Search results

I'll agree with unlikely, but not impossible. If they wanted to Porsche could setup the AAOS system so it acts as if it was PIWIS, and then once AAOS is updated, it could then in turn update each of the components. It could also be setup to use the built-in LTE connection to to authorize and...

I'd really push them about that. It's obviously a defect and not misuse / damage, and therefore should be covered by warranty.

My 2022 BMW iX had remote parking and parking path memory added a year after release. Those features weren't on the sticker and didn't exist for the iX at release, but instead were added OTA as a purchasable option when they made them a build time option for the 2023.

Even with "up to", it still has to be technically possible to achieve, even if it hardly ever happens in practice.

No, that is what it does, but in that case they could say "You configured the car to do it, so it's your fault it lowered on top of something and broke the car"

From Porsche's perspective, I could see them not wanting it to automatically lower when stationary at all. If it were to do so, even 1000:1, there would be a decent claim that the damage was the fault of the car, and a liability for them. If the user has to manually lower it, they can come...

If there is a reason to not have the feature, I suspect it is because if you went to a new place and parked over something, lowering the car could bring the battery down on a large rock and cause damage

Before I got the Macan I rented a EV6 GT. It had ~1400 miles on it. The acceleration was good, and the cornering wasn't bad, but the suspension was absolute shit and the noise level in the cabin was completely unacceptable. Then throw in cheap feeling materials, lack of ventilated seats as an...

I wish Porsche allowed creating a second account that you could set restrictions on (such as only read TPMS and state of charge, no reading of position / speed, and no ability to control anything). That why I could set this up and not worry that if someone hacked my HA instance they could...

Very nice faq. Minor nit, but CHAdeMO doesn't use J-1772 for signaling (direct CAN bus communication? Seems nuts to me) and there are still Leaf's around that use it (and even a few public chargers too, but they are going away).

The nfc card was also useful for valet parking. Most valets understand the concept of the card, you just have to tell them where to put it to let the car start. I'd be shocked if Porsche's implementation isn't identical to BMWs, and it may even include an NFC card as a backup. That would be...

I left mine for 8 weeks without an issue. It was plugged in and at 50% charge (as recommended). Had the keys in a faraday cage away from the car, and didn't check via the app. It was fine when I returned.

To your other points: They dropped the requirement to use hardware based keys with other HomeKit devices several years ago, but getting a device MFi certified so it can be added to HomeKit without warnings to the end user still requires it to sue certified chips for locks. You are correct...

From the first link in the reply I linked: Your app must have the com.apple.developer.carkey.session entitlement to use this framework. To request the entitlement, you must be an automaker enrolled in the MFi Program. For details, see https://developer.apple.com/mfi/.

OK, cool, so you didn't bother clicking through the links in one of my earlier replies, where I specifically linked to Apple's docs which show it requires a specific entitlement to use Apple CarKey on iOS, and getting that entitlement requires being in the MFi program. They may not consider it...

The fact that there are cars on the market using the technology does not mean all potential hardware that would meet the requirements of the CCC also meet the requirements of Apple's MFi program (which is required to put a car key into Apple Wallet, unless you can find a way to bypass the iOS...

if the only goal is to get the fix it ticket closed, you just need to use some 3m Command tape to hold the license plate holder onto the car long enough for them to see it and sign off, then drive away and remove it.

My point is we DO NOT KNOW what Apple requires. You can state there aren't extra requirements (such as specific models of NFC or UWB hardware, or paying Apple a fee per vehicle as part of the MFi program, similar to TouchPass or Home Key), but without access to the agreements to get the...

The CCC standard is published. The MFi agreements and APIs for iOS are not. That is where any extras would come in (which Apple has done in the past with USB, even though they were part of the USB Implementers Forum). Without complying with Apple's requirements you can't get them to issue you...

I understand that, however just because Apple uses a standard doesn't mean they don't tack on extra requirements (ex: they used to have MFi certification requirements for anything to connect via the USB ports on iPhones). Well aware of that, but again, Apple has in the past tacked on extra...