3 ms·

>Unless vehicles start to be kind of standard, like most Chinese EVs... That is complete nonsense. In the Chinese market companies differentiate themselves by

>Unless vehicles start to be kind of standard, like most Chinese EVs... That is complete nonsense. In the Chinese market companies differentiate themselves by software. I think you don't know what software in cars even is, so you are completely missing the point. These common bases have been proposed, BMW at some point wanted German OEMs to cooperate on that, but they will never operate as open source projects, because they require hundreds of thousands in hardware to develop for. It is a massive project, which requires significant capital, OEMs can cooperate (which has a 99% chance of ending in total disaster), but every incentive they have goes against sharing.

kkfx 2y ago
Then it's the time for a public funded and steered project. There is more indeed https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/january/stellantis-blackberry-qnx-and-aws-launch-virtual-cockpit-transforming-in-vehicle-software-engineering https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/janua... or https://arstechnica.com/?p=2019282 https://arstechnica.com/?p=2019282 to show some I've read about relatively recently but being private initiative they are constrained by money and competition a public Xerox PARC alike project would have no such constrains. About Chinese EVs yes, they show different software, but that's at the infotainment level, car core systems are essentially interchangeable and so are many parts, you can find the same on a SAIC, BYD, CATL, BAIC, Xpeng, Geely, Voyah, Chery, Changan and so on. > I think you don't know what software in cars even is Not in details, but I see the same pattern, a "core" part, with some buses and standards, mostly canbus and ODB, to communicate between core elements and in infotainment part in a tablet, hooked to the core for simple communications. Since all functions are pretty the same for every car because you can let's say design gazillion of breaking techniques, differentiating the break force/pulse per wheel, with various sensors to choose how and so on, the devices you actuate and the sensors you use are essentially the same the same. Of course at a very low level you are tied to the specific iron, like inside a CPU, but just above there is so little difference that you can have a common software stack. Failing to have one is a way to keep costs high while China get ground even if they are terrible at software.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >Then it's the time for a public funded and steered project. Which means there is a 0% chance of a usable product. No manufacturer will ever use it and it will be all around terrible. If VW is bad at software, the German government is at a totally new level. Btw. I have seen entry level software developer jobs for the German government starting at 35k. >car core systems are essentially interchangeable and so are many parts, you can find the same on a SAIC, BYD, CATL, BAIC, Xpeng, Geely, Voyah, Chery, Changan and so on. Wtf are you talking about. No, that is not true at all. >Since all functions are pretty the same for every car because you can let's say design gazillion of breaking techniques, differentiating the break force/pulse per wheel, with various sensors to choose how and so on, the devices you actuate and the sensors you use are essentially the same the same. You know that cars are different, right? Different systems, different behaviors, different sensors. > just above there is so little difference that you can have a common software stack. What are you on about?? No that isn't true at all. >Failing to have one is a way to keep costs high while China get ground even if they are terrible at software. How can the same software run on two cars which have totally different behaviors and components. Do you think you can run the same software on a rear wheel drive ICE with active suspension as on a all wheel EV with torque vectoring? This is delusional, you don't understand cars at all.
  - kkfx 2y ago
    > Which means there is a 0% chance of a usable product. No manufacturer will ever use it and it will be all around terrible. Xerox PARC products actually have had no formal commercial success, but the entire modern IT was born on them. To be more precise 80-90% of anything we have in any sector is born out of public research... Yes, the public does not produce nor sell products, that's a private sector thing, the public do research. > If VW is bad at software, the German government is at a totally new level. The public is not the government. German government have much more resources than VW and have all German public universities and research centers, who actually are much more skillful than VW, in essentially any fields. > Wtf are you talking about. No, that is not true at all. That's what I see from various Chinese EVs, well, three manufacturer at least, but that's is. > You know that cars are different, right? [...] Do you think you can run the same software on a rear wheel drive ICE with active suspension as on a all wheel EV with torque vectoring? Yes. As we have GNU/Linux on embedded systems, servers and desktop, the codebase is one, the compiled/configured final binary of course differ. Consider a thing: today it's cheaper putting an ESP32 in a roller shutter remote control than create from scratch a far simpler one. As I said specific devices have to be tied to the iron, but they can be managed with a common system and many functionalities can be put in the common system. Something actually happening with ADAS typically handled by the infotainment system simply because they need much more computational horsepower than classic ABS, SRS and so on. Stellantis actually try to do that concentrating in a SoC running QNX most of the car functionalities.

kkfx 2y ago

Then it's the time for a public funded and steered project. There is more indeed https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/january/stellantis-blackberry-qnx-and-aws-launch-virtual-cockpit-transforming-in-vehicle-software-engineering https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/janua... or https://arstechnica.com/?p=2019282 https://arstechnica.com/?p=2019282 to show some I've read about relatively recently but being private initiative they are constrained by money and competition a public Xerox PARC alike project would have no such constrains. About Chinese EVs yes, they show different software, but that's at the infotainment level, car core systems are essentially interchangeable and so are many parts, you can find the same on a SAIC, BYD, CATL, BAIC, Xpeng, Geely, Voyah, Chery, Changan and so on. > I think you don't know what software in cars even is Not in details, but I see the same pattern, a "core" part, with some buses and standards, mostly canbus and ODB, to communicate between core elements and in infotainment part in a tablet, hooked to the core for simple communications. Since all functions are pretty the same for every car because you can let's say design gazillion of breaking techniques, differentiating the break force/pulse per wheel, with various sensors to choose how and so on, the devices you actuate and the sensors you use are essentially the same the same. Of course at a very low level you are tied to the specific iron, like inside a CPU, but just above there is so little difference that you can have a common software stack. Failing to have one is a way to keep costs high while China get ground even if they are terrible at software.

constantcrying 2y ago
>Then it's the time for a public funded and steered project. Which means there is a 0% chance of a usable product. No manufacturer will ever use it and it will be all around terrible. If VW is bad at software, the German government is at a totally new level. Btw. I have seen entry level software developer jobs for the German government starting at 35k. >car core systems are essentially interchangeable and so are many parts, you can find the same on a SAIC, BYD, CATL, BAIC, Xpeng, Geely, Voyah, Chery, Changan and so on. Wtf are you talking about. No, that is not true at all. >Since all functions are pretty the same for every car because you can let's say design gazillion of breaking techniques, differentiating the break force/pulse per wheel, with various sensors to choose how and so on, the devices you actuate and the sensors you use are essentially the same the same. You know that cars are different, right? Different systems, different behaviors, different sensors. > just above there is so little difference that you can have a common software stack. What are you on about?? No that isn't true at all. >Failing to have one is a way to keep costs high while China get ground even if they are terrible at software. How can the same software run on two cars which have totally different behaviors and components. Do you think you can run the same software on a rear wheel drive ICE with active suspension as on a all wheel EV with torque vectoring? This is delusional, you don't understand cars at all.
- kkfx 2y ago
  > Which means there is a 0% chance of a usable product. No manufacturer will ever use it and it will be all around terrible. Xerox PARC products actually have had no formal commercial success, but the entire modern IT was born on them. To be more precise 80-90% of anything we have in any sector is born out of public research... Yes, the public does not produce nor sell products, that's a private sector thing, the public do research. > If VW is bad at software, the German government is at a totally new level. The public is not the government. German government have much more resources than VW and have all German public universities and research centers, who actually are much more skillful than VW, in essentially any fields. > Wtf are you talking about. No, that is not true at all. That's what I see from various Chinese EVs, well, three manufacturer at least, but that's is. > You know that cars are different, right? [...] Do you think you can run the same software on a rear wheel drive ICE with active suspension as on a all wheel EV with torque vectoring? Yes. As we have GNU/Linux on embedded systems, servers and desktop, the codebase is one, the compiled/configured final binary of course differ. Consider a thing: today it's cheaper putting an ESP32 in a roller shutter remote control than create from scratch a far simpler one. As I said specific devices have to be tied to the iron, but they can be managed with a common system and many functionalities can be put in the common system. Something actually happening with ADAS typically handled by the infotainment system simply because they need much more computational horsepower than classic ABS, SRS and so on. Stellantis actually try to do that concentrating in a SoC running QNX most of the car functionalities.