Most active commenters
  • chgs(3)

←back to thread

122 points kcon | 12 comments | | HN request time: 1.898s | source | bottom

Nissan's official mobile app for their LEAF electric car doesn't have a widget for quickly checking the car's battery charge status on your phone's home screen, so for a fun side project I decided to make my own using free tools like GitHub Actions, Appium, Tailscale, and Apple Shortcuts.
1. light_hue_1 ◴[] No.43677758[source]
I wish that US car manufacturers would finally realize that they're software companies with a hardware device, and pivot accordingly.

The differentiating factor between car models is not the hardware in the world of EVs. It's the software. And right now, if you aren't either on Tesla, Rivian, or Polestar the software experience is horrific.

replies(5): >>43677831 #>>43677846 #>>43677874 #>>43678005 #>>43678372 #
2. kristopolous ◴[] No.43677831[source]
I used to be in the space. Basically everyone would install an SBC behind the dash to listen to the canbus and then report things over cell often with ways of shorting a circuit in order to do features.

It's whackadoodle. I mean how different are cars, really? They have wheels, doors, windows, odometers, go places at various speeds, need fuel ... you'd think there'd be some agreed universal baseline like MIDI ... you'd think.

And the manufacturers held on to their protocols like they had done their own Manhatten project so everyone just had to backwards engineer things.

Why is inoperability so precious? Ultimately the purchasing decision is the car's price, features, availability, terms of the deal... The phone app has nothing to do with it, let it go.

3. znkynz ◴[] No.43677846[source]
This mindset gets the Demister function buried in a touchscreen. I don't want a touchscreen for most driving related functions; buttons or switches thanks.
4. margalabargala ◴[] No.43677874[source]
Plenty of car companies have realized the don't have core competency in software and simply run Android with some addons. Chevrolet for example does a fairly good job of this.

Tesla has some great software ideas, and awful execution. Yes, they have the ability to continuously improve vehicles after sale and they use it. But they use it to scramble the climate control location every third month, and to charge subscriptions for hardware their customers already bought.

5. conk ◴[] No.43678005[source]
I don’t want to drive a computer. I want to drive a machine. Give me some buttons to control the car and a decent screen for nav (CarPlay/android auto) and I’m happy.
replies(1): >>43690433 #
6. jfim ◴[] No.43678372[source]
It's coming. Ford and GM have started to build more software in house, while VW is partnering with Rivian partly to get their software expertise.
replies(1): >>43679374 #
7. chgs ◴[] No.43679374[source]
The problem car companies have is if they are beholden to android and apple then they are at the mercy of whatever those two want to charge.
replies(1): >>43681979 #
8. mikestew ◴[] No.43681979{3}[source]
Apple doesn’t charge for CarPlay (can’t speak to Android), so I’m unsure what you’re referring to.
replies(1): >>43699748 #
9. pabs3 ◴[] No.43690433[source]
All cars are computers, since at least 20 years. At minimum they do central locking, cruise control etc.
10. chgs ◴[] No.43699748{4}[source]
For now.

If I’m generous to car companies they don’t want to be beholden to a third party duopoly. If I’m not then they want to monetise with typical surveillance capitalism.

replies(1): >>43709454 #
11. mikestew ◴[] No.43709454{5}[source]
For now.

Oh, that old canard: “yeah, but just you wait!” I live in the present, and I’ll deal with the facts as they are today, not some hypothetical future offered up to win an argument.

replies(1): >>43742502 #
12. chgs ◴[] No.43742502{6}[source]
People who are unafraid of picking are now paying how much to Broadcom?

Makes sense for car companies to keep options open.