Those two set of systems are separate and very distinct.

Arainach 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They're not. Use any car's heads up display and you can configure an enormous number of things. Even if there was somehow a pure separation, things such as "playing video while the car is moving" are regulated in many jurisdictions and would land firmly in the "UI" layer.

▲

dylan604 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You can detect the car is in motion or not without talking to the engine computer. Just like my phone can tell I'm in motion without connecting to the car at all. You're trying to justify a bad design with bad reasoning

▲

mohamedkoubaa 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People watch videos on their phone while drive and will continue to do so no matter what infotainment OSes allow or don't allow.

	▲	Arainach 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"Some people break the law" is not a reason to not have laws. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

▲

Arainach 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not with the necessary precision. GPS doesn't work in tunnels or parking garages and can be wildly inaccurate in city centers with skyscrapers blocking line of sight, for instance.

▲

ssl-3 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The built-in, offline mapping in my Honda uses a whole host of local-only sensors to handle these situations where GPS is intermittent. It works rather well at figuring out where the car is on the map, and when it deviates from the prescribed route.

It works in tunnels. It works in cities with tall buildings. It works on Lower Wacker Drive in Chicago.

Is there some technological limitation that precludes using this data to determine whether or not a movie can be played?

(It's not like it's new tech. It's decades-old. Honda started using it over 20 years ago.)

▲

Arainach an hour ago | parent [-]

There's no need when OBD does just fine for this purpose.

It's also not clear what the purpose of this line of argument is. Some sensor says "car is moving". The operating system in the car/head unit is responsible for enforcing that signal, and it could ignore it equally from either OBD or some pile of gyroscopes. Where that signal comes from has nothing to do with why you will not see cars accepting custom operating systems.

▲

ssl-3 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> It's also not clear what the purpose of this line of argument is.

It completely dismantles your previous goalposts, which were planted firmly on GPS:

>> Not with the necessary precision. GPS doesn't work in tunnels or parking garages and can be wildly inaccurate in city centers with skyscrapers blocking line of sight, for instance.

(I guess we all have the freedom to be as flexible with our goalposts as we wish. I didn't come here for a tireless argument that is motivated by nothing but the desire to argue, though. Have a great day!)

	▲	Arainach 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		My line of argument is "the head unit is responsible for not allowing video playback while in motion". Anything to do with detecting motion came after that.

▲

dylan604 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The point of argument is that it no longer becomes a security issue to allow customOS on the infotainment system because it absolutely has no connection to the engine computer.

	▲	Arainach 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This is not an architectural issue. The threat isn't a bad OS causing the car to explode. This is a safety issue where the car is required to prohibit certain things - such as video playback.

▲

juliangmp 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You'd hope so but I fear that many safety critical aspects run on the same system as the infotainment system... And that's a perfect excuse for manufacturers to keep these things completely closed