Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars

#41

Post by rossjudson » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 2:13 AM UTC

jakejake wrote: post #5

This sounded awesome right up to the point that they said that this was a hotly pursued space due to advertising potential to a captive audience. If I am in my own car and my music is interrupted with an ad every time I drive by a McDonalds - I would find that extremely annoying. On the other hand, if you could lease a car at a subsidized price in exchange for ads, that might be an attractive offer to some.

It ought to be flatly illegal to visually advertise through an in-car app. An ad is designed to engage attention; visually engaging a driver is the last thing we want on the road. It's beyond stupid.

YOU ARE PASSING A GAS STATION. PLEASE STOP AND BUY IT.

YOU ARE PASSING A SANDWICH SHOP. PLEASE SWERVE LEFT AND BUY SANDWICH.

5 POINTS IF YOU CHANGE TO THE FAR RIGHT LANE!

Re: Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars

#42

Post by dcesiel » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 2:37 AM UTC

manicho wrote: post #38

I was notified today that GM also came out with there API today. Seems a bit odd that they would both release the exact same feature on the same day. I wonder how similar their SDK's will be. http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/...

GM's is cool too because they have an API that allows you to remotely get vehicle data through Onstar. This allows approved apps to get data like fuel level, vehicle alarm alerts, oil life, fuel economy, remote start/stop, location, speed and direction etc. Not sure Ford has anything like that..

Re: Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars

#43

Post by reginaldo » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 2:46 AM UTC

Which means that briefly we'll live in a time where a stack overflow vulnerability will cause your car to break or accelerate at very inappropriate times.

Just google for "researchers car software vulnerability" (without quotes) to see what I'm talking about.

[1] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229919/Car_hacking_R...

Re: Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars

#44

Post by zgchurch » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 2:56 AM UTC

31reasons wrote: post #37

Would developers have to buy a Ford Car to test Apps on the device ?

The video below mentions that there's a hardware "SYNC in a box" available, and a software emulator in the works.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/ford-touts-car-app-development/9742-1...

Re: Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars

#45

Post by gizmo686 » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 3:00 AM UTC

reginaldo wrote: post #43

Which means that briefly we'll live in a time where a stack overflow vulnerability will cause your car to break or accelerate at very inappropriate times. Just google for "researchers car software vulnerability" (without quotes) to see what I'm talking about. [1] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229919/Car_hacking_R...

It seems like you know that hackable cars are already the norm. Hopefully, with a focus on security and open software development, cars will become more secure.

Re: Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars

#46

Post by zgchurch » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 3:05 AM UTC

manicho wrote: post #38

I was notified today that GM also came out with there API today. Seems a bit odd that they would both release the exact same feature on the same day. I wonder how similar their SDK's will be. http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/...

Ford's AppLink-enabled apps run on your iOS/Android phone and the vehicle's voice control and buttons are additional interfaces to control the app that's running on your phone. So regular Pandora from Google Play or the App Store has the code to integrate with AppLink vehicles in it already.

This is different from GM's approach, where the apps are built to run on the vehicle's own hardware.

Re: Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars

#47

Post by 3amOpsGuy » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 4:06 AM UTC

rossjudson wrote: post #41

jakejake wrote: post #5

This sounded awesome right up to the point that they said that this was a hotly pursued space due to advertising potential to a captive audience. If I am in my own car and my music is interrupted with an ad every time I drive by a McDonalds - I would find that extremely annoying. On the other hand, if you could lease a car at a subsidized price in exchange for ads, that might be an attractive offer to some.

It ought to be flatly illegal to visually advertise through an in-car app. An ad is designed to engage attention; visually engaging a driver is the last thing we want on the road. It's beyond stupid. YOU ARE PASSING A GAS STATION. PLEASE STOP AND BUY IT. YOU ARE PASSING A SANDWICH SHOP. PLEASE SWERVE LEFT AND BUY SANDWICH. 5 POINTS IF YOU CHANGE TO THE FAR RIGHT LANE!

>> 5 POINTS IF YOU CHANGE TO THE FAR RIGHT LANE!

This had me in stitches, I can't help feel something of this nature is a plausible outcome.

Re: Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars

#48

Post by majormajor » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 4:06 AM UTC

rossjudson wrote: post #41

jakejake wrote: post #5

This sounded awesome right up to the point that they said that this was a hotly pursued space due to advertising potential to a captive audience. If I am in my own car and my music is interrupted with an ad every time I drive by a McDonalds - I would find that extremely annoying. On the other hand, if you could lease a car at a subsidized price in exchange for ads, that might be an attractive offer to some.

It ought to be flatly illegal to visually advertise through an in-car app. An ad is designed to engage attention; visually engaging a driver is the last thing we want on the road. It's beyond stupid. YOU ARE PASSING A GAS STATION. PLEASE STOP AND BUY IT. YOU ARE PASSING A SANDWICH SHOP. PLEASE SWERVE LEFT AND BUY SANDWICH. 5 POINTS IF YOU CHANGE TO THE FAR RIGHT LANE!

Hm. I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to ban billboards under the guise of being worried about distracted driving.

Re: Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars

#49

Post by tellarin » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 4:23 AM UTC

i386 wrote: post #39

Niten wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm perfectly fine with that, but you seem confused about the argument here. GPL code distributors don't have the right to say curiosity, or any other reason, is invalid cause to enforce the GPL. And while I do not have standing to request GPL licensed code from Tesla, they have a legal obligation to either distribute that code directly, or a provide a transferable offer to distribute that code, to their customers. C…

Yes, they are legally obligated to share their modifications with their customers. No arguments here. > Code properly distributed as such inevitably would make it back out into the wider open source community; this is the design of the GPL The design of the GPL is to protect the users rights to use, access and modify the software in perpetuity. There is no provision in the license that modifiers have to share modifie…

> Yes, they are legally obligated to share their modifications with their customers. No arguments here.

Nope, if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it. Not only to your customers. And you can't put any kind of filter on reasons for the request.

One can only charge a "reasonable" amount for the work of making it available (CD, hosting, etc).

The only corner case I see is if they claim that they are selling a device (like the whole car) as a single package and there is only a single package of code along with it.

Re: Ford Releases An SDK For Their Cars

#50

Post by tellarin » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 4:28 AM UTC

callahad wrote: post #27

revelation wrote: post #13

Since we are on the topic: I wish Tesla would finally live up to their obligations and release the GPLed parts of their product (that includes, at a minimum, the Linux kernel with all modifications).

Are we sure they aren't complying with the GPL? After all, it only requires distribution of source to those who receive the compiled code. Which is to say, unless you have a Tesla in your garage, you have no claim to the source.

Where did you guys get that info?

As far as I know, it's always been that if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it. Not only to your customers. One can change though, for the costs of making it available.

The thing you mentioned is applied to licensing. A person is only under obligations by the license if he/she distributes anything that uses GPL code. If people only run a piece of GPLed software, or if they make changes only for personal use, they're not under GPL license obligations.