shakinrock

I see on page 10 of my Infotainment System Owners manual a reference to "Software Updates". I have a '15 2LT Z51

Does anyone know what type of updates are available? How I can determine which software version I currently run? How to 'upgrade' to a newer software version and what would that do for me?

defaria

GM and your dealer knows what updates are available.

You can determine your current software versions in the menu system. Look around.

You upgrade your software by taking it to a dealer, who updates the software.

What it would do for you depends on what software version you currently have and which updates are available.

NavyBlue2

It is now 2017, our C7s are equipped with satellite, bluetooth, USB technologies, etc.
There must easier ways to quickly download updates than to "take it back to the dealer..."

ColoradoGS

There are but (traditional) auto manufacturers move as the speed of molasses. They always have. Innovations are out there--you can download updates to a Tesla via wifi, for example--and eventually they should be more common.

Things like Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are relatively new. You can expect them to get better over time but again nothing in the automotive world happens quickly.

I expect also with self-driving technologies becoming more common that the need to support faster updates will become greater. Those sorts of concerns are less applicable to Corvettes of course. (No self driving on a manual Z06...)

Now if we could just somehow explain to them that the "Bose" nameplate does not mean "cool" we'd be getting somewhere.

Kent1999

I agree, but the Dealer makes no money if you were able to upgrade without him. Besides, most C7 owners will never upgrade their software so it's probably not a huge priority for GM to spend money to make remote updates happen.

And yeah, before anyone says it -- I don't care what Tesla does. I don't want *anything* they sell.

sunsalem

AMEN to that!

tcinla

How often does Chevy issue infotainment software (mylink) updates ?

Found this on a Camaro forum : http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=464092

Post # 2 is interesting.

defaria

Huh? Take, for example, the firmware update for support of AA. Also with this update was getting your 0-60 timer back. I brought my car to the dealer. The update of the firmware cost me $0! So the dealer makes no money if he installs it. If I installed (if I could) he would also make no money. So I really don't see your point above.

In this ever connected world at the very least, people who write software (and GM is writing software) that could be used over networks to break into things like cars and do potentially bad things (and this is also documented) must - I repeat MUST provide solutions to such security problems. It's not there yet but I can easily see the government mandating this soon (well maybe after Trump...)

It will quickly become a huge priority when companies like GM start getting sued by people who have been put in jeopardy because software was out of date.

HoustonMidtown

The dealer gets reimbursed (paid) from GM

patentcad

Be grateful they don't ask you to do a friggin rain dance so they can dispatch a carrier pigeon from Detroit carrying a floppy disk with the update to your house. I just went to our state of the art two year old local medical center and had an MRI in their even newer out-patient services building. They had a live pianist playing relaxing music in the lobby.

So a week later my surgeon doesn't have the MRI images or the radiologist report. Silly me, I figure 'it's 2017, they'll upload the images to Dropbox and email the report to Dr. Steinberg'. Wrong. I call the imaging unit and they offer to copy the images onto a disc which they will MAIL to him and they will FAX him the radiologist report, which of course means a few MORE days until he can even see the images.

I asked them if there was a telegraph or smoke signal option.

I turned off our office fax machine two years ago, I thought it was long overdue. Astonishingly, that seems to be a technology that refuses to die, lawyers and medical office seem to still use it regularly. So don't be surprised that it may take a while longer til GM lets you download updates via the Internet like Lexus does. You'd think it would be easier for THEM.

Kent1999

That's good for you. However, all 6 GM dealers I checked with here in the LV valley said "Not a warranty item, so there is a minimum shop charge". Those "minimum shop charges" ranged from a low of $50 to a high of $165. Sounds like some money making going on to me. Perhaps LV is the only place in the USA where GM dealers charge for little stuff like that, but I doubt it, given the experiences of others here on the forum.

Yes, heaven forbid there be a risk in life that is not covered by a Gov't agency or law.

As far as infotainment upgrades go (the topic of this thread), *currently*, I can't see where anyone with more than 1 working brain cell is "put in danger" because his/her infotainment system is a release or three behind the main branch. Your point is well taken for future gens, (C8+) when the system is very likely to be a lot more interdependent than it is now.

No doubt that future gen cars will be more like our desktop PC's, likely including viruses, malware, BSOD issues, and all the other bad stuff that comes with it. Given their totally lackluster performance thus far, I have no confidence that the GM coders will be up to the task of making a rock-solid carOS.

defaria

What was your mod? Because mine was for support for Android Auto which was something promised when I bought the car. As such it was free.

When a hacker can apply my brakes remotely from his cell phone while I'm driving down the highway you bet your bottom dollar that we should have some sort of regulations here - and that from a libertarian!

Many people say stuff like "So they can hack my radio. BFD. What can happen? They can play crappy music to me?". But they fail to realize that all of these things are on a network in the car. Often this network is a single one that all systems use and little or no thought was put into security at all! Some systems are non-essential or at least not necessarily dangerous - but the fact that a hacker can get in on the radio to get onto that network to then talk to the eBrake and you can be in a world of hurt quickly!

I point you to https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-497.pdf

mtaylor

Doctors offices love fax because it's Hipaa compliant you don't have to worry about passwords or encryption.

LT1 Z51

Not to get in another pissing match with anyone but a car isn't a phone.

Cars updates are relatively new, the hardware in your car was designed and spec'd out 3-5 years ago. That's 3-5 years from the START OF PROGRAM. So this means the C7 Hardware was spec'd out in 2009-2012 (depending on the hardware). I know that the Steering System was frozen in July of 2010 (this is when ZFLS/Bosch was sourced). That's one of the earliest.

The HMI interface is shared between cars and is a "core" (meaning it is cross-carline), therefore when a new carline is created they will make an update to the module (if requirements have changed). This is how Corvette has gotten new hardware for 2016. Further that hardware was STILL developed in 2011-2013 (based on the hardware in this specific instance I'd say it was 2013).

Finally, before Sync from Ford it wasn't possible to update any car SW. Ford was a little ahead on this, and even they have limitations. Tesla is maybe the first company to do this. But Tesla has a dirty little secret, they have a full PC running in your car, it basically runs what your dealer does and gets updates and installs them just like that. Tesla can do this for two reasons:

1. Their cars are electric and therefore plugged in and have UNLIMITED POWER.
2. Again, their cars are electric, and therefore have to be plugged in at some point, because of this they have SCHEDULED DOWNTIME.

If you want to plug in your gas car, and have scheduled downtime, anyone could offer you instant updates today just by putting a PC in the car. Oh wait, you don't want to pay for that or be restricted in that way. That's right, so now we need to develop another way to do this flashing. That takes time, and OEMs are working on it.

LT1 Z51

GM codes almost nothing in your car. They TUNE a lot of things.

GM writes requirements which may or may not be good. GM codes the PCM, TCM, and ECM (so Powertrain, Transmission, and Engine control modules). GM also writes specific SW for certain modules (they write the SW for the CCM for example, and the Base Braking SW for the ABS, but NOT the advanced functions).

Your steering gear SW is written by Bosch Automotive Steering, by guys in Germany. There is some local work done in Plymouth, MI by the office there but honestly GM has NO input to the SW other than to MEET THIER REQUIREMENTS.

Which to be honest, only really talk about diagnostics (what codes and what they mean) and "distributed features" which are things like Lane Keeping (which Corvette doesn't have for example) but in this case the camera to steering interface is defined by GM as are the performance requirements.

So your comment is basically misguided. You should be upset that GM has poor requirements. That's it. Bad requirements become bad implementation. Core steering SW however for example is straight from Bosch, no GM input they take it as is. Some other OEMs do not, they have "stricter" requirements.

Kent1999

Right. I didn't have your inside knowledge of how each segment of software for the C7 is acquired, so given that it comes with GM's stamp of approval, I blamed GM, and rightly so. And yes, I know that even the infotainment system is also contracted out, likely to the lowest bidder. All that doesn't change anything -- The final responsibility still lies with GM, whether it be coding or spec'ing, and the record is not confidence-inspiring for future vehicles to be even MORE software-dependent.

I'm more than happy to change my statement to "Given their lackluster performance so far, I have no faith in GM's team/project managers to be able to spec a rock-solid carOS."

Foosh

We've been talking about this extensively in the DSC Sport MSRC Controller threads where everyone who has installed one is amazed at how much better the MSRC performs. The question often arises how can the DSC Sport Controller be such a significant upgrade over the OEM controller?

The answer is exactly as you described above. The OEM controller wasn't even programmed by GM, but by the OEM controller vendor, and is an archaic program that only uses a small percentage of the available sensor data already in the car to allow the MSRC dampers to perform at their full potential.

What pro race car driver and chassis engineer Mike Levitas has done at TPC Racing/DSC is to extensively code his controller to take full advantage of the MSRC dampers using data that the OEM controller is not programmed to utilize. According to Mike, he couldn't believe how primitive the OEM code was.

Also unlike the OEM controller, the DSC device can be easily reprogrammed by any owner based upon personal preference.

defaria

It doesn't matter to me one iota who did what. I bought the car from GM. If I start to drive is home and the tranny falls out I'll be going to GM to get it fixed, not by whoever did the tranny (tranny may be a bad example as I think GM themselves do that but you get the point).

Foosh

I think this is both a good and bad news story.

The good news is that there is a tremendous amount of potential in this vehicle, with a bullet-proof drivetrain, platform, and virtually all other components. The bad news is that a lot of potential is left on the table because not all systems have been "tuned" in some cases even close to their max potential.

The MSRC example I spoke of above illustrates this.

LT1 Z51

At the end of the day GM IS responsible for the end product. However we as customers need to get smarter about the products we buy. The dealers are clearly not getting smarter (as a group, there are exceptions).

However just as a person understands that Dell or HP don't make all the components in their PC (or the software that runs on them), they need to understand their car is an even MORE complex system.

In fact one can argue that the automobile is the MOST complex system a person will actually purchase (Jet airplanes and large ships are more advanced but average people don't buy those).

People need to be upset that GM doesn't have better requirements as a company, or that their requirements can vary from program to program. But they can't get mad over the individual "bugs" in the software at GM. Bugs (and I mean actual errors not bad HMI decisions) are the responsibility of the suppliers who write them.

Basically if Intel makes a shitty chip that goes in your HP branded PC you don't swear off HP for putting in that chip. Similar logic needs to start applying to cars. GM especially likes to brag about which suppliers they use (and most suppliers stamp their name on their parts). Compare this to Ford who RARELY tells you who makes what part, and in fact expressly prohibits suppliers from putting their name on their products (there are of course exceptions, mostly in infotainment).

Anywho, that's a tangential topic. I guess my statement in this thread is people need to be smarter about how the things work that they own. Especially the more complex they are..... I don't think it's important to know who makes the controller logic board in your toaster (unless toast is a life or death thing to you)!