Merry Christmas! OBDII Android/iOS freeware recommendations

[nospam]

In article <q037nr$6ru$1@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<arlen@arlen.com> wrote:

because he doesn't have the resources and/or skills to develop and
support two apps on two different platforms. or, he's simply not
interested.

Or it can't be done on iOS the way he wants it done (e.g., Bluetooth SPP),
or he doesn't want to put up with Apple's bullshit, or ... whatever
conjecture you want to devise.

bluetooth le is not 'apple's bullshit'.

bluetooth le, aka bluetooth 4, replaces bluetooth classic (v3 and
earlier) for almost everything. spp is *obsolete*.

it's *easier* to write apps using btle (i've done it; you have not, nor
has sms) and it does a *lot* more than spp could ever possibly do.

 

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 16:47:14 -0500, nospam wrote:

it's *easier* to write apps using btle (i've done it; you have not, nor
has sms) and it does a *lot* more than spp could ever possibly do.

*The only people who believe _anything_ you say, nospam, are Apologists.*

FACTS

The fact is that the OBD functionality sms speaks of, is, based on what is
said in this thread by reliable people (i.e., not you, nospam), does not
exist on iOS.

This apparent lack of OBD functionality seems that it might be very similar
to the known lack of TOR functionality on iOS, where, in the case of TOR,
there are no sanctioned apps by the Guardian Project, but only "suggested"
third-best alternatives (where the Guardian Project explains that iOS simply
utterly lacks in the necessary API functionality).
<https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en>
<https://guardianproject.info/apps/orweb/>

Those two cases may be different from the myriad other cases of utter lack
of functionality on iOS (e.g., there is no ability to graph wifi signal
strength over time, no torrenting, no automatic call recording, no app
launchers, no second source for apps, etc.).

Why does iOS _always_ prove to lack basic app functionality?
I don't know why.
It just always does.

I'm not saying I know all the reasons that iOS lacks app functionality.

I am just saying that there are so very many cases where iOS lacks app
functionality that Android has had for years, that your assertions always
ring hollow that apps on iOS can even *approach* that which they do on
Android.

In this situation, sms is more trustworthy - as you are not.
(Your record on trust is worse than that of a liar & politician & salesman.)

Why you _always_ lie, nospam, is beyond me - since you gain nothing.
It's a habit you need to kick - since you have zero credibility.

*The only people who believe _anything_ you say, nospam, are Apologists.*

 

[nospam]

In article <q03s8p$ebv$1@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<arlen@holder.com> wrote:

The fact is that the OBD functionality sms speaks of, is, based on what is
said in this thread by reliable people (i.e., not you, nospam), does not
exist on iOS.

that's not a fact at all. it's pure rubbish.

the obd functionality is entirely within the obd device that plugs into
the vehicle's obd port.

that device reads assorted info from the vehicle and sends it via
bluetooth to an ios or android device. there are also models that use
wifi or usb, usually to be used with a laptop, as most windows laptops
do not have bluetooth built in (macs do).

there is *no* limitation on what can be done with that data, other than
the skill of the app developer writing the app and how much effort they
wish to expend in doing so.

i've written *several* apps that use obd and bluetooth. you have not,
nor has sms.

 

[rbowman]

On 12/27/2018 10:10 AM, sms wrote:

LOL, you often see inquiries for an iOS app with all the functionality
of Torque Pro. Unfortunately there's no such animal. I don't know why
the author doesn't port it to iOS with the appropriate caveats regarding
which OBD-II dongles will work with the iOS version (you can use Wi-Fi
dongles or BLE dongles, which are six times as expensive, but still not
outrageously priced).

Mostly because iOS is a pain in the ass. We develop apps for Android and
may do iOS someday using Xamarin, but it isn't a high priority.

 

[nospam]

In article <g8lmd8F8o87U1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman
<bowman@montana.com> wrote:

Mostly because iOS is a pain in the ass. We develop apps for Android and
may do iOS someday using Xamarin, but it isn't a high priority.

if you don't develop for ios, you're not in a position to comment about
ios being a 'pain in the ass', and if you're using xamarin for app
development, you're even less in a position to comment.

i've done native app development for both ios and android, and ios is
*much* easier.

 

[sms]

On 12/27/2018 8:18 PM, rbowman wrote:

On 12/27/2018 10:10 AM, sms wrote:
LOL, you often see inquiries for an iOS app with all the functionality
of Torque Pro. Unfortunately there's no such animal. I don't know why
the author doesn't port it to iOS with the appropriate caveats regarding
which OBD-II dongles will work with the iOS version (you can use Wi-Fi
dongles or BLE dongles, which are six times as expensive, but still not
outrageously priced).

Mostly because iOS is a pain in the ass. We develop apps for Android and
may do iOS someday using Xamarin, but it isn't a high priority.

Understood, but for a paid app, that is extremely popular, with
>1,000,00 installs and >55,000 reviews, you'd think that the pain might
be worth it for the author. Especially because you often see people
asking "is there an equivalent app to Torque Pro for the iPhone?" Even
prior to BLE, there were Wi-Fi OBD-II dongles being used with OBD-II iOS
apps (which were a pain because you could only have one Wi-Fi connection
at a time from a phone, but still usable for diagnostics, just not
continuous monitoring). Developing for BLE is more difficult than using
Bluetooth SPP, but not magnitudes more difficult.

 

[nospam]

In article <q056c2$rsc$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

Understood, but for a paid app, that is extremely popular, with
1,000,00 installs and >55,000 reviews, you'd think that the pain might
be worth it for the author.

nope. if it's only one person, his hands are full with that one app.

developing for and supporting two different platforms is a lot more
work than just one and it's hard to do both well.

Especially because you often see people
asking "is there an equivalent app to Torque Pro for the iPhone?"

nope, but for those that do ask, the answer is overwhelmingly 'yes'.

Even
prior to BLE, there were Wi-Fi OBD-II dongles being used with OBD-II iOS
apps (which were a pain because you could only have one Wi-Fi connection
at a time from a phone, but still usable for diagnostics, just not
continuous monitoring).

false. it works quite well for continuous monitoring, but the main
intent of a wifi dongle was for laptop use.

Developing for BLE is more difficult than using
Bluetooth SPP, but not magnitudes more difficult.

nonsense. developing for bluetooth le is *significantly* easier for a
number reasons. i've done both. you have not.

stop making up shit.

 

[rbowman]

On 12/27/2018 09:27 PM, nospam wrote:

In article <g8lmd8F8o87U1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman
bowman@montana.com> wrote:


Mostly because iOS is a pain in the ass. We develop apps for Android and
may do iOS someday using Xamarin, but it isn't a high priority.

if you don't develop for ios, you're not in a position to comment about
ios being a 'pain in the ass', and if you're using xamarin for app
development, you're even less in a position to comment.

i've done native app development for both ios and android, and ios is
*much* easier.

Yeah, you've made it abundantly clear that you're an Apple fanboi.
Personally, I've had one Apple product in my life -- a Shuffle someone
gave me. It isn't bad but itunes sucks.

I'm a hired gun so I would have worked on Apple stuff if anyone ever
wanted to pay me to do so, but they never did.

 

[rbowman]

On 12/28/2018 05:53 AM, sms wrote:

On 12/27/2018 8:18 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 12/27/2018 10:10 AM, sms wrote:
LOL, you often see inquiries for an iOS app with all the functionality
of Torque Pro. Unfortunately there's no such animal. I don't know why
the author doesn't port it to iOS with the appropriate caveats regarding
which OBD-II dongles will work with the iOS version (you can use Wi-Fi
dongles or BLE dongles, which are six times as expensive, but still not
outrageously priced).

Mostly because iOS is a pain in the ass. We develop apps for Android
and may do iOS someday using Xamarin, but it isn't a high priority.

Understood, but for a paid app, that is extremely popular, with
1,000,00 installs and >55,000 reviews, you'd think that the pain might
be worth it for the author. Especially because you often see people
asking "is there an equivalent app to Torque Pro for the iPhone?"

Maybe, if a million iPhone users were asking for it... Buying the Apple
hardware to develop on, learning the new toolchain, and dealing with the
Apple store puts a little bump in the road. For Android you download
Android Studio to your Windows box, pick up a cheap Android device, and
you're good to go. I just bought a 7" B&N Nook for $50. It's no
powerhouse but it's acceptable. Apple might be trimming prices a bit but
they're not there yet.

 

[nospam]

In article <g8msjgFgl59U1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman
<bowman@montana.com> wrote:

Mostly because iOS is a pain in the ass. We develop apps for Android and
may do iOS someday using Xamarin, but it isn't a high priority.

if you don't develop for ios, you're not in a position to comment about
ios being a 'pain in the ass', and if you're using xamarin for app
development, you're even less in a position to comment.

i've done native app development for both ios and android, and ios is
*much* easier.

Yeah, you've made it abundantly clear that you're an Apple fanboi.

ad hominem.

two can play that game: you've made it abundantly clear that you're an
apple hater fueled by myths.

Personally, I've had one Apple product in my life -- a Shuffle someone
gave me. It isn't bad but itunes sucks.

then you're even less in a position to comment.

I'm a hired gun so I would have worked on Apple stuff if anyone ever
wanted to pay me to do so, but they never did.

you're asking the wrong people. there's a *huge* demand for apple
development and it pays *quite* well.

 

[nospam]

In article <g8mtapFgptgU1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman
<bowman@montana.com> wrote:

Maybe, if a million iPhone users were asking for it... Buying the Apple
hardware to develop on, learning the new toolchain, and dealing with the
Apple store puts a little bump in the road.

not at all. write a decent app and you'll recover any costs many times
over. there's nothing to deal with the app store either. when the app
is done, submit it.

For Android you download
Android Studio to your Windows box, pick up a cheap Android device, and
you're good to go.

same for ios.

xcode is free and pick up a cheap iphone for testing. done. and if
you're *that* cheap (and not interested in quality of work), use the
simulator and let your beta testers test on actual hardware.

I just bought a 7" B&N Nook for $50. It's no
powerhouse but it's acceptable. Apple might be trimming prices a bit but
they're not there yet.

a b&n nook is in no way comparable to an iphone or ipad.

 

[rbowman]

On 12/28/2018 08:42 AM, nospam wrote:

you're asking the wrong people. there's a *huge* demand for apple
development and it pays *quite* well.

I'm sure it does if you're in the right field, but the world I live in
doesn't do Apple. If we do something for iPhones it is only as
peripherals. There may be emergency dispatch centers that run on os x
but I don't know of any. Generally the RFQ's spec Windows Server, SQL
Server, ESRI, and so forth. Even ESRI is a killer; ArcDesktop can run on
a Mac -- sort of. Fire up Boot Camp or VMWare and run Windows.

I did work on one project that used Macs although I was not involved in
that part. The early Mac that was a cube was the only thing that could
meet TEMPEST requirements.

I'm sure you will reel of all sorts of counter examples but I've always
associated Apple with consumer oriented devices and software and that's
not been my meal ticket.

 

[rbowman]

On 12/28/2018 08:42 AM, nospam wrote:

not at all. write a decent app and you'll recover any costs many times
over. there's nothing to deal with the app store either. when the app
is done, submit it.

Therein lies the rub in our business model. We're doing proprietary
applications for a very limited audience and the app store is not the
way to go.

xcode is free and pick up a cheap iphone for testing. done. and if
you're *that* cheap (and not interested in quality of work), use the
simulator and let your beta testers test on actual hardware.

Ah, yes, the simulator... Snore...

I just bought a 7" B&N Nook for $50. It's no
powerhouse but it's acceptable. Apple might be trimming prices a bit but
they're not there yet.
a b&n nook is in no way comparable to an iphone or ipad.

I never said it was. However it is an Android device that I can side
load an apk on.

 

[nospam]

In article <g8o45vForqhU1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman
<bowman@montana.com> wrote:

not at all. write a decent app and you'll recover any costs many times
over. there's nothing to deal with the app store either. when the app
is done, submit it.

Therein lies the rub in our business model. We're doing proprietary
applications for a very limited audience and the app store is not the
way to go.

you didn't mention proprietary apps, however, there are alternative
methods for app deployment that do *not* involve the app store at all
for exactly that scenario. the app store is not the only option.

xcode is free and pick up a cheap iphone for testing. done. and if
you're *that* cheap (and not interested in quality of work), use the
simulator and let your beta testers test on actual hardware.

Ah, yes, the simulator... Snore...

you've never used it, so you're not in a position to comment.

it was simply a suggestion for those who *really* want to cheap out.

I just bought a 7" B&N Nook for $50. It's no
powerhouse but it's acceptable. Apple might be trimming prices a bit but
they're not there yet.
a b&n nook is in no way comparable to an iphone or ipad.

I never said it was.

yet you compared its price to an iphone or ipad.

the reason it's $50 is because its specs are lower.

However it is an Android device that I can side
load an apk on.

that would depend on what the apk does. if it needs functionality not
found in a $50 device, you're going to have problems.

 

[nospam]

In article <g8o3ouFopeqU1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman
<bowman@montana.com> wrote:

I did work on one project that used Macs although I was not involved in
that part. The early Mac that was a cube was the only thing that could
meet TEMPEST requirements.

the cube was a *long* time ago.

I'm sure you will reel of all sorts of counter examples but I've always
associated Apple with consumer oriented devices and software and that's
not been my meal ticket.

there's nothing wrong with focusing on consumer products. it's a *huge*
and *very* lucrative market, although apple is not solely consumer
focused.

 

[rbowman]

On 12/28/2018 08:43 PM, nospam wrote:

In article <g8o3ouFopeqU1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman
bowman@montana.com> wrote:


I did work on one project that used Macs although I was not involved in
that part. The early Mac that was a cube was the only thing that could
meet TEMPEST requirements.

the cube was a *long* time ago.

Yes, it was. 1985, iirc. My end of the project involved the TI TMS9900
microprocessor. It had little going for it other than being one of the
few radiation hardened devices at the time. The Macs were used for
documentation and as I said were selected because they meant TEMPEST
specifications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_%28codename%29

The Russkies were squatting out in the bushes, dontcha know. It's always
the Russians. I doubt if they bothered to skulk around our bushes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985:_The_Year_of_the_Spy

there's nothing wrong with focusing on consumer products. it's a *huge*
and *very* lucrative market, although apple is not solely consumer
focused.

Certainly there's nothing wrong with consumer products. I've never
worked in that sector, and hence have never been involved with Apple
products. iPhones and iPads have started making some inroads as
information delivery devices in my world. However the focus has been
more on ruggedized devices, be they laptops or tablets.

https://www.fieldtechnologiesonline.com/doc/the-ipad-vs-the-rugged-tablet-whats-what-0001

That is not a market Apple addresses and being a walled garden no third
party can do so. End of the World Industries can make an Android tablet
that will survive, but it better not start with 'i'.

That said, personal devices are penetrating the workspace and if some
cop prefers to use an iPhone we've got to deal with it. Sometime. It
won't be me personally.

 

[nospam]

In article <g8q2c0F78d6U1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman
<bowman@montana.com> wrote:

I did work on one project that used Macs although I was not involved in
that part. The early Mac that was a cube was the only thing that could
meet TEMPEST requirements.

the cube was a *long* time ago.

Yes, it was. 1985, iirc.

no it wasn't.

the cube was 2000-2001:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4_Cube>

it was a tip of the hat to steve jobs' original next cube, which was
announced in 1989 and shipped in 1990:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTcube>

in 1985, only the mac 128k and 512k existed, with the 512k/e in late
1985. the mac plus was released in january, 1986.

My end of the project involved the TI TMS9900
microprocessor. It had little going for it other than being one of the
few radiation hardened devices at the time. The Macs were used for
documentation and as I said were selected because they meant TEMPEST
specifications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_%28codename%29

The Russkies were squatting out in the bushes, dontcha know. It's always
the Russians. I doubt if they bothered to skulk around our bushes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985:_The_Year_of_the_Spy

there's nothing wrong with focusing on consumer products. it's a *huge*
and *very* lucrative market, although apple is not solely consumer
focused.

Certainly there's nothing wrong with consumer products. I've never
worked in that sector, and hence have never been involved with Apple
products.

apple does more than just consumer, although that is definitely where
they're strongest.

iPhones and iPads have started making some inroads as
information delivery devices in my world. However the focus has been
more on ruggedized devices, be they laptops or tablets.

there's more to an iphone and ipad than information delivery.

https://www.fieldtechnologiesonline.com/doc/the-ipad-vs-the-rugged-tablet-what
s-what-0001

That is not a market Apple addresses and being a walled garden no third
party can do so. End of the World Industries can make an Android tablet
that will survive, but it better not start with 'i'.

nonsense.

there are numerous ruggedized cases for iphones and ipads, with
otterbox being the most well known. they're bulky, but they do
withstand a *lot* of abuse. there is also no walled garden, a myth that
will never die.

here's one with a keyboard:
<https://www.zagg.com/eu/en_eu/keyboards/rugged-book-keyboard-case>

here's a screen protector that withstands hammering:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsxl1bRTldo>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtMn79-hr9E>

and there's even a bulletproof case:
<http://www.marudai-corp.com/iphone-case/e-info-product.html>

That said, personal devices are penetrating the workspace and if some
cop prefers to use an iPhone we've got to deal with it. Sometime. It
won't be me personally.

your loss.

 

[rbowman]

On 12/29/2018 03:06 PM, nospam wrote:

In article <g8q2c0F78d6U1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman
bowman@montana.com> wrote:


I did work on one project that used Macs although I was not involved in
that part. The early Mac that was a cube was the only thing that could
meet TEMPEST requirements.

the cube was a *long* time ago.

Yes, it was. 1985, iirc.

no it wasn't.

the cube was 2000-2001:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4_Cube

Excuse me. Not being an Apple user I'm not familiar with the pet terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K

To my eyes it looked like a cube.

in 1985, only the mac 128k and 512k existed, with the 512k/e in late
1985. the mac plus was released in january, 1986.

Precisely. The rather cubical looking Mac...

> there's more to an iphone and ipad than information delivery.

Yes there is. However all we are concerned with is delivering updated
incident or dispatch information to emergency responders. If they want
to play Angry Birds in their spare time, good for them.

https://www.fieldtechnologiesonline.com/doc/the-ipad-vs-the-rugged-tablet-what
s-what-0001

there are numerous ruggedized cases for iphones and ipads, with
otterbox being the most well known. they're bulky, but they do
withstand a *lot* of abuse. there is also no walled garden, a myth that
will never die.

Obviously you didn't read the link. An iPad in an otterbox is NOT a
ruggedized tablet.

https://gizmodo.com/should-the-supreme-court-knock-the-first-brick-out-of-a-1830569176

You're right. The walled garden is the myth that will never die. The
strategy has worked well for Apple so don't try to deny it.

> your loss.

Not in the least.

 

[nospam]

In article <g8qc7aF9aqpU1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman
<bowman@montana.com> wrote:

I did work on one project that used Macs although I was not involved in
that part. The early Mac that was a cube was the only thing that could
meet TEMPEST requirements.

the cube was a *long* time ago.

Yes, it was. 1985, iirc.

no it wasn't.

the cube was 2000-2001:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4_Cube

Excuse me. Not being an Apple user I'm not familiar with the pet terms.

it's not a pet term. it was called a cube because it was actually a
cube.

it did have an acrylic casing to raise it off the table for cable
management, however.

it was also designed to *easily* be opened without any tools. flip it
over, push in the handle to pop it out, then lift, giving full access
to the internals, the very opposite of a 'walled garden'.

<https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/Pw6YRIHwmiDYUWTX.large>
<https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/2STkBEy42mB2okjN.large>
<https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/AuJkNVuB3RH4NjKl.large>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K

To my eyes it looked like a cube.

then your eyes need to be checked, along with a refresher on geometry.

in 1985, only the mac 128k and 512k existed, with the 512k/e in late
1985. the mac plus was released in january, 1986.

Precisely. The rather cubical looking Mac...

it did not look like a cube:
<http://photos2.insidercdn.com/1125-128kmac-2.jpg>

there's more to an iphone and ipad than information delivery.

Yes there is. However all we are concerned with is delivering updated
incident or dispatch information to emergency responders. If they want
to play Angry Birds in their spare time, good for them.

angry birds is passe. even pokemon go is mostly passe. fortnite is
where it's at now.

https://www.fieldtechnologiesonline.com/doc/the-ipad-vs-the-rugged-tablet-w
hats-what-0001

there are numerous ruggedized cases for iphones and ipads, with
otterbox being the most well known. they're bulky, but they do
withstand a *lot* of abuse. there is also no walled garden, a myth that
will never die.

Obviously you didn't read the link.

i did and it's bullshit.

rugged means able to withstand extreme conditions and abuse.

rugged does *not* mean encryption, tco and compatibility, what the
article discusses.

all ios devices are fully encrypted, can be remote wiped if necessary
and centrally managed for large (or not so large) deployment, so that
is not an issue.

the article speculates that an ipad would overall cost more despite
having a lower initial cost due to frequent failures, however, they
offer with zero evidence to support that. it also incorrectly assumes
that by the time an app is released, a newer incompatible ipad would be
released, which is also wrong.

the article was surprised that american airlines would choose ipads for
the cockpit, something other airlines have also done since the article
was written, due to their reliability and lower cost versus managing
the paper it replaces. that alone contradicts the article's claims.

it's also a 6 year old article which is even more incorrect now than it
was when written.

An iPad in an otterbox is NOT a
ruggedized tablet.

yes it is. rugged means it's able to withstand extremes and abuse,
which is already pretty good but with an otterbox even more so.

it does not mean encryption, tco or app compatibility.

https://gizmodo.com/should-the-supreme-court-knock-the-first-brick-out-of-a-18
30569176

You're right. The walled garden is the myth that will never die. The
strategy has worked well for Apple so don't try to deny it.

that's not a walled garden, especially since the app store not the only
way to install apps.

nothing prevents anyone from writing their own custom ios apps for
whatever purpose or hiring someone to do so if they lack the skills.

there is no requirement to use the app store (which i explained in
another post). there are a *lot* of custom corporate apps on ios that
never see the app store.

and let's not forget windows 10s, which *only* runs apps from the
microsoft app store, making *it* the walled garden, not apple.

game consoles also have very limited options for titles, also walled.

having an app store with vetted apps is not inherently bad. it greatly
reduces the amount of malware and other crap that people install,
rending a system unstable and/or not secure.

the malware vectors where one can pwn a windows system do not exist on
ios.

nothing is perfect and something could potentially slip through the
cracks, but if it does, it's quickly removed from the store. in extreme
cases, it can be uninstalled, something google has had to do on several
occasions, while apple has not.

in other words, ios software is 'rugged'.

 

[sms]

On 12/28/2018 7:22 AM, rbowman wrote:

Maybe, if a million iPhone users were asking for it...  Buying the Apple
hardware to develop on, learning the new toolchain, and dealing with the
Apple store puts a little bump in the road. For Android you download
Android Studio to your Windows box, pick up a cheap Android device, and
you're good to go. I just bought a 7" B&N Nook for $50. It's no
powerhouse but it's acceptable. Apple might be trimming prices a bit but
they're not there yet.

True, it's much more efficient to develop specialized, non-consumer
apps, on Android, as well as being easier to deploy them. Apple is
solely consumer-electronics focused, with little interest in supporting
niche markets.

There are other advantages to developing for Android as well, including
much more complete support for industry standards like Bluetooth and
NMEA. I don't think that the cost of buying a Mac, when developing an
iOS app, is really an issue. You can just buy a used Mac Mini for a
couple of hundred dollars. But deploying an iOS app to a niche market is
more of an issue.