Cars Are Rolling Computers Now. So What Happens When They Stop Getting Updates?
Cars Are Now Rolling Computers Now. So What Happens When They Stop Getting Updates?
I hate these proprietary systems because companies have very bad track records in terms of maintenance, since they'd rather you buy a newer product.
In 2022, the automaker told drivers of the affected cars, some only three years old, that a technical solution was delayed by the pandemic. Now, more than two years later, those drivers still don’t have access to telematics services. [...] Vehicles from Hyundai and Nissan, some as late as model year 2019, also lost some features after 2022’s 3G sunset.
In a country with good consumer rights, this would be a valid reason to return it and get a replacement or refund: It's no longer offering functionality that was advertised and that you paid for as part of the purchase price.
In a country with good consumer rights, this would be a valid reason to return it and get a replacement or refund: It’s no longer offering functionality that was advertised and that you paid for as part of the purchase price.
In the EU this would probably be a no-brainer.
Same in Australia, where I'm from. I'm living in the USA now and it's a lot harder to get refunds for things like this.
The mandatory warranty for any product in the EU is 2 years. It doesn't take into account products like cars that you would expect to be usable for 10+ years.
I doubt you could claim anything in the EU either after more than 2 years.
I'm not an expert on this, if there are some regulations I didnt take into account, please correct me.
No, it wouldn't. The same thing happened when 3G was shut off here and there was no recourse for consumers.
Without right to repair, there will be planned obsolescence.
My Citroen EV developed an on board charger fault. It wouldn't charge. The part was a "coded part" which meant it had to specifically programmed with my EV's ID by Citroen at manufacture. It took months to finally be fitted and ready. So basically, not only does the coded parts system make service shit, but also means when the manufacturer is done making the part, the car is dead. You can't swap parts between cars and there is no third party parts. It's meant to be about car theft, but it's very convenient it blocks competition and long product life....
If it was a carburetor (which EVs do not have), I'd be okay with a DRM. But boards? Is there an organized crime group that steals EV boards? Next time it will be funking wipers with DRM.
They DRM it all if we let them. We must not. It should going the other way. More open, repairable and upgradable.
How would carburetor DRM make any sense? Those are super common to take apart and rebuild or replace (like step 1 of every old restoration).
Cars should just come with a big open socket up front, where I can buy (or build) my own infotainment system to install there.
...which is precisely what we used to have, before auto makers decided to insist that they should be enclosed in a swooping dash.
I mean, the DIN hole was a standard size but it certainly wasn't a 'socket' and anyone who had a Ford Focus that needed a Mercedes-Benz writing harness to plug up their aftermarket radio knows what I'm on about.
I may be weird but why would you need an infotainment system at all? I have all the infotainment I could possibly want in my phone, the car is only needed as a Bluetooth speaker and for standard playback controls.
The car screen is significantly bigger than the phone screen, making it quicker to glance at it for driving instructions.
But now we're just coming back to Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. I just want a big screen with physically touchable controls for those. My previous car did exactly that, but now I've gone near two decades older so I now get a fancy screen with no functionality beyond FM radio and DVD video lol
That was also the point of Apple CarPlay/Android auto. Let the manufacturer provide the hardware but your phone can run the infotainment. Let actual software companies do that, instead of the horrible mess that car manufacturers make out of software
I'm disappointed to find this article is mainly about losing premium subscription features that use mobile internet, which I see as little more than expensive spyware. I don't want them in the first place, and although I believe that some people might, it doesn't seem like one of the important issues around car technology or transportation in general.
The promise is a “smartphone on wheels”: a car that automakers can continue to improve well after an owner drives away from a showroom.
I feel a more worthwhile discussion would be about how a long a “smartphone on wheels” will remain useful compared to one that doesn't depend on continually updated software. How much more often will they need to be replaced? How much more will that cost people? How much more waste and pollution will be generated because of shorter car lifetimes? What sort of right-to-repair laws do we need here?
Seems like a missed opportunity.
It's not just cars. Anything with electronics (appliances, smarthome devices, healthcare, transportation) that is designed to last more than three years will hit a wall.
The host devices are designed to last 10-15 years, but the electronics will be out-of-date in 3-5 years.
The processor manufacturer will have moved on to new tech and will stop making spare parts. The firmware will only get updated if something really bad happens. Most likely, it'll get abandoned. And some time soon, the software toolchain and libraries will not be available anymore. Let's not think of the devs who will have moved on. Anyone want to make a career fixing up 10-yo software stack? Where's the profit in that for the manufacturer?
So as an end-user, you're stuck with devices that can not be updated and there's still at least 10-20 years of life left on them. Best of luck.
Solution: go analog. Pay extra if you have to. They'll last longer and the ROI and privacy can't be beat.
The problem isn't analogue Vs digital, or even software controlled or not. It's about the design assuming:
An analogue device can be at fault too. Proprietary parts. Construction techniques which don't allow for dissambly without destroying things. All that stuff.
...but you're right. Buy the items that let you service them, that don't rely on cloud servers and software updates, that use standard parts, etc, etc. Right to repair legislation is good too, but the companies understand purchasing power more. So educate those around you too.
A lot of what's driving these decisions is the mass switch to subscription models. Everything's designed so you have to keep coming back to the manufacturer.
It used to be making a high quality, standalone product meant you could spend less on customer service and RMA's. Now they've figured out they can sell you service contracts and make money off you being locked in.
Analogue doesn't have firmware that can reject a device based on id.
So you can reverse engineer a replacement part if you absolutely have to.
While I’m not in love with proprietary software nor APIs from the start, I would accept some policy/regulation that would require smart device manufacturers to open-source the drivers after some given time.
Too many devices become obsolete software-wise then become e-waste not too long after. At least by open-sourcing you allow others to at least use the hardware, and the manufacturer benefits by saying “we didn’t just brick everything” while people who actually care to support it can do so.
Yes and no. My "smart" TV is still doing just fine a good decade since I bought it... by never connecting it to the internet.
Cellular enabled cars are conceptually dumb. That's a hill I'm willing to die on.
Me when my car gets hack and remote controlled to drive off a cliff:
"Ahhh" D: sploosh
Naw, I live in a hot as hell country I'm super jealous of people who can remote-start the air conditioning in their cars.
It should be an open interface like OBD2 though where you can choose the hardware/provider instead of being locked to the car manufacturer deprecating everything in 3 years to sell you a new car.
Two way alarm systems with remote start have been a thing for pretty long and don't all require cellular connection. Some are just super long distance key fobs.
You don't really need connected cars for that. My car has no smart features but still has a remote start capability. It uses the car remote to trigger it instead of cellular connection.
I cannot remote start my car. If it's really hot or really cold, I go outside for a few seconds to start the car and then go back inside. It's really not that big a hardship.
Assuming you park next to your house a WiFi connection on the local network would be everything you need. Relatively cheap compared to the car would be a repeater to extend it for people like me who park 30-50m away I agree with you assumption that this is car manufacturers creating software based planned obsolescence. An open source framework would resolve this concern even over cell networks but defeats the entire point of also pushing power windows and seat heating as a service.
Makes no sense to me...but at this very moment I'm a hypocrite lol
Crash-detection systems can use cellular to alert medical authorities, that and theft are about the only practical use cases i see for that.
I feel like these days the tech should be there to just leverage our cell phones for this. Most drivers have their phones paired to their cars now anyway, and perhaps some sort of emergency protocol could be created where a car could even connect through a nearby non-paired phone for an automated emergency call too. As for tracking - make cars have something like an air tag type function built in that can share both android+apple tracking networks. This is all a pipe dream anyway - there's money to be made on connected car services so the shareholders won't be for modernizing the approach anytime soon.
Locked bootloaders should be illegal. Manufacturers should have to provide enough specs that third parties can write code that runs on the hardware.
Manufacturers should have to provide enough specs that third parties can write code that runs on the hardware.
"But Crowdstrike" would probably be an argument against.
"Security" as an excuse for self-serving bullshit isn't new.
Sure, there's a risk of breaking things. I can do that with a hacksaw and a soldering iron too, and it's widely recognized that it isn't up to the manufacturer of the thing to keep me from breaking it. We need the same understanding for devices that depend on software.
I dream of an open source car. Something simple but reliable, say a legally-distinct 2004 Honda Accord, bog standard, no frills, no detail package options, just A Cheap Car with standardized parts and open source software. It's the only car the company makes, you can buy one for 10k or build your own for 6k out of parts and a couple months worth of weekends, car nerds will fork the software for infinite tuning customization, and it doesn't report your location back to headquarters. Parts are standardized across every car we've ever made so your local parts store will have them in stock. The new model year is the same car as last year, we just built some fresh ones for people to buy new.
I have no way of making this dream a reality. But I dream of it nonetheless. American car culture has gone off the rails, and the number of people I see already driving around old 5-owner Hondas and Toyotas and Buicks tells me that there is definitely a market for a cheap basic car that runs.
That would have been the Sono Sion, but there was too little interest. Not enough preorders meant they ran out of money to continue development.
Off topic: I'd argue Love Exposure by Sion Sono is the best movie ever made.
Creating a FOSS EV is all do-able right now with off the shelf motors and batteries. Welding a frame would take some skill. How to title it would depend on the local government rules; many states in the US have a kit car designation for this sort of thing, but not all do.
If it's built rigid like a race car with a roll cage, four-point harness, and at least a DOT rated helmet for everyone inside (if not Snell), it could be safer then most cars on the road. If it's not very large, then it's probably safer for pedestrians and bicycles, too.
I don't expect air bags to be viable. It takes a lot of tuning to get them right, and they can be worse than nothing if not done right (they're basically a controlled explosion). However, the race car-like design above, plus helmets, would keep you safer than any air bag. Road cars converted to track cars often disable or remove the air bags. The rules of the event may even require it. They're counterproductive dead weight when you're packed in this way.
Other creature comforts are going to be what you put into it, but keep in mind that many of the things we take for granted in modern cars--A/C, stereos, padded seats, etc.--add a whole lot of weight.
What also adds weight is how many passengers you want to carry at once. Two passengers won't add much weight, but four or more would. All that extra frame material adds up.
Building a traditional frame would take some welding skills. I have just enough welding skills to make some shelves, but anything structural (which my tutor defined as "anything where somebody's life depends on the weld holding") is not something I'm comfortable doing. That is to say, it'll take more than a quick tutorial and a little practice.
However, one interesting possibility is epoxy. Lotus did this for the Elise, and I once tracked down the epoxy manufacturer they use (I'd have to search around to find it again, though). The instructions for it didn't seem to need anything particularly out of reach for a hobbyist (doesn't need a big autoclave or anything like that). Lotus did reinforce certain sections with bolts/rivets. It will take some knowledge to design a frame around this, but it's one time design work by an engineer and then everyone can copy it.
One advantage Lotus had over a welded frame was thinner material. A weld itself is very strong, but it weakens the metal around it (meaning you usually get breaks around the weld, not on it). You have to use thicker metal to compensate for that. Since Lotus was using an epoxy, they could use thinner material for less weight, and it was stronger in the end.
Since it's also getting rid of a whole lot of weight around the frame, the range you get out of those batteries could be extreme. It could also be extremely quick with a modest motor.
This is basically all to say that you can have any three: safe, creature comforts, enough space for passengers, range.
I want that so badly.
For legal reasons it might be easier to take an existing car, throw out all the tech, and add your own. You won't own the chassis design, but you can at least use open source software everywhere.
Difference between getting a modification certified, vs a self build.
Yeah I want my autonomous electric town car to be fully open. We should be able to have sustainable cars if any cars at all. Cars you can't easily repair or maintain are not sustainable.
Car dependency is a dead end. It's inherently wasteful, privileged, inefficient, unsustainable, unhealthy, etc. I would much rather have free, extensive, public transit and safe infrastructure for pedestrians, bikes, and light EVs.
Tell us you don't live in the US without telling us you don 't live in the US.
Building out transit and infrastructure takes time. In the meanwhile, people still have to get places.
Great, lmk when there's a regular train from Boston to my office in Boxborough, which currently requires it's residents to drop off their own trash at the facility. I'm sure that'll be frequent and efficient right?
Phones are supported well beyond their average ownership lifetime.
Are they?
My hunch is that "average ownership lifetime" for mobile phones is MUCH lower than you or I (or anyone who is careful with their phone) probably expects. There is probably a too-big segment of the market that is trading in yearly for a newer model.
Supported in the sense that "We will update your device and deliberately slow it, break it, or brick it because fuck you."
By communities, but not the manufacturer. Custom ROMs is the only way to keep it up to date for long enough for the hardware to become too old to be worth it.
No custom ROM for cars anytime soon.
There's plenty of custom ROMs for cars from all major manufacturers, you just don't know where to look.Google "ECU remap" or "dpf delete" for an idea. ECU remapping has been done by bold individuals ever since there were programmable ECUs, around 1985.
Apart from engine/drive line tinkering, there are also plenty of third party software that can tinker with body computers for "lifestyle" adjustments.
Is it easy and accessible? No. Because of environmental laws - and vendor lock in - you can't generally and easily dick around with the control software in your car. But it does exist.
Many now. Up until recently it was pretty common for manufacturers to leave you SOL after 2 major Android releases.
I've been screaming about this for years and no one listens. My old car will run longer than my new one because I can change the head unit in the old one
Noone listens because they want people to buy new cars every 10-15 years. Capitalism endgame where companies don't care about what the consumer wants anymore, as long as they make sure consumers don't have choices.
Just another way to force you to buy a new one
When you car can connect to the Internet, it becomes a data-mining tool that tells everyone your business. Companies would LOVE to have all that juicy location data that only Google has right now (from your phones). Insurance companies would LOVE to know your driving habits to have any excuse at all to jack up your premiums.
How is the 3G sunset not solvable by just swapping out a modem module for an LTE or 5G one and maybe installing some new modem firmware? A lot of cars are running a Linux kernel under the hood, so I'd think it's pretty well swap and go
Ah, if only car hardware was modular and standardized... And if you had access to your infotainment system beyond touching the pretty buttons...
Imagine something as outlandish as user serviceable infotainment systems. Like they used to have in the old days. I'm hanging on by a thread to my basic 2014 car which still has a double DIN slot I can put my own system into...some day
Are these buttons in a room with us right now
Give me my buttons back
I think the question is not if it's solvable, but 'who pays for it?' and 'who can be held accountable if things go awry?'
If only. They are more like rolling SmartTVs. Once they stop getting updates, only the offline features will work.
Please tell me someone thought about a switch to take them offline.
And this is why I drive a 1980 Volkswagen rabbit pickup. better gas mileage then modern cars (50mpg+ on the highway) I can replace about any part in it for under a few hundred in most cases even a new engine can be done under 1000. And everything is dead simple to work on no fancy computers or anything.
How about those crumple zones? Feel safe in your passenger cage? Hope you’re shorter than the dashboard in case of a rollover. Don’t have to worry about getting hit by those airbags, do you? Imagine that steering column spearing through your chest
New cars aren’t just about the latest infotainment, gadgets, and design. There have been huge improvements in pollution control and safety. There has also been huge improvements in efficiency, even if they’re masked by the increased weight of safety improvements, increased performance, and generally much larger size. So far a lot of that increased complexity is well worth it - I’ll never have another car without anti-lock brakes
New cars aren’t just about the latest infotainment, gadgets, and design.
They mostly are, companies don't care to innovate anymore, only to sell.
There have been huge improvements in pollution control and safety.
Safety? Some, sure. Pollution? The only reason governments regulate is because car companies want to sell you a new car every year. Ooops, big bad government whom we happen to have in our pocket wants Euro5 now...
..even if they’re masked by the increased weight of safety improvements, increased performance, and generally much larger size.
More weight/size = more raw materials, is it really that good for the environment?
If companies and governments are so keep on being green (they're not) they'd ensure cars are easily repairable and upgradable. And they'd keep supporting older models - design a more efficient engine to replace the one in the older car why won't they?
That's the only reason I bought a modern car.
My parents would always buy cheap beaters. They had a car from the 90s they only recently got rid of because the transmission was shot. My first car was an '05 Caravan I drove for almost two years and got rid of in 2018.
I swallowed the pill after seeing cars get absolutely crushed to the point where the jaws of life were necessary yet passengers could just walk out.
I remember someone posted a picture of their brand new sedan. It was involved in a serious accident and sandwiched between two large pickup trucks. The entire car was squished down until it was smaller than the passenger compartment. The driver was able to walk away with minor injuries and the paramedics weren't even surprised.
I don't give a shit about the fancy features. I just want something that is reliable and safe.
Polluting as hell though, or so I imagine?
Even in Sweden catalysators were not mandatory before like 1986 IIRC.
The rest is awesome though 👍😎
And what are the pollution costs of even manufacturing a new vehicle, VS one that's already in place?
We can't manufacture our way to using fewer resources.
Oh yea it's a straight pipe diesel ain't anything good for the environment gonna put a slightly more modern engine in it at some point for some more power the 1.6l in it currently only makes like 50 horse so when I do that it'll be a little better but still not great
.......linux cars? Pretty please?
Vehicle control systems are overwhelmingly programmed in C, mostly from graphical design tools such as MATLAB Simulink via an automatic process. These are real time control systems which are quite different to an interrupt based operating system such as Linux. The many individual controllers must work in concert according to a strict architecture definition and timing schedule that defines the functionality of the vehicle. It's not at all like a PC or phone, whose OS become irrelevant over time, with respect to their environment of other systems. The vehicle environment is the same environment that we inhabit i.e. the one with gravity, friction, charge and the other SI units. This is slowly changing with advent of self driving but, yeah.
fine, fine, I learned 3/4 new things there, thanks for taking the time
These are real time control systems which are quite different to an interrupt based operating system such as Linux.
You do know you can operate the linux kernel in real time, right?
Yeah but the infotainment system can be Linux based.
This is correct. If using an OS, an RTOS like the Linux Foundation Zephyr OS is the right choice here.
God no
What's wrong with just a pot box, a motor and some batteries?
That’s what I like about CarPlay. Just give me a dumb screen with CarPlay compatibility. I’ll get new features with my phone upgrades. The rest of the car could be mechanical for all I care. I prefer cable clutches anyway.
The main issue is that the NHSTA requires a backup camera, which requires a screen. Since they have to make room for that screen, manufacturers now want to make it a premium thing they can use to justify up charging.
I don’t see a solution to this until someone actually tries to make things cheap again and small screens become the trend.
That doesn't seem to have anything which will manage your heated seat subscription or data mine your driving activity.
Hehe. Ok. Add an inverter and an electric blaket under the seat cover :)
Can you buy a TV based on the same basic functions like you list there?
Maybe a USB DVB-T adapter plugged into a laptop or phone is about as close as you can get now.
Or an older set top box, but not so old that it can't handle MP4.
Get a "smart" TV, never connect it to the internet, and attach a Chromecast and connect that instead because they cost about $30. The Chromecast with Google TV has apps for Kodi and Plex along with the basic streaming services so you can turn your TV into a media center.
That way, the only thing that will stop being unsupported is the Chromecast and you're only out $30.
Profit. They can add all those features and charge significant higher margins. The same as the bigger the car the bigger the profit so they push huge SUVs and pickups on everyone.
Then whatever is fucked in the electronics will be fucked forever.
Just like it has been for the last 20 years or so.
this should be part of car safety and legislated by the govt, no?
in the uk it would be part of the MOT to see that your software is up to date and working
Just like they legislate vehicle size, headlight brightness, and enforce fuel economy standards?
Late stage capitalism
You don't need a computer in a car, especially an electric one. Sure, you want some electronics, but do you think 1970s milk floats had computers in them. Today's EVs are basically the same thing with better motors and batteries.
Software control should be kept for luxury aspects of the vehicle. Nothing critical.
Software control should be kept for luxury aspects of the vehicle. Nothing critical.
Tesla would disagree, lol. But then again, for the price, the whole car is a luxury.
Go to hell Elon
I have never heard of a vehicle that was referred to as a milk float, ever. What they is?!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_float
Basically how milk men would deliver fresh milk to your doorstep in the early hours of the morning.
To be fair, I used the Lemmy auto-generated title. They did fix the title that actually displayed on their website.
But thanks, I fixed the post title
It's not a computer if it can't run doom. And I look forward for Linux variants specific to vehicles.
Now car do get dlx, subscription.
And when you sell a car, all dlc are lost.
They no roll?
Now?
Cars have been computers on wheels for at least 15 years now.
In general for me, I think mission critical systems breaks, engine etc should be physically isolated from the infotainment system. Infotainment systems should also prioritize using off the shelf hardware and running stuff like android, also prioritize android auto and apple car play, since these can be updated without automaker input for the most part.
I think people are missing the fact that the features of this VW are going away because they run on 3G. What can a car manufacturer do? Correct me if I'm wrong, you can't just drop a new antenna to fix the problem.
Cars routinely last 15 years and that's geologic time compared to tech. This isn't just a problem of greed or lack of foresight.
What can they do? How about making the cellular models modular? 3G goes bust? Swap the modem for a 4G one next time the car is in for service.
Wellllll..... you rip all that computerized shit out, disconnect the ECU out and strap a carburetor on the engine and make the car what it should have been all along, an entirely mechanical machine.
Nothing wrong with ECUs and other electronics as long as it's not designed to fuck you. Computerized regulation of engine processes is a good thing, locking things down and making them unrepairable is bad.
Hell, I’d be happy with the manufacturers ensuring buggy ECU software is kept properly up-to-date. Long story short I spent months dealing with dying batteries in a pre-owned Honda CR/V that I bought from a dealer. After multiple dealer visits, jumpstarts from AAA, etc. I finally found references to two recall notices on my own that described my symptoms perfectly. The only problem was that my cars VIN wasn’t in the list of those affected by the recalls.
I took printouts of the recall notices to the dealer, and they agreed it sounded like issue I was having. They updated the ECU software and I never had battery issues any more as long as I had that car.
Someone surely tried this on a Tesla by now...
Hopefully self driving cars take over the world and all the idiots get off the road anyway. No one will have to be concerned.
I would hope for public transport and cycle paths but the public have repeatedly shown to be against that.
The public are usually very for that after it’s been implemented. They hate it before, assuming you include people who live outside the area where it’s being built but imagine they might want to some say drive there in “the public”. It’s much more of a mixed bag if you don’t.
Until it needs to be funded. A large part of the public think public transport should be entirely funded from tickets and if it isn't profitable from that it should be shut down and turned into more space for cars.
Where as the true profit of public transport is in other things. E.g. the land valuation around a railway station is way higher than it would be without. The public also seem to be against land value taxes.
The worlds doomed by idiots.