• On TV.com: New TV sex symbol: Vintage black PORSCHE
March 2, 2009 9:34 AM PST

Open source vs. Microsoft: Automotive battlefield

by Wayne Cunningham
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 12 comments

The competition between Microsoft and open-source software reaches into the automotive space with the announcement of a new alliance among automakers and technology providers called Genivi. The goal of the alliance is to build a Linux stack that will provide a common architecture for automotive infotainment systems.

At the same time, Microsoft announces version 4.0 of its own automotive platform, on which Ford's Sync and Fiat's Blue & Me systems are based. The new Microsoft platform now supports Intel chip architecture and includes what Microsoft calls "common head unit functionality," meaning that the platform comes with standard modules for integrating CD playback and ripping, along with other applications.

Version 4.0 supports a common voice command structure that works for typical car applications, such as navigation and Bluetooth cell phone integration, so users won't have to go back to a top-level tree structure to issue commands for different in-car applications.

Both Genivi and the Microsoft Automotive platform intend to make it easier for automakers and equipment makers to integrate support for devices such as cell phones and MP3 players by offering common connectivity solutions, speeding up development of automotive infotainment systems, and making midcycle updates easier, so car electronics can keep up with the fast-moving world of consumer electronics.

The Genivi alliance includes BMW, Delphi, GM, Intel, Magneti Marelli, PSA Peugeot Citroen, Visteon, and Wind River, a pretty formidable set of major names in the automotive world. Microsoft developed its Automotive Platform on its own, but it counts Ford, Fiat, and now Hyundai as clients. Further, Microsoft is instituting a training program to help developers understand how to build applications to work with its platform.

Microsoft has the advantage of a proven product, which many people have experienced in Ford and Fiat cars. The fact that the company is already on version 4.0 shows maturity in the product. Hyundai, which announced last year that it would use the Microsoft Automotive platform in its cars, will be using the 4.0 version in 2011 models.

Genivi has been in development for the last 18 months, and a representative of its developers said the first car to use it will be a hybrid in 2011, with GM's Volt seeming the likeliest candidate, given the timing of the launch. By 2012, Genivi is supposed to be in mass production vehicles. Given the current partners, it's not hard to guess where it might appear.

Both platforms will also offer APIs for services, which can be taken advantage of by companies such as Google and other online players.

Microsoft Automotive product manager Velle Kolde pointed out that Microsoft had not been invited to join the Genivi alliance, saying, "If (Genivi is) picking and choosing technology partners, it isn't really an open architecture."

It's impossible to predict which platform will become dominant, if any, but there's already one clear winner: Intel. Genivi is designed to work on Intel's Atom processor, while Microsoft's new version expands from its original ARM compatibility to run on the Atom, as well.

Recent posts from The Car Tech blog
Looking under Nissan's Leaf
One tall order: getting into a Tesla Roasdster
Sale: CoPilot Live GPS for iPhone, $19.99
24 hours of Dayton with the Porsche Panamera
To thwart speculators, Lexus to lease, not sell, 500 LFAs
Car Tech Live Podcast 146: The deal unravels--Is Saab dead?
BMW debuts the new 5-series online
GoPro HD Hero Motorsports sacrifices simplicity for flexibility
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (12 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by Mr. Dee March 2, 2009 11:14 AM PST
What Apple and its iPod car support thingy?
Reply to this comment
by goodspeed8701 March 2, 2009 12:55 PM PST
You know Apple is no where near M$ thats why i dont use their products
by applusr March 2, 2009 5:21 PM PST
goodspeed more on
by RighteousSoutherner March 2, 2009 1:05 PM PST
Better hope it doesn't creep into Microsoft patents are it's game over for these dudes.
Reply to this comment
by jtjt145 March 2, 2009 1:11 PM PST
Can't put my finger on it, but somehow the open-source boys are smarter and more successful. Seen it happen too many times lately! Lets hope they get successful before Micro$oft can trow the spanner in the works, arguing that they have to protect 'shareholders value' by suing some trumped-up 'intellectual property' claim.
According to the latest verbal excreta from their top legal counsel, this would be their standard way of 'doing business' with other corporations.
:-)
Reply to this comment
by RighteousSoutherner March 2, 2009 2:07 PM PST
@ jtjt135--smarter than a patent, lol? Stop drinking the open source cool-aid and realize the party is over. Once you start eating Microsoft and other proprietary software makers lunch, you can expect a battle royale!
Reply to this comment
by t8 March 2, 2009 2:38 PM PST
Hi this is a friendly reminder from Microsoft.
Please do not use open source or you will be sued.
Reply to this comment
by Maccess March 2, 2009 10:53 PM PST
"Microsoft Automotive product manager Velle Kolde pointed out that Microsoft had not been invited to join the Genivi alliance, saying, "If (Genivi is) picking and choosing technology partners, it isn't really an open architecture." "

Oh, if I'm having a party I have to invite them now?
Reply to this comment
by amakroo March 3, 2009 5:18 AM PST
This is from the Automotive OEM's perspective. Nothing is free in this world. This collaboration is very good for the tier 1 suppliers or developers but not at all good for OEM's. OEM's are still going to face vendor lock ins (this time it?s a list of them) primarily because vendors have to come to a political resolution so as not to begin competitive friction between themselves. There is no harm in assuming that this initiative will totally be controlled by BMW. Wind river on the other hand offers Linux indemnification only if you pay them licence and do not modify there source code (So much for an Open Source ;-). On top of which all the applications will be owned by the tier 1 supplier (I am still wondering what openness is usable for an OEM). You do get a good set of open source middleware solution from which you can develop a basic system but you will have to pay through your nose if you want to do things differently, and obviously all your investment goes into consortium and you wonder why the consortium can't share this cost. Well probably they can if you can prove something, or have a political backing or you are the BMW ;-). Think about faster moving CE market OEM's have to interface to. Can some one take the responsibility of issuing device drivers and updates for all the mobile devices that exist and forthcoming in this universe ;-)? Yes yes I totally understand that all these problems can be taken care of by putting some more money where the mouth is ;-). But this very last concern still rules that in this economical stricken automotive world what is the focus of an OEM? Do you want to invest and work on the layers which do not fall under your competencies or you want to invest in delivering better user experience for your customers. For vendors and tier 1s there is no alternative, either join this or loose business from BMW. One good point for OEMs that shines out of this collaboration is press coverage:" This is right time to become famous and be the part of automotive technical revolution "but frankly you can put all that money in all the right places to better sell your car. I think better road is to choose a system that is very flexible and updates itself as the time passes without taking a stress and spending money on the system development. Spend all of your money in building better applications to lure more customers.
Reply to this comment
by amakroo March 3, 2009 6:30 AM PST
Just found out that MS Auto is also open source but only to their customers and customers can amend the source code if they need to. If that is correct, it is going to give tough fight to Linux consortium. I think with shear brute force of device support and rapid application development it even gives QNX a tough fight. Psst! can you tell me how much the GINIVI system costs ;-)?
Reply to this comment
by Dalkorian March 3, 2009 9:28 AM PST
blah blah blah blah ... yeah right. What you're doing is called "prostitution" and is illegal in most states.
by Pabl00 March 3, 2009 8:33 AM PST
I work for QNX, so I'll be the first to admit bias. But the real competition for both Microsoft and Genivi is QNX. QNX is already licensed for use in more than 10 million car infotainment and telematics systems, and the number is growing. Microsoft has a small fraction of that, from what I can tell.
Reply to this comment
(12 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next

Search Car Tech

advertisement

About The Car Tech blog

CNET's Car Tech blog covers the latest developments in the automotive industry, with commentary on car stereos, hybrid and concept cars, GPS, and much more. The Car Tech blog offers the latest news and reviews from CNET's Car Tech reviews channel.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Car Tech blog topics