Will Android eventually run in Tesla?

[AnOutsider]

No, no. It's not about being able to port existing apps, it's about not having to learn a new environment with a new API, and all the costs associated with that. Developers aren't going to be easy to attract because it's a lot if work, and 20,000 cars a year is nothing when held against the several hundred thousand Android devices that are activated each day.

They should have tapped into this existing ecosystem, IMHO.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I still maintain that most of those devs aren't the devs you want in any case. How many quality android apps are there out there as a percentage of the whole?

Make it costly to do something (in this case, time spent and possibly money) and you'll likely get more serious candidates. If you're devoted enough to put the time in to learn about the car and its specific environment, you're more likely to write an application that I'd be OK running in my car.

+1 AnOutsider and spatterso911 - I don't really see the vast majority of phone apps adding to my driving experience. And if there really is a case to be made for duplicating in the console an app I already have on my phone, it's probably worth my paying for it again. I see the Tesla App store as being more for truly useful (and expensive) apps developed by Tesla. I'll take Adaptive Cruise control for $1000 Alex.

+1. Give me quality, purpose-built apps!

 

[Citizen-T]

What AO said...And for goodness sakes, let's not introduce viruses into this car! Android has had issues with this, due to open architecture. It's a strong argument for protecting the garden. In addition, whatever is installed in this car must still leave a certain degree of liability to Tesla given that it can be used while driving (I'm glad that we have full access to that luscious panel while in motion). It is entirely possible that an app that sufficiently distracts the driver will kill this option for the rest of us, once a series of yokels start rear-ending people or striking pedestrians while angry-birding their way through traffic. You can't have everything, so enjoy everything about what you have.

Actually, this is completely backwards. Android is much more secure because of it's open architecture. Open source code is almost always harder to exploit because of the torrents of people in the security community that review the code and report security holes to the developer. This is Software Engineering 101.

I had a long talk with one of my Professors from college not too long ago, and he and his grad students were sifting through the Android source reporting security problems to Google. They aren't the only ones. Android is so popular that everyone is working on it, but nobody is doing that for iOS outside of Apple.

The way to handle malicious software isn't by choosing a different OS, it's by hand selecting reputable developers (companies) and thoroughly testing before allowing customers to access it. This can be accomplished with Android, and so yet again, is not an excuse not to use it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[AnOutsider]

I had a long talk with one of my Professors from college not too long ago, and he and his grad students were sifting through the Android source reporting security problems to Google. They aren't the only ones. Android is so popular that everyone is working on it, but nobody is doing that for iOS outside of Apple.

How often is there an iOS vulnerability reported vs Android though? Sure, more eyes mean that issues will be spotted and fixed quicker, but it also means... well, more eyes. How many of those issues would have been exploited had the source code not easily been available for perusal.

 

[Designtime]

There are no credible stats anywhere that show that open source is more secure than closed source. It is one of those things that sound obvious, but is not true at all.

 

[spatterso911]

Actually, this is completely backwards. Android is much more secure because of it's open architecture. Open source code is almost always harder to exploit because of the torrents of people in the security community that review the code and report security holes to the developer. This is Software Engineering 101.

I had a long talk with one of my Professors from college not too long ago, and he and his grad students were sifting through the Android source reporting security problems to Google. They aren't the only ones. Android is so popular that everyone is working on it, but nobody is doing that for iOS outside of Apple.

The way to handle malicious software isn't by choosing a different OS, it's by hand selecting reputable developers (companies) and thoroughly testing before allowing customers to access it. This can be accomplished with Android, and so yet again, is not an excuse not to use it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I graciously beg to differ. While I agree that open source gives more opportunity to widely scrutinize the apps, it does allow more malicious content to be developed because more people (with good or bad intentions) have the ability to tinker and release. Google may be reporting no malicious content on their platform, but why should we believe them? I believe that no less than the notion that OS X is virus-proof.

It's at least being reported by sources outside of Google to contradict their claims...

 

[brianman]

What AO said...And for goodness sakes, let's not introduce viruses into this car!

I would go a step further. I want to see app stores have a liability angle to them. Automobile applications might be the place to finally do this. If you introduce a virus with your name on it in the store, you'll be paying at least seven digits in court.


And a general point to Citizen-T. The assertion sounds a lot like "they should use the ecosystem I want, because... because!" You could make an argument that Win32 has been around a lot longer, so the ecosystem is very broad and "has more time to have been made secure". It's easy to make assertions with no factual basis to support what you'd like to see. That doesn't make it productive or convincing, much less valid.