Why Google's Android could rule...

Penzance · 05-24-2010, 11:38 AM

... on earth2tech

tripzero · 05-24-2010, 01:01 PM

For the love of all that is freedom and openness, I hope not...

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.

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.

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

Tidder · 05-24-2010, 01:25 PM

Well I don't know of any open-source platform that isn't controlled by *someone*...

Bugbyte · 05-24-2010, 01:43 PM

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.

Interesting. I suppose the idea is to lock in your customers to your car, sort of like locking them into an operating system.

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.

tripzero · 05-24-2010, 03:00 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Tidder

Well I don't know of any open-source platform that isn't controlled by *someone*...

Right. But how many of those people's sole-existence is to own all the information it can about you and what you do and exploit that using targeted advertising? Okay, maybe Linus Torvalds, but who else?

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.

Tidder · 05-24-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by tripzero

Right. But how many of those people's sole-existence is to own all the information it can about you and what you do and exploit that using targeted advertising? Okay, maybe Linus Torvalds, but who else?

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.

I think you're off your nut.

Enforcer · 05-24-2010, 07:31 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by tripzero

Google is in a very good position to own just about everything you do.

Well it's welcome to own the poop I will be doing in about 5 hours, but I don't think it's in a very good position to do that at all.

tripzero · 05-24-2010, 08:28 PM

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.

Enforcer · 05-24-2010, 09:07 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by tripzero

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.

Don't have a tablet, don't browse on my phone.

And I already print out all those spam emails I get to use as toilet paper.

soundman98 · 05-24-2010, 09:35 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by tripzero

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.

if the ads make the TP cheaper and softer, i don't care what they print on it, i would probably buy it..

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..

bingham72 · 05-25-2010, 10:04 AM

Interesting article for sure. Whether or not Google will dominate remains to be seen. The future for vehicle systems is wide open, but I could see the pattern following the same as the internet. Think browser wars. GM sides with Google, Microsoft with Ford. Maybe Apple will team with Chrysler. At some point, the competitors will need to come up with standards for apps to talk to each other, possibly communicating directly from car to car without cellular networks. The subject is fascinating to me.

tripzero · 05-25-2010, 11:47 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by bingham72

Interesting article for sure. Whether or not Google will dominate remains to be seen. The future for vehicle systems is wide open, but I could see the pattern following the same as the internet. Think browser wars. GM sides with Google, Microsoft with Ford. Maybe Apple will team with Chrysler. At some point, the competitors will need to come up with standards for apps to talk to each other, possibly communicating directly from car to car without cellular networks. The subject is fascinating to me.

Apple will probably create their own car so they can control the "experience" from top to bottom.

bingham72 · 05-25-2010, 12:05 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by tripzero

Apple will probably create their own car so they can control the "experience" from top to bottom.

Bugbyte · 05-25-2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Apple will probably create their own car so they can control the "experience" from top to bottom.

Why is everyone laughing?!

The Apple iCar is unlikely. Maybe more like the iGulfstream V jet for Steve-O.

On a more serious note - the opportunity in the car is part of a continuous mobile experience. If companies fail to capitalize on this, then the result will be high priced in car electronics with expensive subscriptions (ugh...who needs another one of those?) and little or no customer loyalty.

This, I boldy predict, is what WILL happen, however. Just look at our little community. There's tons of innovation but most people focus only on the in-car experience rather than a mobile one that EXTENDS to include the car.

Unless these companies approach it like that, it won't be worth a damn.

tripzero · 05-25-2010, 01:12 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Bugbyte

There's tons of innovation but most people focus only on the in-car experience rather than a mobile one that EXTENDS to include the car.

Unless these companies approach it like that, it won't be worth a damn.

From what I hear, that's what the manufacturers want to do. Implementing it is hard though. Most implementations stop at A2DP streaming and call it good.

Bugbyte, I really like your idea of the distributed car. I hope to see that idea flourish. While I don't think the iPad in particular is the right solution (too locked down, limited hardware capabilities, etc), I do think that slates could be a very good solution. Having to remove it and put it back in would be a pain though. I think the main appeal to such devices is the screen size and the software interface. Having it static IMHO in the vehicle at all times wouldn't be bad if it would effortlessly sync contacts and crap with your handset.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password