Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My car’s OTA update broke Android Auto

imdanielkendall.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 217 posts

Re: My car’s OTA update broke Android Auto

#201

Post by BeetleB »

cyberax wrote: post #182
BeetleB wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this is the default? I have OsmAnd+ instead of Google Maps by default. Ok. How do I make it not load any of them? > AndroidAuto can notify the car that it wants reduced noise How do I get it not to notify the car? > This is all fixable in software on Android. Nothing from your list is a problem on the _car_ side Which is why my original comment said Android Auto sucks. My complaint about the car manufacture…

> Ok. How do I make it not load any of them? > How do I get it not to notify the car? Get the Android Auto app and patch away the notification. It's just an app, after all. Running on your own hardware. > Which is why my original comment said Android Auto sucks. > My complaint about the car manufacturer is that they allow the driving experience to be degraded with it. So your default car navigator can do everything i…

> Get the Android Auto app and patch away the notification. It's just an app, after all. Running on your own hardware.

So we're in agreement that the official app sucks, right? If the solution is "Well you can just patch it," then there is a problem.

And BTW, how do I patch it and run it on an unrooted phone? Is there a community version I can install and use that sucks less?

> So your default car navigator can do everything in your list, including launching a non-default app from your phone? That's some mighty car navigation system.

Why is the alternative my default car navigation system? [1]

What did people do before they had Android Auto? Not use the phone at all?

One alternative is what I had in my old car: An aftermarket Bluetooth receiver, and a phone holder to hold the phone. The Bluetooth receiver was better for all things audio, and the phone on a phone holder didn't consume so much battery even when not plugged in. And the Waze experience was better. I would have thought a larger screen would make for easier navigation, but I now know it doesn't - the phone screen was large enough. I'll grant that stuff like Pocketcasts on AA is a bit more ergonomic than the bare phone, but when AA comes with so much painful baggage, it's not worth it.

And that's why some people I know actually go this route - disable AA, and use a vanilla phone holder with the in-built car's Bluetooth. Sadly, they cannot (easily) install that Bluetooth receiver - that's an indictment of the car manufacturer.

This isn't a great solution, but it's saying much when it's superior to AA.

[1] Incidentally, the car navigation system is actually quite good!

Re: My car’s OTA update broke Android Auto

#202

Post by sudobash1 »

hahn-kev wrote: post #105
michaelje wrote: post #12

Once upon a time, physically shipping faulty software had real costs borne by the organization - production, redistribution and transportation of a physical disc. Today there’s no disc, no recall - that cost to shipping broken software is gone. We the users pay the price.

You act like there's no benefit to the user either, plenty of software gets better because of updates shipped after the fact.

I would prefer to know what the product will do when I purchase it, and it should continue to do the same things in the same way for its entire lifespan. I would also prefer that vendors be unable to retroactively add ads, tracking, or other user hostile "features".

Also, as an embedded engineer, I know things get tested better the more "final" they are. Faster release cadences always have poor testing as one of the tradeoffs.

Re: My car’s OTA update broke Android Auto

#203

Post by strawhatguy »

BeetleB wrote: post #126
10000truths wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all comes down to cost. At scale, testing hardware is appreciably more expensive than testing software. The former requires specialized machinery that costs the soul of your firstborn, and the logistics overhead for each do-over means long iteration times. The latter can be done with a CI pipeline for pennies worth of compute in a fraction of a working day.

Stuff like climate control and radio/Bluetooth were included in many/most cars in the last decade. Expensive as they were, the cars were a lot cheaper than today's cars. And they just worked , which means they were either so simple that sophisticated testing wasn't necessary, or they tested it thoroughly. I don't think they're saving that much by ditching them and going to SW. They also didn't need updates (well, the…

bluetooth audio is probably all one needs for phone car integration. but carplay/android auto are sadly really popular. So already, your phone can connect in two different ways, just over bluetooth, with cars today. And car companies have to support both. Plus the car must show something on the screen when a phone isn't there, and the rear-view camera isn't on, at the very least on test drives/ showroom displays.

I don't know. On balance, the reality is cars are better overall nowadays, but every aspect of our life has gotten more complicated, including cars.

If you had the option of no screen at all, no rear-view camera, and with physical switches, would you? If this Slate truck gets released, that's the closest, but it's still required to have a rear-view camera/screen sadly.

Re: My car’s OTA update broke Android Auto

#205

Post by tonymet »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #124
tonymet wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right the facilities may be there for telemetry & feedback, but none of the Tesla competitors are structured to manage that telemetry and feedback. Often the brands are repackaging software from vendors (e.g. Bosch) that are terrible at fixing things. Let's face it, this really is about Tesla, vs the rest of the major players (ford, kia, VW etc)

Obviously I'm under NDA, but the data I've seen at $(OEM) was down to the level of variant tracking and real time geolocation. The commercial fleet management programs can do things like scheduled updates and know what hardware/software is in each component of each vehicle, which the manufacturer has to keep track of anyway for recall purposes.

The capability may be there, sure

Re: My car’s OTA update broke Android Auto

#206

Post by chrisandchris »

charles_f wrote: post #149

> I have to call MINI at some point and demand they fix this garbage That would never occur to me. Whenever something produced by a large company breaks, I pretty much assume there's no signal possible back to whomever is responsible for the breakage, and that whatever is broken now is broken forever. To the author's point, they're A-gile, but forgot that the first step in the process was customer feedback

Tell that to Volvo. They even state on their feedback form that they don't respond to feedbacks, which IMHO is a polite way of saying that they don't read the feedback but still need a form, because no form would be bad publicity.

Re: My car’s OTA update broke Android Auto

#207

Post by tonymet »

BeetleB wrote: post #128
tonymet wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wouldn't that be impossible in this case? since android auto needs to draw to the screen, control infotainment, etc. even a dedicated USB + rocker switch for android auto would still need a software path to do those things

Putting things like climate control, car settings, etc on the same screen as Android Auto is not at all necessary. Older cars (that still had touch sensitive displays), simply had separate HW modules and HW interfaces (buttons/switches) for the rest. You never had to worry that modifying/repairing/updating one would impact the other.

I see what you mean. Sort of what slate is going for . Let’s see how that goes.

Re: My car’s OTA update broke Android Auto

#208

Post by hulitu »

hahn-kev wrote: post #105
michaelje wrote: post #12

Once upon a time, physically shipping faulty software had real costs borne by the organization - production, redistribution and transportation of a physical disc. Today there’s no disc, no recall - that cost to shipping broken software is gone. We the users pay the price.

You act like there's no benefit to the user either, plenty of software gets better because of updates shipped after the fact.

> plenty of software gets better because of updates

This was true for old Microsoft Windows releases. This is not true anymore. Everything is a rolling release. Angry users ? F*k them. They will get an update.

Re: My car’s OTA update broke Android Auto

#209

Post by rootusrootus »

maxdo wrote: post #144
rootusrootus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are companies with amazing software experience, Rivian, Tesla, Nio, Lucid I own a Tesla, and a Ford. Amazing is not how I would describe the Tesla software experience. It lacks features like iMessage for group and for non-phone recipients that I am able to use in my Ford. Even though many people would say the Ford software is otherwise inferior. And if history is anything to go by, there are features in CarPl…

i can create an entire list of features, that will never ever be in CarPlay, because it's not made of this is just a dongle on steroids, not a proper way to make your car smart. Joe mode ( silent your car when baby sleeps) automatic profiles that are connected all the way to what music played and in what device, headphones seamlessly stop playing after i go into the car from the gym send navigation to car from any de…

You might be unaware of CarPlay Ultra.

In any case, thank you for contributing evidence to my assertion that CarPlay is additive, not subtractive, and since you can choose to use it or not, adding it to Tesla's infotainment is strictly a win.

Re: My car’s OTA update broke Android Auto

#210

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

taneq wrote: post #74
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #42

If we had a software building code, it could mandate the testing procedures for consumer devices, like a car's headunit firmware. This building code could be backed by an industry body that could revoke its certification from manufacturers if they don't comply with the code. Super-advanced-testing-procedure #1: plug a phone into a test car and check it works before release . (This software building code is more neces…

Plug one of every combination of vendor, model, OS, and config into the car and check if everything works. That’s what would be required to actually ensure functionality.

Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. In industrial testing automation, you often don't test every feature completely. You calculate the cost-benefit of the complexity, time and cost it takes to test features, and target the most valuable ones. (I used to write automation test suites for industrial appliances with hundreds of thousands of permutations)

At the very least, you can test one single feature end to end, just to get a baseline that nothing is massively, obviously broken (like it was in this case!). This lack of fundamental testing is what caused the CrowdStrike bug that brought down Delta Airlines. This kind of test is extremely easy, quick, cheap, and simple, and catches the worst bugs. In other words, it's the most valuable test.

Companies will continue to let these bugs happen until we mandate a minimum amount of fundamental testing before release.

Post reply on HN