There are a set of generic codes which are published and additional codes that automotive manufacturers have held as proprietary. The proprietary codes are usually available to scanners by or under contract to the manufacturers and very expensive. The scanners that are buyable for reasonable cost at automotive stores have limited or no access to the proprietary codes. In my opinion, this is silly and eliminating that silliness would be a good step towards increased openness. Why is it that way? To give their repair shops an advantage in repair business.
@Larry, exactly. The issue is what data can be exactly had from this interface. So...what sort of things are already available as "mandated" as you say form the OBD-II interface today, and what are not?
I would still bet that there are lawyers at Ford that had to be shouted down or bypassed to get this one out the door. I would be very curious to see a description of the interface and exactly what data can be had from it. It may just be what is already available from the OBD-II interface that is already mandated on vehicles.
It may not be shocking for Ford to see Open XC alterations to its Mustang line, but it is a new and interesting twist to an old tradition. The Mustang represents the whole history of the Ford company, in its most glamorous and fast-paced light. To bring that together with technology is a powerful thing.
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.