Nokia drives cars into the clouds: Hear HERE, you're here, hear? Nokia will assault car manufacturers next week, using the International Motor Show to launch HERE Auto, an updated platform intended to carve Nokia a home in the dashboard. The Finnish phone-maker will be adding an improved platform for car manufacturers willing to embed its technology – one which comes with live traffic …
It will still likely require a visit to the main dealer so that an 'approved' rubber stamp can go in the service book. At the cost of £150 per hour plus vat and parts (ink).
Car Manufacturers arent going to let Nokia take a revenue stream off them. Updating/servicing onboard tech is likely to be a nice little earner for them.
There's a lot of stuff that happens behind the scenes to validate the map data.
If you think its so easy, you have to ask why Apple is hiring former Navteq employees?
Apple learned the hard way, just how easy it is to damage a brand when you only get data from a single supplier ... ;-)
With all of the billions Apple has, its a bit of a mystery as to why they didn't snap up Nokia just for HERE.
Extremely accurate map data is not only critical to the driver, but also to the company since it can help increase the quality of data found in A-GPS phones as well as drive better advertising rates. (Just as Google).
Hint: If you want to capture pedestrian data accurately, you need to get below the 100 meter or even 10 meter point. (How else do you know if the guy walks in to store A or store B that happens to be next to one another and even their wi-fi signals overlap. )
Yes, knowing how to generate accurate and reliable map data that is continuously updated... that's kind of critical... as cars become more wired... its going to be possible to update your map data in a more reasonable manner.
Posted Anon for the obvious reason....
I'd rather have a standard where I could plug my 7" tablet of choice. I have ended up not updating my car's GPS maps, and use instead TomTom on my android, mounted on the dash. I'll probably have to do the same if my next car has some windows automotive in there, no way I am going to connect that to the net.
Of course, if you like windows CE/WP/RT, more power to you, but I rather not have that in my car.
Cyanogenmod, no google apps, TomTom (off-line navigation, with the possibility of using live traffic feeds). With the OS being open source and extremely flexible it surely beats a closed, locked system where I can't even use my own hosts file or set up a decent firewall, and which is developed by a company with deep ties with the NSA. I can block whatever ports and addresses I want, or simply spoof addresses with a simple hosts file, fully controlling who it communicates with.
Really? You can affirm that an open source OS, that anyone can check, is full of NSA back doors? Wow, you either are an highly skilled NSA employee, plating those back doors, or an extremely skilled security researcher, as you've found what many have to find on AOSP... Pray tell, if you know there are those back doors in AOSP (and/or the Linux kernel), can you show us where is at least one, in the code? Because the code is there for all to see, unlike for your loved MS OSs...
Just because anyone can check does not mean anyone does or ever will.
Have you checked? My money says you have not. Did you rely on someone else to do your checking? Who? The NSA?
Since you have not checked it, the source might as well be closed. Most people don't check because they're not competent to do so. It's remarkable how many of those don't trust a company they pay money to but do trust unpaid anonymous nerds on the internet, isn't it?
I'd be happier with an embedded linux but even then, I couldn't check the image and I certainly couldn't change it if I didn't like it. To all intents and purposes an embedded Windows image is exactly as open as an embedded linux image and oddly, rather more open than an Android image. You can't make a commit to either codebase but at least MS will give you their source on release with CE which is more than Google do.
One of the nice things about embedded OS images is inherent stability. CE crashes about as often as embedded linux, you can't install shitty toolbars, scumware or indeed, anything on either of them.
I don't think I see any point in continuing this discussion though. Your Android preference is clearly religious rather than rational and I very much doubt you're capable of reasoned discussion.
"I don't think I see any point in continuing this discussion though. Your Android preference is clearly religious rather than rational and I very much doubt you're capable of reasoned discussion."
Lol... So you're the one that writes that even if it is open, nobody will examine the code, so it is more insecure than closed code that nobody can examine, and I am the one incapable of rational discussion? Can't you even see the fallacy in your argument?
Let me just write it in a more clear and concise way - code that anyone can examine is much more likely to be secure and without having a second purpose than closed code that nobody but its creators can examine. If only because it can be checked!
Of course, your argument that most people won't check is true - but most isn't all, and I'll bet that EFF and several others regularly check linux and AOSP code thoroughly. Do you think that if there was such a vulnerability in there the creators of the skroogled and of the "know the facts" campaigns wouldn't have trumpeted it to the world by now?
As for trusting a company I pay money to, I'd rather not pay anything to microsoft. and all that I have paid in the last few years is the windows tax on new laptops. I wonder why anyone would trust a company that is known to have embedded NSA back doors on its code, that regularly has inserted "phone home" "features" on its operating systems, and that has lied and cheated every way it can to destroy its competitors and explore its customers.
But keep holding on to your religious beliefs. Apparently you're the one who accepts microsofts arguments on faith only.
That's like saying that a car that can do 200mph is better than one that can't because it can, even though you will never use it.
My point is that it is irrational to assume that somebody lovely and friendly is checking the code for you. It is actually far more likely that somebody spiky and hostile is examining code for you, and they will never tell you how vulnerable you are. The EFF? Nice thought but if you want your code checked by lawyers, I suggest your checking criteria need work.
Do MS check that code?
Actually, that's an interesting one. My guess is officially no but unofficially yes. Apart from anything else, more checkins to the linux kernel are made from @microsoft.com addresses than any other domain, which you might not be aware of. MS have always had an awful lot of off-hours linux programmers on their staff.
(This is, btw, one of the reasons that I find it hilarious when religious lunatics on El Reg go on about Microsoft's shitty code as compared to linux's sparkling perfection, apparently entirely unaware that much of it is written by the same people using much the same toolchain. But I digress... )
You can accuse me of religious faith in MS if you like. Whatever. The only belief I have about IT is that all hardware sucks, all software sucks, Larry Ellison is crying out to be played by Ron Perlman and anyone who extolls the virtues of anything is a fucking liar.
Including you.
> That's like saying that a car that can do 200mph is better than one that can't because it can, even though you will never use it.
Actually that is likely to be true, for certain connotations of 'better'. In order to be able to do 200mph it must have suspension, tires and bearings capable of withstanding those speeds, carefully crafted aerodynamics, and must pass safety tests.
Of course it is likely to be useless for going to the supermarket, but that wasn't what it is 'better' at.
> My point is that it is irrational to assume that somebody lovely and friendly is checking the code for you.
The fact that the code _can_ be checked is incentive to ensure that backdoors and 'phone homes' are not added. There are also _thousands_ of contributors who _are_ checking code and who have no affiliation.
> more checkins to the linux kernel are made from @microsoft.com addresses than any other domain,
You do spout a load of rubbish:
"""According to The Linux Foundation, this is "the first time, Microsoft appears on list of companies that are contributing to the Linux kernel. Ranking at number 17"""
As far as I can tell this contribution was a one-off to supports MS's Hyper-V so that it can sell Windows Server running on Linux boxes and can run Linux on Windows Sever. This is to sell Windows, not to help Linux.
> religious lunatics on El Reg go on about Microsoft's shitty code
I don't think that anyone has commented on code _quality_, it is unlikely they would pass a judgement on code they haven't seen. They do, however, comment on known areas, such as the existence of backdoors and 'phoning home'.
@Jbernardo: How many people do you know who inspect the source code? I'm guessing not that many. How many also understand the code that they are looking at? Probably rather less.
How many people do you know that download the source and compile from it? I'm guessing the number tends towards zero, it certainly does for me and I work with Linux every day.
How many of those people then compare the resultant binaries with those which are available on the different distributions? I'm guessing that number tends even more towards zero. I don't even anecdotally know anyone who does this.
The point is that you may be able to see the code, but the vast majority of Linux users in the high 99.x% just download a distro and don't even bother to check the MD5 hash, let alone that the binaries which have been hashed are actually the ones which would be created by the supplied source code. There is no security in complacency, as there is no security in obscurity. A million eyes looking at a product are only useful if they're looking at the right place at the right time and then tell you what they saw.
As it happens I do think Linux is pretty secure, but I don't think that "the code is on the net therefore it's secure" is a defensible position.
"Because the code is there for all to see"
Source is only useful if you trust everything in the tool chain or have you not read Ken Thompsons "Reflections on Trusting Trust"? That isn't to say you couldn't apply Wheeler's Diverse Double-Compiling method but that doesn't tell you about the hardware the software is being run on. Do you really think it would be that hard for the hardware maker to subvert all your code reading with a simple chip that provided whatever information it felt like to some agency?
hmmmm not convinced. I run CM9 on my phone and am very happy with it - but I'd regard anything physically built into my car as having the potential to be safety critical - I appreciate that it *shouldnt* be, but that doesnt mean it absolutely isnt.
I have a satnav built into my car for which there are unoffical ROMs floating about (essentially hacked versions of other regions binaries)... I thought about applying one for maybe 5 minutes and then decided the grief simply wasnt worth it. Plus the cost of replacing a bricked embedded device can be very large (as opposed to a bricked handset where I can easily replace it with a second hand device at a known cost in a lunch break)
Just because something can be hacked doesnt mean its sensible to do so - as above some people do already do this, but I really cant see it becoming main stream.
APIs to standard sensors (e.g. GPS, pressure sensors, etc... I can imagine, and the mirror screen tech that allowed a handset to use a cars screen also makes sense. But replacing an embedded system with something that I have relatively little assurance over the development, codebase integrity and testing? No thanks.
"Someone want to show Nokia how to cache maps on Google Maps..."
No, somebody show Google how to have a maps and navigation tool that doesn't mess its underwear as soon as it loses network connection. Yes, I could faff around looking to cache my route beforehand, but I've got better things to do. And the implementation of Google maps is such that (on my SGS2) it takes forever to get and display a satellite fix, despite the fact that Navmii can get a fix in a few seconds on the same hardware.
When it works Google maps is brillant (and even more brillant for free). But move outside of good mobile data connectivity and the limitations quickly become apparent. Nokia had phone satnav cracked five years ago, and Goole still haven't got an application as good. Which is a pity, because whilst I'd buy a Nokia handset, I'm not buying a Winpho device.
I'm going to leave my old Symbian Nokia in the car from now on, to use Ovi maps on the rare occasions I need satnav. My Samsung had an annoying "funny five minutes" recently when I asked Google Maps to guide me somewhere when the signal was crap. Backward step.
Please, show me - how do I cache offline maps on Google maps, a country or continent at a time? So far, I can only work out how to save a limited number of small city-sized areas at a time. And given that the latest Google maps update removed the option, and offline maps are only now available via a secret "easter eggs" style control, I think most people need to be shown how to use it, not just Nokia.
Perhaps someone can show Google how to do offline maps properly, like Nokia were doing 7 years ago.
Now, I admit to being a bit of a WP fanboy, but I wouldn't want any specific manufacturer's kit integrated into my car in a position where updates may be required, this goes for Google, MS, Apple, everyone. I spent ages looking for a new car stereo for my 20 year old roller-skate which didn't come with an iPod dock: Why would I want a proprietary connector which can be changed at the whim of a company in a device I intend to use for ten years?
I think all the integrating sat nav into car systems is going to bite people in a few years time when their integrated systems don't get updates any more.
@AC 13:52 Here Hear, that's exactly the situation I'm in with a 09 plate Fiat 500. This has an WinCE implementation with voice and messages via bluetooth but audio only via USB. For whatever reason Fiat removed the MTP module from Win CE so my new shiny Nokia L920 will not talk to it at all but a non lightning iDevice will do (with the help of a Fiat supplied £70 peripheral).
The last update to this came in 2011 and newer phones are not listed or even supported. The newer Fiat's have an Aux 3.5 in but afaik still not bluetooth audio, why this isn't standard is beyond me.
Last time I used HERE as a satnav it kept thinking that I was heading in the wrong direction down the motorway everytime I used the outside lane. Don't know if it was a problem with the accuracy of the GPS or the app, but I haven't had that before. Fortunately it re-calculates routes very quickly so it would recover once I moved away from the central reservation.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
