Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

OBD-II has remained unchanged for more than 20 years, save for a few vehicle specific codes.

Take a look at WWDC (or any of Google or Amazon’s platform announcements) and see how many new APIs or API chances were announced this year alone.

20 years ago, Macs didn’t even run OSX.

Luckily we don’t have to imagine the industry being fossilized like this: any country that hobbles itself in this way will simply be ignored by the rest of the world as a technology backwater.



The ability to query your car via the uniform OBD-II interface is considered to be a good thing by everyone except those trying to frustrate users, not a "hobbling" of the industry.

And backward-incompatible changes to an API should be considered a downside, not a benefit -- though which may (of course) be justified in the circumstance -- but which should never be trotted out, in and of itself, as evidence of superior engineering or progress, as you seem to be implying here.

Edit: One more thing: Requiring that certain information be provided through a specific interface/standard does not mean they can't also use other standards as an option or support other other features, so I don't know why all the new APIs are a point in your favor either.


Who’s talking about backward incompatible changes? This is about the speed at which new capabilities are added.

What good is a mandatory API if you have to use proprietary extensions a year after it is introduced, because new capabilities have been added to operating systems and hardware?

Do you think gasoline engines have changed as much as computers in the last 20 years? Perhaps people like OBD-II because engines are a mature technology.

I’d be surprised if you can make the case that operating systems and computers can be considered mature.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: