don't know of any open-source platform that isn't controlled by *someone*...
Interesting. I suppose the idea is to lock in your customers to your car, sort of like locking them into an operating system.Quote:
As for a homegrown solution, the bet seems to be that a proprietary vehicle communication system, app store, platform and packaging of supporting technologies for connected cars will deliver a competitive edge in the next-gen vehicle market.
What would it take for this model to be successful? Well, the value of the apps and car technology would have to exceed the switching costs. Specifically, the value of the navigation, audio, maintenance apps or whatever else there is for these cars, would have to be so valuable to the customer that they would decide that the loss of functionality or effort to recreate a rough equivalent to the experience would exceed the cost of using a different manufacturer's car.
In essence, the overriding differentiating value of the technical applications would keep customers in the same make an model of automobile.
That's a real tall order to fill. Obviously, it isn't like the OTHER manufacturers aren't going to be trying to do the same thing. The only way I can see a first-mover advantage working, then, is if there is a disruptive rather than evolutionary aspect to the technology. Take a look at the digital music example. iPods weren't disruptive -the iTunes STORE was what was disruptive because it made it so easy to try, buy, and load the songs. I'd be hard pressed to find the disruptive nature of what sounds like a very cool integration of hardware and software into the car. It would need to do something like find ways around congestion or make it easy to stream DVD movies on I-95. It has to fundamentally alter the driving experience, not simply enhance it.
Barring that, you create lock-in by building a system that uses proprietary protocols, systems, and closed access, which limits the appeal of your system and which people will avoid, especially if it costs money. You sign exclusive content deals with app developers which only work if there's big money involved but the problem will be what do you do when it comes time for trade-in or to re-up the lease? The customer will say, "sure, I'll extend the lease -if you'll throw in a free year of On-Star pro" or whatever they may call it.
In additon, if I were a developer, I think I would rather build apps that work in all cars rather than just GM cars, for example. Or alternatively, apps that work on devices that have much wider distribution like, say, smartphones, that could work in the car.
Of course it could happen. I'm sure they'll make a run at it, but will it be wildly successful? I suppose we'll see, but that's a lot of value to create. They'll have to be quite revolutionary.
There are lots of reasons why Google isn't the company you want to give all your trust too. Google is in a very good position to own just about everything you do.
it may not own the poop, but it could easily own the toilet your sitting on or at the very least the tablet/phone you are browsing while your sitting there.
And your toilet paper could have ads for viagra and male body-part enlargers.
overall, the entire idea of connected cars kind of scares me--i really have no interest in knowing someones twitter/fb updates, or where the nearest coffee shop is.. sure the vehicle diagnostics display would be nice, but not at the cost of having my car monitor me and my driving habits--i prefer to drive my car, not the other way around..