Based on the name alone one could reasonably assume this alliance will achieve no real world goals, will continue to sort of chug along for years and then the next time you'll hear about it is if/when the remaining members finally smother it with a pillow.
Google is fighting Samsung and Amazon for control of the Android ecosystem. As a result, they have to lock down more and more of their apps (leaving the AOSP version to languish) [1]. So while I agree with you that it "worked out pretty well for them" -- namely that Google is still relevant in the Android ecosystem -- I think we can all agree that the Open Handset Alliance is not the real reason for Google's Android success.
That's my premise for saying the Open Automotive Alliance is just Google's attempt to dominate in-vehicle interfaces. I don't think Google's going for a proprietary connector like Apple -- I am glad this is Google we're talking about, so the result is likely just some Android APIs that use bluetooth on a select few car models.
This is definitely not a new era of open hardware in your car or something like that (which would actually be interesting).
Having had the experience of working for one of the OHA companies during the development/launch of Android, the whole thing was less of an alliance/partnership and more of a "here's all the companies contracting or giving their stuff to Android to get the system in launch condition". We were subcontractors.
Based on the name alone, I thought this was a bunch of activists trying to put together an open-source hardware automobile, that would look cool at the surface level, but would spend the next 10 years arguing over whether it should burn CNG or #2 ULS highway diesel, and finally end up as a human-powered pedicab with an on-demand electric motor boost.
But then when I saw real companies were involved, I thought exactly what you said.
There's not as much buy-in as their page shows. There are lot of brands listed there, but many of them are of the same manufacturer. For example: Abarth, Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, and Ram -- all one company. Honda/Acura, Hyundai/Kia, Nissan/Renault, etc.
Same for Volkswagen which owns amongst others: Audi, Bentley, Skoda and of course Volkswagen itself. But these "brands" at least partially have their own development departments. Audi for example operates quite independent in many regards.
Looks like the important thing here is now is that you don't have to care that Android runs on your dash computer. It's that the phone is using your cars built in display, touchpad, buttons, microphones and speakers as an attached display, speakers, and inputs to the phone.
The actual apps run on your phone and so your car gets updates when the software on the phone gets updates.
This mode is highly preferable to the end-user apps living in the dash computer as that will not get upgraded worth a damn over the life of the car no matter what.
This is exactly what I'd want to see in this situation and I can't wait to get an aftermarket replacement to cover the gap until I need my next car.
I still wonder about the role of CloudCar in regards to Google and to Android. At least the Startup is somehow connected to Andy Rubin [1], the original founder of Android. CloudCar also has some good engineers that know the automotive infotainment space quite well.
"The startup may not be Rubin’s next place of employment, but he is connected to it: after the rumor hit, and then he denied it on Twitter, he further clarified in a Google+ post that CloudCar “are a group of friends who I give free office space to in my incubator in Los Altos.”" [1]
CloudCar is part of the WebTV mafia. Bruce Lee and Andy Rubin both worked on WebTV and this is the connection. There are a very large number of WebTV alumni working in the Android team at Google as well.
There are a number of WebTV folks at Nest Labs and this is another connection to Google (no matter how much the Nest Labs folks claim then aren't part of Google).
I think the automotive industry is finally catching on to all the new technology and new apps/utilities/data sources. Comparing a car in 2020 to a car in 2010 will be like comparing 1960 to 1995. I really hope OpenXC from Ford plays a big role in this initiative.
Isn't reasonable audio integration most of the win?
There's lots of nice things to do around navigation, but they don't seem to matter a lot, especially if the audio integration is working well (because then just use the navigation on the phone).
I'm looking for deeper-level driving analysis - like telling the driver they brake too hard... As well as connectivity to smartphones to use in place of proximity keys/alarms/remote start/etc.
Some of this, we're already seeing, but I think there is a huge opportunity here.
Automatic (YC, I think) do a good amount of that driving analysis, like telling the driver they brake or accelerate too hard, using only OBD-II and an accelerometer.
I think a built-in system doing this kind of thing would be really cool. The technology is obviously already there, but the software isn't, so having an app platform creates a lot of opportunity. I wonder how deep Google will be able to convince manufacturers to take the integration - modern cars expose a ton of data and functionality over the CAN bus, but it's all undocumented and proprietary and is often obfuscated as well.
I think they also provide the interface for free for interested developers... Could be mistaken.
Basically, the idea is to make it better documented and less proprietary... Then support a developer community for apps that can interface with the broader range of data than OBDII can provide.
OpenXC effectively just moves "proprietary vehicle knowledge" into firmware from client software - it's not a standard interface for cars, but rather a standard interface for car interfaces.
That's a neat idea since it prevents every app from needing to handle CANbus and whatever other proprietary signaling each vehicle uses, but it doesn't really expand vehicle support because the CAN and other messages still need to be documented officially (as Ford have done) or reverse-engineered.
The current implementation of OpenXC actually makes the setup more expensive, as well - an OpenXC module, since it does more, requires more hardware than a simple CAN-to-UART/Bluetooth gateway like an ELM327 clone.
No, it's competition for/keeping pace with Apple CarPlay. CarPlay is an extremely "sticky" part of the iOS ecosystem: if someone uses CarPlay for navigation, music playback, etc and their car only supports CarPlay, that user can't realistically switch away from iOS (until they buy a new car) without giving up major features.
But now that Android Auto is essentially the same thing, and should have pretty widespread availability, it takes away a reason for users to stay with iOS.
Part of the motivation is in reaction to, and to compete with Genivi. That said, I think the OAA has broader goals than Genivi. Whether either organization accomplishes anything is to be seen.
I don't know much about GENIVI, but looking at the Wikipedia page, it turns out it has automakers involved that are also part of the OAA (Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, and GM, unless I'm skipping any). And there's overlap in the tech companies involved, too, of course.
