Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If I weren't sure that car makers would botch the security, I'd be in favor of legislation that requires that for a specified list of controls or categories of controls if the car does not provide dedicated physical controls for them (either solely or in addition to non-dedicated controls) the car must also must provide an API for those controls to allow third-party add-on devices to operate them.

The API and how it as accessed (e.g., OBD port, Bluetooth, USB-C) would be specified, along with an extension mechanism to allow car makers to optionally allow more than just the required things to be controlled in a way that wouldn't conflict with extensions from other makers.

Then go ahead and go full touchscreen if they want. I'll buy a nice third party set of controls and use that with the car, and since the API and interface is standardized I can move it to my next car and so on, and so not have to learn a new layout for each car.

I say "non-dedicated controls" above instead of "touchscreen" so that a manufacturer can't do something like have a knob and a couple buttons coupled with a screen where you use the screen (via touch or using the knob and buttons to navigate) to choose a set of functions from a menu tree, and then activate/adjust those settings with the knob and buttons, and say that they don't need to provide the interface and API because they are using physical controls.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: