Quote:
Originally Posted by arpad_m
A pretty unhealthy attitude on GM's part, if you ask me. In terms of control hardware and software, it seems to me automakers have traditionally been lagging far behind the technology curve for some reason (indifference? risk avoidance? greed?). Today's infotainment systems could be rewritten to a much higher standard from scratch by a team of 2-3 in a couple months, with very few exceptions. (I led a relavitely small team that created a complete UAV system with realtime 3D augmented reality in the early 2010's, so I'm not BSing here.)
Now, against that backdrop, one wonders why GM's first drastic lockdown had to be implemented with the T93. I mean, why not every module? How come they still allow ECM tuning, which is far more consequential? Kind of a bitter pill to swallow when the platform is so mind-boggingly capable.
|
I have a friend that works for a tech. company that provides computer chips to automobile manufacturers. Because of the safety required and risk of components failing, they HAVE to use components that are fail proof compared to something that goes in a tablet or phone. Thus, the "old" chips are proven over time and can be used with high confidence. New tech. isn't proven enough, so the auto manufacturers do lag behind.
Now WRT the programming of the infotainment - and I'm speculating here - I can see how that's different. I think the expert programmers go to tech. companies like Apple, Google, MicroSoft, Amazon, etc., whereas car companies get the leftovers, the "C students", so to speak, so the programming isn't as good. That's just a guess.