Detroit Free Press: "Microsoft Steps up Auto Software Push"

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwend8_20040308.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwe...d8_20040308.htm</a><br /><br /></div>"At the Society of Automotive Engineers' 2004 World Congress this week in Cobo Center, look for a Hummer H2 all decked out with telematics. It's an aggressive sign that after eight years of trying, Microsoft thinks it's on the right road for the automotive market. That road has been bumpy, at least in terms of getting one of the big U.S. car companies to sign up for its software, best known for its products for personal computers and Xbox video games. Founder Bill Gates himself has zeroed in on Detroit, predicting to analysts last fall that his company's automotive software will be in 30 percent of all cars by 2006 -- a claim that even the most optimistic of the technology analysts consider wildly optimistic."<br /><br />An interesting article. Although there are always jokes about what would happen to vehicles if Microsoft software got into them, the concept of having a smarter, more useful vehicle is certainly an appealing one.

[ctmagnus]

So far, none of the domestic automakers has adopted Microsoft's Windows Automotive software, though the company has had considerable success in Europe and Japan, where Mercedes, Honda, Mitsubishi, Volvo, Hyundai, Subaru, Fiat and Citroen have become partners.

:bad-words: Same as all the good phones!

Microsoft's system is based on Bluetooth, a short-range radio connection that automatically finds a Bluetooth-enabled mobile phone, whether carried in a pocket, purse or briefcase, and then hooks it up wirelessly to the vehicle's audio system. The phone then works by voice commands, using Microsoft's voice-recognition software.

:rock on dude!:

The TBox can also record data from the vehicle for automotive service technicians to use in maintenance or diagnosing problems.

Heh heh... I read last week about a vehicle "designed for women" that does the same thing, except the hood can only be opened by a mechanic.

[Falstaff]

I think this is a very good thing for cars. I was at a car show Saturday, and I was playing around with a few cars' GPS displays, and the controls are (IMO) confusing and cumbersome. What MS needs to do is convince these companies to install touchscreens and then develop a simple OS that controls the audio, video (if included in the car), GPS, heads up display (if included), and temperature. I would love to see a large tallscreen (3:4, but better yet 9:16) display on the center console. Especially if it would allow you to install 3rd party apps and use a CF or SD card for playing music, I think I'm dreaming though. It'll be a LONG time before that happens, and frankly, right now I'd be kind of worried that a MS OS would crash and turn my AC on high, audio on full, start flashing a blue screen o' death, and cause me to freak out.

[Jonathan1]

Thanks but I'll stick to proprietary OSes for these cars. As I've stated before its a bad idea to have Microsoft everywhere for several reasons. In this case a legit reason being that having a know OS leaves the possibility of hacking the OS wide open. Take for example the Toyota Prius. Its a pretty good bet the system is running a proprietary OS. Now imagine that the BlueTooth interface that is on the Prius is integrated into Windows CE enough that someone could sit 30 feet away from your car and attempt to hack it.

I've gotten over my features over security fix on Microsoft products. The potential ease of integrations with other Microsoft products doesn't outweigh the potential hazards IMHO.

[Jonathan1]

I think this is a very good thing for cars. I was at a car show Saturday, and I was playing around with a few cars' GPS displays, and the controls are (IMO) confusing and cumbersome. What MS needs to do is convince these companies to install touchscreens and then develop a simple OS that controls the audio, video (if included in the car), GPS, heads up display (if included), and temperature. I would love to see a large tallscreen (3:4, but better yet 9:16) display on the center console. Especially if it would allow you to install 3rd party apps and use a CF or SD card for playing music, I think I'm dreaming though. It'll be a LONG time before that happens, and frankly, right now I'd be kind of worried that a MS OS would crash and turn my AC on high, audio on full, start flashing a blue screen o' death, and cause me to freak out.

Wow. Déjà vu. I went over this very topic over at macrumors yesterday. A bunch of people over there talking about Mac OS in cars. I'll repeat what I told them.

A Microsoft OS isn't going to cure a bad GUI interface. Windows CE, or XP embedded is really nothing more then a blank slate. Actually in a well done integrated system you wouldn't be able to tell if that OS was Windows, Linux, or OSX. Its up to the application designer to make a functioning interface.
I test drove a Prius this weekend. I thought the interface was well laid out,

[prototype]

I had to dig around a bit ... but I found it and had to post it.

Enjoy
-Drew

IF MICROSOFT BUILT CARS
Bill Gates wanted to look good and impress everyone with his success. He decided to measure Microsoft accomplishments against General Motors. His comparison went like this:

1. If automotive technology had kept pace with computer technology over the past few decades, you would now be driving a V-32 instead of a V8.

2. It would have a top speed of 10,000 miles/hour.(160,000km/h)

3. Or you could have an economy car that weighs 30 pounds (14kilos) and gets a thousand miles to the gallon of gas. In either case, the sticker of the new car would be less than $50.00.

In response to all this goading, GM responded: "Yes, but would you really want to drive a car that crashes 4 times a day?"

1. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you'd have to buy a new car.

2. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you'd have to restart it. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this and drive on.

3.Occasionally, your car would stop and fail to restart, and you'd have to reinstall the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this too.

4. You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you bought a Car95 or a CarNT. But then you'd have to buy more seats.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was twice as fast, twice as easy to drive-but would only run on 5 percent of the roads.

6. The Macintosh car owners would get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars, which would make their cars run much slower.

7. The oil, engine, gas and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car fault" warning light.

8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.

9. The airbag system would say, "Are you sure?" before going off.

10. If you were involved in a crash, you would have no idea what happened.

11. And if you were dissatisfied with the car, your only alternatives would be an OS/2 car that hardly ever crashed and could go several places at once, but would never be upgraded and only runs on rural roads, or a UNIX car that was super powerful and hardly ever crashed, but required four years of training to drive and also only ran on rural roads.

12. And any time a new car company started up, Microsoft would duplicate that car and give it away for free until the new company went under. Then it would take the features of the new car, combine it with the old frame and call it "Monopoly 98."

[Jason Dunn]

I had to dig around a bit ... but I found it and had to post it.

How did I know this was going to get posted... :roll: :lol: