this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
158 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
6264 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.