This is true, and I didn't mean to imply the entire platform was bad and always would be. The theory is great, and it should have become a model for the industry if it were well executed. There were fundamental issues with transitioning from hard realtime automotive microcontrollers in a domain based architecture to the soft realtime world of QNX, task scheduling, and the realities and limitations of Nvidia AGX Xavier in a centralized architecture that hurt a lot. Real QA was largely absent, as it was deemed more important to have "green lights" on automated test system dashboards. Because the cars were so late in development with major hardware changes happening too late in the program, combined with software that was not safe for the road, it was extremely difficult for engineers to actually drive the cars. When early production began and engineers were allowed to lease the cars, tons of bug reports came in with many serious issues, but the cars were still deemed ok to ship to customers, with executive and engineering management fully aware of the situation.

Hopefully the next platform, SPA3, a zonal architecture, will be better, even if they don't have Luminar lidars.

Luminar bet their company on a promise from Volvo that the EX90 would launch on time and have a certain sales volume. The EX90 was several years late and an engineering dumpster fire that nobody is buying. So sadly, their demise is pretty directly Volvo's fault (and before you go all racist and say "but the Chinese", no, it was idiots in Sweden that made prophetic declarations about how their SPA2 platform would be glorious without knowing how computers actually work and ended up making a car that (big surprise) didn't work.

It's a shame. I had the luck to work with a Luminar Iris lidar and it was pretty cool. Its disappointing to see them end like this.

Itâ(TM)s also a violation of the license agreement with Apple.

And there are Intel Macs still out in the world that are still supported by Apple.

By literally clicking the app icon for Apple CarPlay, in a Volvo, you would have had it.

As someone who worked with AAOS for Volvo/Polestar, updates are absolutely NOT handled by Google. AAOS updates are handled by the OEMs. The OEMs deal with integrating their UI, custom services and apps, and core functionality on AAOS. Google provides the OEM AAOS and maybe GAS, and itâ(TM)s entirely up to te OEM to make something work.

I live in Sweden and have an e-bike that is legally regulated as a moped, a Specialized Turbo Vado 6. It came with a CoC for submission to the transport agency for license plates and it has a VIN decal behind the head. The bike comes with a license plate mount. It also has a moped grade headlight with high-beam, hydraulic disc brakes, and an electric horn. It has no throttle, but it does have pedal assist up to 45km/h. To ride it, you need an AM-class drivers license and moped insurance. It looks like a bicycle, rides like a bicycle, but definitely should not be ridden by someone who does not have moped experience. I'm perfectly ok with the regulation on it.

The article is mixing two different products up and itâ(TM)s confusing. Jetson AGX is the basic platform for robotics and AI computing. Drive AGX utilizes the same chip, but there are other features that do not exist in Jetson, like ASIL-B compliance for the big ARM cores when running QNX, and ASIL-D compliance when running an AUTOSAR stack on the functional safety island (FSI) based on Cortex-R cores. The FSI could also run FreeRTOS to avoid costs with FuSa software but still be a hard realtime environment. Drive AGX supports ECC memory also. It also is not a baremetal platform like Jetson: Drive AGX runs a hypervisor and either DriveOS Linux or QNX runs in that hypervisor. You can even have multiple VMs. Jetson has an EDKII compliant EFI, Drive AGX does not. I could go onâ¦

To have found a first post never seen before.