Connectivity to smartphones and other mobile devices is a key strength of QNX Software Systems’ platform for car infotainment systems, and many automakers and tier one automotive suppliers use our platform to implement smartphone/head-unit integration in their vehicles. We have a long-standing partnership with Apple to ensure high-quality connectivity with their devices, and this partnership extends to support for Apple CarPlay.
Yes, Apple CarPlay runs on QNX. Makes sense – I’m guessing (?) in-car software needs a lot of certification and testing, which QNX’ in-car platforms all already have.
I am now intrigued as to how this is done. Does QNX have a running “iOS runtime” ontop similar to the android one?
In theory the difference between the two wouldnt be that great and they are both designed as runtimes and frameworks to run on a UNIX-like core…
Needless to say I highly doubt Apple would ever let Blackberry actually release a similar runtime on their phones, but maybe they would licence out certain parts like Siri?
OSX/iOS and QNX are both POSIX certified and compliant.
What i am interested in would be how much faster QNX would run iOS applications as it can be trimmed a lot more.
I don’t think speed will be much different. The advantage of QNX is the ability of doing hard realtime scheduling, for instance making sure your video stream doesn’t stutter even though all remaining computing power is shared between the ABS brakes and the current updating of the local map data.
I would be really surprised if the infotainment software and the ABS system were running on the same processor. The entertainment stuff is probably build into its own dash/stereo module. I was under the impression that the various subsystems in cars had dedicated processors that reported back to a computer that can display errors on the driver-side dash.
I was just talking about this subject with a mechanic friend a couple months ago. Your impression is correct. Modern cars are littered with computers, not just one that controls everything. This is partly why mechanic costs have increased. Also, critical systems such as ABS will always be separate for safety reasons.
Edited 2014-03-05 19:05 UTC
judgen,
Does anyone in mobile care about POSIX compliance?
This is not what you asked for, since I don’t think apple is represented here. But the 2012 myford touch and 2014 Hyundai Equis are windows based. The 2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe is QNX based.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/2014-hyundai-equus-review,3727-…
Are you aware of the portability headaches of such certification?
Back in the early 2000, when I was writing portable POSIX code across commercial UNIXs I had to fight against undefined parts of the standard and implementation specific behaviors.
Signals, daemon management and asynchronous IO were three examples of specific behaviors.
Edited 2014-03-06 17:51 UTC
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246597/Why_Ford_is_dumping_…
I went out of my way to buy one of the last ford models that didn’t have Microsoft’s snyc Technology. I wouldn’t avoid an Apple on top of QNX system, though.
Bill Shooter of Bul,
It’ll be a long time before I can afford any of these things. However I predict that all the recent controversies over mobiles will eventually bubble over into embedded automobile systems.
Who retains control to a device, it’s owner, or the vendor? It’s a little disturbing to me that right now Apple is deciding what sources CarPlay owners will be allowed to listen/subscribe to:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2014/03/04/apple-accelerat…
Will the NSA start to target cars like they do phones? Either by exploiting unverifiable binary code, or Prism-style mass collection of data.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/12/31/apple-nsa-iphone-back…
I worry more about the long term implications. Some day someone is going to have a monopoly on this market and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to get any kind of audience unless we’re aligned with the corporations who hold the hardware keys. No companies (or governments) should be entrusted with such a grave responsibility, they should remain in the hands of the owner. Locked devices and proprietary blobs will always have these inherent problems. Having open standards/hardware today would give us a way to avoid this sad fate in the future.
Edit: I recognize this is perhaps a bit “out there” today, but come back in 15+ years and maybe this consolidation of control over media via keys will be much more evident.
Edit2: Also, I’m not picking on apple here, I don’t want *any* corps holding remote control keys over my devices:
http://www.techhive.com/article/168654/kindle_e_book.html
http://www.geek.com/news/walmart-to-shut-down-drm-servers-584702/
etc.
Edited 2014-03-04 20:32 UTC
There was some talk a while back of all new cars in the US being required to have GPS installed in them by 2015. The NSA already tracks GPS and many of these systems allow the cars to be shut down remotely.
Kivada,
You must be referring to onstar.
There’s also State Farm’s In-Drive and Progressive’s Snapshot devices that send vehicle telemetry data back to the company, which is overtly used against you by raising your car insurance rates. Don’t want to install a device which invades your privacy? Well, they’ll raise your rates for that too and you are required by law to pay it. My own personal Progressive insurance went up by $400 in the past two years with a clean record!
Without commenting on my or your finances, Fords come standard with Microsoft’s sync. They aren’t considered expensive cars in the US. Not like a Tesla, or even a volt.
But I understand that even non luxury cars are expensive. There is a lot to be said for used cars. I really just want something reliable to get from point A to Point B, has heat and A/C, a radio and an aux in port. I’d rather any kind of infotainment system be plug-able like a roku or chrome cast instead of a smart tv.
I paraphrase from the video: “Sometimes the system locks up, stops working, and the only way to fix it is to pull to the side of the road, turn the car off, open/close the door, and then start the car again” LOL, classic early generation Microsoft product.
tylerdurden,
For those who don’t remember, this was a popular joke in the 90s.
http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp
Isn’t a single “check the engine” warning light generally the standard for some time now?
It seems like people are misunderstanding CarPlay (the rename helps). Carplay is more or less AirPlay that is streaming a modified UI designed for voice, limited touch control and any other in-car UI methods (steering wheel controls) and output (stereo speakers, hands-free phone system). It isn’t using or built on QNX, per se. The vast majority of functionality is exclusively occurring on the iOS device connected to the car; the only functionality being provided by the local in-car system is streaming to the dashboard console and relaying input and output. It can theoretically work with any in-car app platform as long as Apple works with the in-car app platform to support CarPlay streaming to dashboard consoles and input/output from whatever interface the car affords. All of the prototypes shown so far support their own similar in-car apps/nav/entertainment or even other in-car systems… saying CarPlay is built on QNX is like saying that anything that supports MTP is built on Windows (not the best analogy, but the point should be clear).
Unlike QNX, SYNC, (and I’m unsure about Google’s plans but believe they’re on a similar path), Apple is attempting to leverage existing functionality of in-car systems to use iOS devices as the primary, familiar data/app source rather than building a specific in-car OS that needs to be adapted by all car manufacturers — all they need is compatibility. Or put another way: BB, Google, and Microsoft are trying to build a smartphone into the car; Apple conversely is presuming that a car will have some system that can talk to an iOS device, and the user will prefer to use the iOS device they have on hand rather than the in-built car system.
There are interesting pros and cons to this difference in strategy.
Edited 2014-03-04 20:25 UTC
Possibly a better analogy: AirPlay can be used on Windows PCs using apps like AirParrot. If I was streaming iOS content and apps to a Windows PC via AirPlay via AirParrot, would you say that the iOS device output is now built on Windows? No, you would not.
Edited 2014-03-04 20:43 UTC
Exactly this. QNX is irrelevant. It could have been any OS. All it really does is process input, display the streamed video/audio output from the iDevice and that’s it. QNX just happens to be the OS used in the implementation on this occasion.
Exactly. My car stereo has a Pandora logo, and it will stream music from and send commands to the Pandora app on my phone. That doesn’t mean it’s a “Pandora Radio®”; it’s a JVC radio that implements an interface to Pandora over Bluetooth.
Similarly, these are OEM car stereos that implement an interface to Apple CarPlay. I’m sure Apple is working closely with car manufacturers to reach a deeper level of integration, but that kind of thing has been going on for years (see above JVC+Pandora, and many others).
Edited 2014-03-05 19:05 UTC
If you read all of my comments and the discussion around them, I think there is very little chance Apple looks for deeper integration into the car (in the sense of having a A# processor in the actual cars, running actual iOS apps, using an Apple-specified UI method) but rather any greater integration will come from trying to herd car manufacturers around approved input methods (buttons, dials + button, resistive touch screens, capacitive touch screens, etc) and to ensure that they have broad adoption.
If they don’t get uptake or other providers are more successful at negotiating exclusivity, or if the car manufacturers fail to make attractive UIs that enhance the experience, only then may Apple be forced to play a larger role in the car.
As already mentioned, Apple’s strategy is the MirrorLink strategy but only concerns itself with Apple but with the advantage of not being the LCD (MirrorLink can’t display an alternate interface because it doesn’t have the support of the app platform providers, it can only mirror the UI from smart device). This strategy appears to be the correct one, most likely to succeed, most likely to benefit Apple, etc. It’s just a question of whether or not the car manufacturers can be convinced that providing an Apple-specific solution to car owners who prefer their Apple experience over the car manufacturers’s own solutions is worthwhile. Car manufacturers are incentivized to own the experience, but I suspect it will play out like the phone carriers in the major markets that matter.
Just look at the car UIs now. The car manufacturers will probably fail…
Please! But why aren’t automobile manufacturers simply building their touch screen interface for managing “the auto” but the “interface” to a smart phone or tablet is simply to mirror what’s on the device’s screen. Of course resolution standards and the touch screen interface to the device, etc. But the car’s screen is simply a built-in portal to the device’s screen. Seems easy, clean, allows the device to be stowed in the console or glovebox on a charger (or Bluetooth or WiFi) and its controlled through the touch screen interface. That way its a universal solution, device agnostic, and people can familiarize themselves with most used apps offline, while not driving and thus there’s a level of familiarity when they do drive? Agree on a few dedicated buttons on the dash or steering wheel and be done with it. Ready to be put in my place now. Go OSNEWS geniuses (meant sincerely).
As mentioned above, this is precisely Apple’s strategy.
jared_wilkes,
Is apple’s strategy universal or device agnostic, like mjhi11 wanted? What I’ve read (see my earlier link) indicates that apple is going to select what gets to run via the carplay interface (a walled garden within the walled garden). And I doubt it will be device agnostic either, but it would be pleasing to hear otherwise from a credible source.
Edited 2014-03-04 21:36 UTC
I think it’s fairly obvious that Apple isn’t building CarPlay to support non-iOS devices and that they do intend to certify apps made by third party developers (just as they do for Siri and AppleTV).
To me, the bulk of the “strategy” stated above is to have a smart device integrate into a car’s head unit to provide communication, navigation, and entertainment rather than use an onboard system that dictates your “choices” by tying BB QNX to Honda or MS SYNC to Ford or Android to Audi. Not that the device provider would themselves provide the universal interface; I would say that is the car manufacturers’s responsibility. So… maybe it was inaccurate to say that this is “precisely” Apple’s strategy.
The independence of Apple’s plan doesn’t require them to build compatibility for their competitors; however, the independence is there for the user. Likewise, the auto manufacturer is free to support other systems (which I think is more in tune with the above strategy than your “open source” spin on it.
CarPlay is very much like MirrorLink (which is more “precisely” what you would like but is unlikely to grow more successful or to achieve the level of integration that CarPlay is already achieving) but rather than being restricted by available open standards and MirrorLink’s own authorization program for apps, Apple is able to leverage its own Lightning technology and App Store approval process.
All of the cars that demoed CarPlay — when you unplug an iDevice, there is still an in-car entertainment/app system and head unit which may or may not have connectivity compatibility with other smart devices. I think it’s foolish and backwards to think that it is the device manufacturer’s responsibility rather than the car manufacturer’s.
Edited 2014-03-04 22:01 UTC
jared_wilkes,
Well, the biggest issue with this kind of reasoning is what happens when it scales. Sure it’s not apple’s problem that competing devices don’t work with their proprietary interfaces (ignoring that it’s probably apple’s deliberate intention). Same is true for microsoft or anyone else. Every single vendor of proprietary stuff will say it’s not their responsibility to work with others. And so it’s always the consumer who looses out when vendors fail to embrace open standards.
Without open standards we get vendor lock, which we should all know from our IT experience is detrimental to the free market. It’s incredibly difficult to break out of this state of affairs once we reach it; vendors become forced to adopt solutions based on their popularity rather than on merit or openness.
I don’t want my choice of car to conflict with my choice of cell phone or visa versa. It’s utterly ridiculous that we shouldn’t have vendor neutral standards for these things. But then very few corporations truly have consumer interests at heart.
I’m aware that calls for open technology are often in vein, the corporations who benefit from having proprietary devices and restrictions are the ones in power. But what a shame it is that they collectively hold back innovation outside of their walls. If we don’t do anything to stop it now, this consolidation of control is only going to increase over time.
Carplay may be a good interface, but I’ll always have objections to it as long as apple dictates how we (users&devs) get to use it.
Edited 2014-03-04 23:02 UTC
Your ignoring the most basic difference in strategies for ideological reasons and ignoring that my posts have mainly been to point out that Thom is completing misinterpreting a PR statement to suggest that CarPlay is dependent on QNX.
However, I don’t see how there is any way of avoiding the fact that Apple’s strategy (using its own device capabilities to make car head units and UI into a thin client versus other strategies who want to integrate their device capabilities directly into the car’s head unit) is closer to the goal mentioned above than not. Additionally, I’ve already pointed out that the actual strategy that you endorse has been around in MirrorLink and other initiatives and is unlikely to succeed. There’s no need to call for a OSNews circle jerk to try to develop something that exists; there is a need to overcome the massive forces of capitalism and practicality to make it a reality however.
Nor do I accept your ideology as truism; you should really avoid the absurdity of absolutism in most of your statements. It’s not persuasive, it is exactly the opposite.
No shit, you’re a troll. It takes seeing about 3 of your posts to know that.
Edited 2014-03-04 23:11 UTC
jared_wilkes,
Apple doesn’t need to overcome the forces of capitalism. Apple only needs to overcome the notion that they need to lock down users and keep us away from open technologies in order to be successful.
I believe without openness, we’ll end up in a future where control over technology becomes more and more concentrated with fewer viable alternatives. I don’t think this line of thinking is all that absurd, but I don’t think it’s an “absolute truism” either. Hopefully there will always at least be niches that remain open. The problem is when open devices become so marginalized that they become stuck on islands separated from everything else. It’s even happening now.
http://blog.gsmarena.com/rooted-androids-not-welcome-in-google-movi…
Haha, I’ll take this in jest, I didn’t mean to strike a nerve.
Edited 2014-03-05 00:28 UTC
mjhi11,
I like it!
…as long as it’s an open standard for all to implement.
There’s a standard called MirrorLink which does what you want.
More on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MirrorLink
Edited 2014-03-04 22:07 UTC
This. This is how. QNX.
Nokia hardware + Blackberry software ?
Kochise
Umm, you should read a BB financial statement instead of just reading OSNews and saying, “Oh cool! A cool OS! Therefore BB is okay, cool!”
It’s been nearly 4 years since RIMM bought QNX from Harmon for $200 million. Annual revenue from QNX is likely in the tens of millions.
QNX has been deployed in cars for nearly two decades in cars for telematics. There’s no growth there. It’s been deployed for infotainment for more than a decade. Yes, there is potential growth for infotainment, but not to the extent that car manufacturers are going to pay 1000% more for it.
BB’s financials have just gotten worse over the last 4 years; there’s little indication that there is an explosion to come from QNX. Any attempt to create one is likely to lead car manufacturers to use any of the innumerable other RTOSes that are just as sufficient.
QNX has never been and will never be more than a few days of phone sales for Samsung or Apple.