25 ms·

Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

• FrankWilhoit 1y ago
  Embedded-systems programming is not taught, and no one is willing to pay for training. The result is that development is outsourced to entities that claim, falsely, to have the knowledge. Eventually the consequences of the fact that they do not have the knowledge surface in an undeniable manner, and the only way to cover is to make a great show of a fresh start. (This affects all industries, not just automotive, but right now that is where the spotlight shines.)
  • tehjoker 1y ago
    I'm not sure this is exactly the problem. It sounds like turning the car into a platform with changeable parts has caused both organizational and technical problems. To be fair, im still not sold that this is an advancement except maybe in simplifying the number of components. I'd prefer the car to work without "updates" and DLC. Why does my car need a firewall??
    • cosmicgadget 1y ago
      It needs two! One to keep engine fires out of the passenger compartment[1] and one to keep unauthorized users or code out of your infotainment and control systems. [1] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(engine) https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(engine)
      • DonHopkins 1y ago
        All cars and should be equipped with two firewall extinguishers, one for the network and one for the passenger compartment.
    • AlotOfReading 1y ago
      It's not practical to produce a car that never needs updates. That would be a bug-free system, which is impossible. Since they're going to ship updates anyway, a lot of focus is on minimizing the cost and hence OTA. For what it's worth, I work in this industry and the general rule of thumb is that every increase in validation from QM (standard quality) up to the various levels of safety critical code has up to 10x the cost per line of code of the previous level.
      • School-Cotton 1y ago
        > It's not practical to produce a car that never needs updates Exactly that was done for decades.
        • deleted 1y ago
          [deleted]
        • miohtama 1y ago
          But those cars are no longer competitive. There is only a marginal buyer group who wants to drive these "bricks", which would also unlikely pass the requirements set for new cars.
        • bronson 1y ago
          Until 1994, the year of the first software-only recall, maybe. Things have changed. Heck, manufacturers were issuing service bulletins to fix the fuel maps in their cars in the 1980s.
        • AlotOfReading 1y ago
          It was not. Recalls have included software updates (sometimes via component replacement) since ECUs became common in the 1980s. Reverse engineering the binaries and flashing updated parameters is actually how ECU tuning used to be done.
        • deleted 1y ago
          [deleted]
      • tehjoker 1y ago
  • tonetegeatinst 1y ago
    This is all the more frustrating as I'm in the security side if IT, and have been trying to teach myself C and assembly for embedded development and understanding how malware and vulnerability exist in this ecosystem and how I can help address these issues.
    • maldev 1y ago
      You can find router firmware sourcecode online and find pretty egregious vulnerabilities if you're really trying to learn. Alot of embedded stuff is outsourced and doesn't want to waste the computing power for stuff like stack canaries. I recall the following from making a tool for a dlink? router? //Reads a file name foo ReadFilePath() { // Get file name // TICKET 21321: Fixed crash by increasing buffer size char FilePath[100]; ReadFileName(&FilePath); } It sticks out to me, since the crash was clearly from a buffer overflow, and they had this documented in the source code that increasing the buffer size fixes it. What they didn't realize was that the bug would still happen and you could get a buffer overflow from this and do whatever you wanted. This is the level of programmer you're dealing with who's writing embedded software in an overseas sweatshop. And the talent isn't even there domestically since they're severely underpaid compared to someone writing simple javascript.
      • FrankWilhoit 1y ago
        The people who actually can do it are not underpaid. These days they are brought in to do cleanup. They can name their price and pick their assignments.
        • HideousKojima 1y ago
          >The people who actually can do it are not underpaid. The pipelines to create more such people are sorely lacking though
          • jmb99 1y ago
            Only if you’re looking for top dollar when you graduate. Which unfortunately a lot of people are. It makes sense, most people pick this field for the salary and not out of passion (like the vast majority of professions). But if you take a couple C/assembly/systems electives, look for internships at hardware companies, build a couple of toy projects on the side, and graduate with even a modicum of embedded experience, there will be companies that will hire you, pretty much guaranteed. You won’t be making 250k out of the gate, but you should still be making a more-than-livable salary (and frequently in a lower cost of living area than, say, the Bay), and if you pick companies correctly, you can be working with and learning from some truly genius engineers. The pipeline’s there, it’s just not attractive (read: $$$$$$$) enough to pull in most people in the industry.
  • tcmart14 1y ago
    I took an embedded course in university where we programmed the AVR AtMega 328p on the Arduino UNO not using the Arduino libraries and compiler. Make files and setting up an environment. But yea, a single class probably isn't sufficient and also I image a lot of embedded companies have a preference to hire someone already familiar with the chip they are targeting and the toolchain for the stack. I also see a lot of asking for experience with RTOS, which in my class, we didn't use an RTOS.
    • nickff 1y ago
      RTOS-based development varies significantly from RTOS to RTOS, so I’m not sure how much it’d help to learn to use one. On the other hand, most fundamental OS knowledge is fully transferable to RTOS, so that would be helpful for embedded developers to understand.
      • ghaff 1y ago
        Yes, there’s a ton of specificity. Could probably say that about kernel dev too. But there is a ton of things people do that’s a lot more generalized. Of course I’ve used very little of specific things I got tested on in my day to day over the years.
    • FrankWilhoit 1y ago
      Programming embedded devices is not the same thing as "embedded-systems programming". The latter means, first and foremost, that the software is not allowed to crash, ever, for any reason, else it is people's lives. I did some initial requirements work on a system to monitor continuous-web papermaking machinery; the line had to be stopped, physically and completely, within 100ms if anything went wrong, because an uncontained web of paper can literally cut people in half. They wanted, in order to be able to hire, to use one of the embedded flavors of a well-known consumer-grade OS, and I had to prove to them that there was no way to make any of them safe, at any cost. And they knew their hardware, because they had built it themselves. The absolute last resort is a watchdog timer that hits the reset button if N milliseconds go by without the software telling it it's okay. This is what you have to implement if you are dealing with buggy and undocumented hardware -- as, all too often, you are. Sometimes you can get some doco for $ and an NDA, but then in order to get the real doco it is much more $$$ and a much tighter NDA, and the existence of that option is not even divulged until after things have already gone very far south. If it were only a matter of reading the top-level doco for this or that chip, there would be no issue.
  • blueflow 1y ago
    It is safe to say that Computer Engineering has a problem with enabling knowledge transfer.
    • jauntywundrkind 1y ago
      Yes! But it's also obvious that the industry doesn't have a prayer to ever reform. Stuck between proprietary and NDA's chips everywhere, using proprietary and NDA's toolchains and development kits, to product proprietary DRM'ed products. This is an industry that is about as far from the light of science & enlightenment as it is possible to get, ensnared as deeply in the entangling anti-human anti-science Intellectual Property qualgmire-hell as can be got. Oh sure plenty of science goes it! It's fantastically interesting & technical! But aside from some Application Notes write-ups trying desperately to help move the practice along, move it out of jank, knowledge goes in, but it doesn't ever come out! There's such a lack of peershios with which to practice science, to report your findings to, to replicate works on. The software world talks about its patterns and practices. The biggest industries on the planet are building software like wild AND are mad into open source. But... computer engineering is the shadowland, where no talk nor victories that happen there are allowed to be shared, where nothing escapes confinement. What a fucking plagued awful land of people unable to ever do the right thing, unable to bring their work out of the dark & into real civilization.
      • nyarlathotep_ 1y ago
        I can find 1000s of posts or blogs or whatever on every React nuance, Rust thing, LLM trend, or whatever, but nothing even describing what "real" embedded programming looks like in any fashion (I'm not counting blinking an Arduino LED here). What does writing ABS module software look like? I'd actually love to know--it's not an area where you can "vibe code" your way to a 'working' product.
        • gmueckl 1y ago
          Can't speak for cars specifically, but other software built to comparable standards requires a super rigorous process including detailed specs, risk analysis and mitigation, detailed design, comprehensive automated and manual testing against the soec including test coverage, tons of documentation on everything and finally a third party certification on everything. The process is so far removed from typical web and business slop that it's an entirely different world of its own.
  • odiroot 1y ago
    I've been taught 8051 programming at my university. But I'm an older Gen Y, this could be going away for all I know.
    • dmoy 1y ago
      Embedded programming is definitely still taught... in EE.
  • kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
    Automotive has the problem of overwrought frameworks and no-code tooling that make it hard to fix problems and make improvements. Once the original devs are burned out or laid off the codebase rots and gets handed off to maintenance devs who barely know how anything works. I'm waiting for a recall fix for the underpowered Sync 2.5 system to correct a backup camera problem. I'm not looking forward to worsening of all the current bugs with USB audio file playback that cause the UI to hang or not show a fully rendered display.
  • bluedino 1y ago
    Everything is just outsourced to the lowest bidder anyway
  • tonyhart7 1y ago
    ok but why tho??? I have a lot of interest in embedded system can someone tell me if there are any course that taught this??
    • jeffrallen 1y ago
      I learned embedded in the school of hard knocks.
      • tonyhart7 1y ago
        Yeah but I want to make my time effecient, because failure which cost hardware can be expensive
  • bitwize 1y ago
    Companies are not willing to pay what the people who know embedded deserve. $150,000, $200,000 and up for a JavaScript webshit "engineer", $100,000 max if you work in embedded, unless you have a super specialist knowledge maintaining software on NASA's remaining PDP-11s or whatever that they can't afford to lose.
    • jmb99 1y ago
      Fortunately that is incorrect. I mentioned in another comment, but I’m well over $100k USD equivalent in salary alone as an embedded engineer, working in a relatively low cost of living area in Canada, graduated 3 years ago. Working for a “regular” company. Maybe things just really suck for embedded in the states? But since my last year of university I’ve been inundated with recruiters for embedded positions, and I’ve never had a problem finding work. ~75th percentile in salary alone for software engineers in my area, ~55th-60th for Canada. I make more than every JS developer I know who graduated with me, except for the ones who moved to Seattle, Vancouver, or the Bay.
      • bitwize 1y ago
        That's good to hear. Maybe Canada's got its head screwed on straight when it comes to assigning value to software roles.
  • sarchertech 1y ago
    My CS degree concentration is embedded systems. I love embedded programming, but it would probably cost me $200k a year to do it versus the backend distributed systems stuff I do now.
    • jmb99 1y ago
      Admittedly I don’t know your salary or market, but it is possible to make decent money in embedded. Connections & market timing are both vital though, in my experience, as well as being actually good at your job. I’m in Canada so numbers are way different, but salary-wise I’m in the ~75th percentile software engineers in my area, my title is embedded engineer, and I’m fairly junior (3 years out of university, ~6 years full-time experience). I’m working with some other embedded people who are in the 95th percentile for software engineers in the country. The main problem is there are very few high-paying embedded jobs; conversely though, there seem to be even fewer highly-skilled embedded engineers looking for work. I recently interviewed at a company paying 50th-85th (based on experience) percentile trying to hire pretty much any competent embedded engineer, and their problem isn’t insufficient salary, it’s just a lack of applicants or any skill level. From what I’ve heard, the same seems to be true pretty much everywhere. Now sure, if you’re looking for 500k+ jobs, embedded isn’t the area to be in, unfortunately. But I prefer low-stress, fun-environment embedded jobs, and don’t mind trading off salary for that. Different strokes.
      • Zanfa 1y ago
        Problems like this always come down to salary. I love embedded (hardware in general, really) and would absolutely love to do it, but during my entire career, the salaries for embedded have been so much lower than you get for slinging JS/web shit. And now with 15 years in, the gap is even worse. At this point, when I wanted to get back into hardware, it made more financial sense to outfit my home office with all the measuring instruments, debuggers, tools and other equipment necessary for embedded work and do it as a hobby. If I had the space, I could even get full-size CNC machines and still come out ahead cash wise. It’s insane. It’s no wonder they can’t find experienced embedded devs, when it makes no financial sense to stick with it over a decade.
• cosmicgadget 1y ago
  > These legacy companies have poached big hitters from Apple, Tesla and Google. They’ve sunk billions into it. Part of the problem might be poaching high title people from embedded tech companies while not doing anything for developer compensation.
  • x0x0 1y ago
    it's a lot cheaper to pay one exec a couple million than to staff a medium-sized software engineering org: even 500 people at an average fully burdened cost of $250k is $125m/y.
    • christophilus 1y ago
      Cheaper, sure. But it’s been ineffective. That’s the point.
    • cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Yeah I get this is their calculus and am suggesting it's exactly why they are failing.
      • x0x0 1y ago
        I wasn't disagreeing with you; I idly did the mental math, was surprised at how high it was, then thought through how I'd probably finger-in-the-air that it would take a couple thousand eng years to build a whole car OS. You're building safety critical software, so you're going to start with a very serious test effort, etc. So finger in the air a good chunk of a billion dollars a year for many years.
    • AlotOfReading 1y ago
      One major issue has been that paying a developer market rates is practically unthinkable to traditional automakers. If you were to apply to a mid/senior job in Michigan, you might get offered $125k. The typical workaround has been to establish "software offices" on the west coast with separate pay scales and separate corporate structures that largely function as internal "external" vendors. The C suite are able to pretend they're not overpaying, and the teams getting work done are able to attract people closer to market rate.
• Propelloni 1y ago
  I have driven several different, rather new, cars over the last two years. The most hassle-free experience was the second cheapest of the bunch, a 2024 Opel Corsa GS (a Stellantis brand). I actually was sad when I had to give it back. Now I read that Stellantis is behind on the software game and I wonder if there is a relation. Seriously, I'm all for cost-effective cars but reading the article I do not get the feeling that so-called SDV are in the interest of me, the consumer.
  • FridayoLeary 1y ago
    I think the article was focussing on the advantages it would bring to the manufacturer. Fewer control units, less wiring, hence a faster build time. Putting everything in one place is easier from a manufacturing point of view.
• Jiocus 1y ago
  The author mentions "military grade firewall", as a must have in a vehicle. Genuine question; What's a military grade firewall?
  • PeterStuer 1y ago
    I guess it's the same as a 'bulletproof firewall'. Just a colloquial saying indicating both high importance and required quality expected for operation in strong adverserial environments.
  • cosmicgadget 1y ago
    An idiom meaning strong and resilient.
  • peanut-walrus 1y ago
    As someone who has been working in security for past 10 years and systems / network admin for another 10 before that, I don't even know what a firewall is supposed to be any more. Also, since I've worked on military systems a lot, I suppose a military grade firewall is just iptables for which someone has written a shitty gui (that might as well just be a webshell) and packaged it into a green rugged box.
  • kjkjadksj 1y ago
    A stupid requirement. Consider this. Almost every car on the road today has an unsecured bus going back to like the 1980s. However you need to actually access the car to do something malicious so the threat vector is zero; since if you have access to the car you can also just cut brakes or put in a pipe bomb. The only reason why this paradigm changes in the EV era is because the insistence on having EVs phone home. Now you can concievably hack all EVs of this model at once and that is now realistic and even attractive to do. But again not a necessity for running a car. Just something that modern software focused companies want to see that leads to a host of expensive security issues that didn’t exist before. The car could be airgapped with the dealer network used to flash software updates like they do with most other cars before EV era.
    • cibyr 1y ago
• anotherhue 1y ago
  > These are companies that have typically seen software as a problem to be solved, not a design to be experienced. Some unexpected Kierkegaard in there (I only recently learned Dune was referencing it).
• smartmic 1y ago
  So I have serious thoughts about driving “software defined vehicles” in the future. I mean, and the article has confirmed this sufficiently, the core competence of the established car manufacturers is not software. I don't trust the newcomers like Tesla or the Chinese manufacturers for the time being. In my opinion, the same standards should apply to software in motor vehicles as in the aviation industry. And there can't be things like permanent internet connectivity, on-the-fly updates or anything else that is suitable for consumer entertainment devices. So I'm seriously considering whether my next car should be an “analog” one - but it's going to be difficult, a Lada [1] (not so exotic in Germany, where I live) is only available second-hand because of the Russia sanctions. I'm happy to accept alternative suggestions! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_Niva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_Niva
  • tehjoker 1y ago
    Aviation standards are the way they are because if you have an engine problem you can’t pull over to the side of the road. But yes, something approximating these for road conditions is a good idea imo. Part of me thinks the reason they are doing an integrated system is a combination of economics and convenience for 3 letter agencies to remotely assassinate ppl.
    • smartmic 1y ago
      Having an engine problem on a back road is one thing, having a software-system-integration-what-the-hell problem on a Autobahn at 180 km/h +/- is a different story. And yes, I do not want my family in the car at that moment.
      • tehjoker 1y ago
        Yea if it affects brakes, acceleration, or steering it's a huge huge problem.
        • bornfreddy 1y ago
          Or even just AC (think visibility).
• kjkjadksj 1y ago
  Terrible mobile website for what its worth. Two sentences per in paragraph ad and I couldn’t fully read the article because it bogged my se2 down to a crawl. How I wish I could jailbreak this phone and install a real adblocker but alas not on magic version number.
  • paul-tharun 1y ago
    If ios allows private dns you can set it to adguard dns, to get some level of adblocking
  • accrual 1y ago
    "Reader mode" has been a saving grace for me. I use it at every opportunity, desktop and mobile.
  • ta1243 1y ago
    > Access InsideEVs and over 450 other websites as e.g. motorsport-total.com and formel1.de without banner ads, personalized tracking and video ads for only 3,99 € per month.
• egypturnash 1y ago
  If you want to know the many ways this is going to suck, then think about everything you've ever heard someone bitching about in the modern video game ecosystem, then multiply it by "but instead of people not being able to play a video game, someone might die". Is this how we get the Butlerian Jihad? Because part of me sure does want to learn how to identify cars built like this and learn ways to disable them when I see them parked somewhere around town, before one of them fails to recognize me on my bicycle as something that should be avoided.
• api 1y ago
  I am awaiting a hatchback or sedan like this: https://www.slate.auto/en https://www.slate.auto/en Give me a car that is perfectly 100% autonomous, or give me a car with three gauges and basic controls only. Everything else is an uncanny valley: all the downsides of complex tech without being useful enough to justify it. Until then I like my Nissan Leaf: physical controls, phone just docks with infotainment screen, and reliable.
  • perlgeek 1y ago
    After using it for 3+ years, I'd really miss automatic cruise control. You can an intuition pretty quickly for what it does and what it doesn't, and in certain situations it really takes a lot of attention off your plate (stop-and-go traffic, and long distances on the highway).
• kylehotchkiss 1y ago
  Remove the LTE chip and all functionality related to ads, support wireless CarPlay and android auto, and use physical buttons. You’ll win every award in the industry.
  • ErigmolCt 1y ago
    The industry keeps chasing "connected experiences" and ad monetization while ignoring what most drivers actually want: responsiveness, simplicity, and reliability
  • nicce 1y ago
    I have heard CarPlay royalty is quite big - has anyone some numbers? Edit: maybe my information was old - some sources say it costs nothing
    • dmitrygr 1y ago
      Wait till you see how much it costs (in sales) to NOT have it. Eg: I won’t buy a car without it.
      • gambiting 1y ago
        Generally yes, but I would buy a car that has no screen at all, just give me a phone holder on the dash.
        • BobaFloutist 1y ago
          Yeah all I want is something that holds the phone and gives it a USB-C port that charges it, lets me play media through it, and lets buttons on the wheel control the phone (volume, next/previous, and programmable go forward/back x seconds buttons). USB-C is so powerful, it can do everything Bluetooth does while charging, but for some reason that's just not an option in a lot of cars? Make it make sense.
          • bombcar 1y ago
• bluGill 1y ago
  Why does your car need an internet connection? I don't use the built in maps since my phone has a map and a connection. what is the killer app of a connected car? businesses might want to watch their fleet but does anyone else care
  • tacker2000 1y ago
    to be honest, we are now at the stage where everything that CAN get an internet connection, WILL get one eventually. Be it your god damn dryer or fridge or lawnmower...
    • jmb99 1y ago
      Just bought a fridge. It was very difficult to find one with normal doors, a freeze door (not drawer), no stupid water or ice-making gizmos, and no wifi. There was literally one single choice in the dimensions I needed, unless I spent 6x as much on a European import.
      • bluGill 1y ago
        You don't have to connect your fridge to wifi. Sometimes you can ignore a feature. Adding wifi to a modern fridge is really cheap (a micro controller is better than a mechanical thermostat or so I'm told - often wifi is included in a micro controller even if you don't use it)
  • mschuster91 1y ago
    > Why does your car need an internet connection? It requires at least a basic cellular module for eCall in Europe since 2018, so car manufacturers use the already present hardware to provide more services. Maps and updates (live traffic view), internet hotspots for passengers (IIRC, Tesla does that one), entertainment that doesn't rely on a phone, firmware updates, feedback of driving data to insurances (yes, some insurances offer discounts in exchange for proving you "drive safely"), position data for leased/financed cars in case they need to be repo'd, synchronizing stuff like seat and mirror position across a fleet, remote pre-heating, "put packages in my trunk" access for parcel deliveries to thwart porch pirates, uploading data from real-world traffic situations to train AIs (again, Tesla does that one)... There's quite the laundry list of nifty to nasty things that can be done with a connected car.
• tacker2000 1y ago
  Software defined vehicle? Never heard of this term. More marketing buzzword BS. Yes, Tesla has one of the best user interfaces in a car, and has set the bar high. But just because they have OTA updates it's now called a "Software Defined Vehicle"?
  • vardump 1y ago
    It's not just the user interface. UI is just the tip of the iceberg. It's also firmware for all those controllers all over the car as well.
  • smilekzs 1y ago
    From first principles I think the concept can make sense. From car-specific function-specific ECUs, to platform-shared (but still function-specific) ECUs, then to Zonal architecture and domain controllers. The goals: consolidate and generalize HW across the lineup moving model-specific bits to FW/SW/Config (amortizes the development cost and simplifies certification), and also simplify wiring (saves you precious copper wires which are costly, messy, and heavy) because you can pretty much just plug every miscellaneous sensor or actuator to its nearest "anchor point" without worrying (too much) about arbitrary ECU limitations. See Rivian's intro on their ECU design and Zonal architecture: https://youtu.be/6ZBko4TvfJY?t=137&si=-SKL_iFqZFnHE8nQ https://youtu.be/6ZBko4TvfJY?t=137&si=-SKL_iFqZFnHE8nQ This might sound like purely implementation detail, but having the (non-safety-critical) "business logic" of a car as software gives the manufacturer flexibility to late-bind behavior as new use cases / demands inevitably get discovered. Something can simultaneously be a good idea, buzzword'd by marketing, and/or deviate from the original intentions.
• topherPedersen 1y ago
  General Motors was in the lead then they just quit. It was stunning to see all of their incredible self driving Cruise cars vanish and then overnight see them all replaced by Waymos. It was like watching the downfall of Xerox PARC.
• Hobadee 1y ago
  I've long wondered why no car manufacturer has gone for an open source model. Certain things should absolutely be locked down (for example, the airbags and other critical safety features) but there is absolutely no reason the HVAC and Infotainment system need to be closed source. Open it up and let hackers go crazy, then just "borrow" the best options out there for next year's model and everyone wins!
  • hengheng 1y ago
    I have been wondering the same, but slightly differently. Tier 1 suppliers have enough resources in both know-how and manpower that I have been wondering if they could do a platform car. Provide a basic frame that passes crash, provide a basic engine that passes emissions, provide basic safety, etcetera. Then invite other parties to upgrade components. Package lots of air between components to simplify compatibility. I suppose the only way to get this going in the real world is a big military contract, but I am wondering if it wouldn't be smart play for everyone involved. It would be deadly for a bunch of traditional automakers, but they can't do anything preventing it.
  • ghaff 1y ago
    Automotive-grade Linux is actually a pretty big thing but cars being put on the roads still need to pass through approvals. It's not "hackers" doing anything they feel like.
  • avidiax 1y ago
    There could be a sort of "ARM" or "Android" but for cars. Come up with few general hardware modules, enough to replace the head unit, body controllers, ECU, climate control, and ideally driving automation, and software to run them. Everything minus safety modules like the airbag controllers, and then license them under Fair/non-discriminatory terms. Then, a variety of automakers get access to core functionality and cheaper hardware to run it. That means that the cars themselves can have higher quality software, cheaper hardware (from cutting out companies like Bosch that charge exorbitantly for things like a windshield wiper controller), and thus deliver more value to customers.
    • 1y ago
• djoldman 1y ago
  Somewhere in the last decade I became a curmudgeon who yells at clouds. I'd like a car with zero screens, no internet connectivity possible, and maybe one audio input and a radio. Also I drive a manual, which here in the US seems to be almost unheard of. As an aside, what's next? You can't buy a chef's knife without wifi?
  • noman-land 1y ago
    Check out some listings on bringatrailer.com.
  • accrual 1y ago
    > Also I drive a manual, which here in the US seems to be almost unheard of. It's uncommon but some enthusiasts still drive them. My last two vehicles have been manuals. Planning to keep driving them as long as I can. 8)
  • nyarlathotep_ 1y ago
    > Also I drive a manual, which here in the US seems to be almost unheard of. All of my last 5, including my current vehicle are manuals. Almost impossible to find and a dying breed.
• ChuckMcM 1y ago
  From the article: "Evidence of that dichotomy is not hard to find. As automakers have introduced vehicles with more advanced computing and electrical architectures, they have also struggled to deliver bug-free software on time." This was something that really hit me when the Internet allowed game developers to ship a game that wasn't done. You got the game, and the first thing you did was download a "patch" that was at least as big as the CD the game came on (several hundred MB). I've got "released" Windows98 games on CD that are essentially unplayable because what was shipped on the CD was unplayable and without the update server on the network sending out those critical fixes, its never gonna work. For game archivists that means finding a fully patched install and then preserving that. This is a shitty experience that serves manufacturers but not their customers. I don't expect it to get better any time soon but I wish it would.
• jvdvegt 1y ago
  https://archive.is/dQ7oH https://archive.is/dQ7oH
• jillesvangurp 1y ago
  It's not just about the software but about the hardware architecture of the car. Legacy manufacturers are coming from a situation where they are integrating hardware and software from a lot of different suppliers. This makes upgrading the car a very tedious process and slows down the process of getting suppliers to fix issues and provide new firmware in a timely fashion. It's worse for them because they often want to do ICE and EV variants of the same car. Which means sticking with the same supply chains and associated issues. Vertically integrated companies do this very differently. Tesla pioneered this. The Chinese copied this and at this point you also have companies like Rivian and a few of the legacy manufacturers that are doing the same. Effectively they in house all the software and e.g. Rivian runs the software on a handful of hardware subsystems instead of having hundreds of chips with their own firmware for things like the wind screen wipers, the software that controls the windows, the AC, the keyfob, AI driving features, and so on. I mention Rivian here because they just did a deal with VW to start doing the same for them. The issues here are not just technical but cultural. I used to work in Nokia when it was in the (slow) process of figuring out that they were a software company rather than a hardware company. Then Apple and Google came along and they were slow to adapt their internal processes and management. Apple makes firmware that goes on their phone. They provide OTA updates. There's only one supported version of that firmware: the current & latest one. It's the same for all phones they still support with updates. Nokia did the opposite. They forked their software for each product variant (dozens per year). And they did not do OTA upgrades. So most of their phones weren't updated at all (by users), and would typically ship with bugs that had already been fixed on other branches of the software. And it would ship on the schedule of the manufacturing process, regardless of the state of the software. With all the obvious consequences. Nokia got a well deserved reputation of shipping half baked software. By the time MS bought them out, they had learned and improved a lot but Apple and Google were running circles around them by then and it did not matter anymore. You see the same with car manufacturers currently. It's all about the buttons and the bling. They have a gazillion of upsells, features, special trims, and what not. And it all adds up to a whole lot of nothing if the software experience isn't great. That's why VW is paying billions to Rivian to fix that for them. Their cars are too expensive, have too many chips and wires, and their software just isn't good enough. And they don't have ten years to figure this out for themselves. That's what Rivian is supposedly fixing for them.
• matheusmoreira 1y ago
  Cars now have computers, cellular internet connections, cameras, microphones, privacy policies... I can barely find the words to describe just how frightening the status quo is.
  • accrual 1y ago
    Indeed. Reading the comments here makes me a bit more grateful for my early 2010s vehicle. I added a Bluetooth module so I can play music wirelessly. My phone magnetically connects to an air vent and starts charging. I open Maps and tell it where I want to go. Done. :)
• whinvik 1y ago
  Hardware companies trying to build software, without actually understanding software. There's a reason why Apple, Nvidia, Tesla got where they got to.
  • davidmurphy 1y ago
    It's an absolute shame Apple killed their car project
  • kibwen 1y ago
    Apple has famously poor software ("better than Microsoft" is not an impressive bar to clear). Apple (and Tesla, for that matter) "got where they got to" because they're luxury fashion brands, and luxury fashion brands don't compete on actual quality, they compete on perceived quality, which means that the most important skills they need to understand are marketing and presentation.
  • slt2021 1y ago
    Apple is not a software company, their software is absolute dog shit (for the amount of money they invest into it)
• wave100 1y ago
  I can confirm that Volkswagen is borderline incompetent when it comes to software - a few months back, my 2020 Audi A4 (and those of tens to hundreds of others) all started having the same issue, where the infotainment will randomly reboot every 5-30 minutes (taking out nav, the backup camera, and the parking sensors with it, and requiring a PIN to get back into the system). Despite the problem having the hallmarks of a backend issue (many cars with the same software running into the same issue on the same week), corporate is still insisting that it's a hardware issue and trying to sell us on $5k hardware replacements. I love the car for its build quality, but almost kind of wish I'd gotten a Tesla given how bad VW is at software.
• ChoHag 1y ago
  [dead]
• gitroom 1y ago
  Pretty cool seeing how all those little gripes with car tech stack up, kinda makes me question if adding more software actually makes things better or just adds more mess. you ever feel like simpler is actually safer when it comes to stuff like this?
• teekert 1y ago
  Just talk to Canoncal, or IBM, make a NixOS config, or just do something. How hard can it be? My father’s 5 yo Volkswagen van has an 80’s looking UI, the touchscreen is already failing. Going from the normal UI to CarPlay is just jarring, any 2024 Linux distro looks, feels and acts more modern. What are they doing over there?? I could probably whip him up something nicer if only there was just a Nuc or something in there somewhere.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • encrypted_bird 1y ago
    While I don't dismiss your general point, I will say that anyone who says "how hard can it be" really needs to consider they are falling victim to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. In my experience, that phrase is (typically) a red flag for the latter.
    • MostlyStable 1y ago
      This strikes me very much as one of the things where the answer is probably very simple but also very difficult. I would also guess (completely un-informedly) that because the simple (and probably correct) answer is very difficult, a lot of companies are trying to avoid it by doing things that are more complicated but also easier. And because they are more complicated, it is not immediately obvious why they won't work....but they won't. Which is resulting in the repeated failures.
      • encrypted_bird 1y ago
        Simple to think of, difficult to implement. Yep, I can see it.
    • teekert 1y ago
      I'll let you know why I finally get my own van, add DC powered Nuc-like with a touchscreen and just run Gnome on it. Or, to make it more fair, I'll put LineageOS on it. Very touch friendly.
• kats 1y ago
  > Consumers have had it with clunky, slow automotive technology No. I don't want it. I want Not to have it. I don't want a touchscreen. I don't want a computer car. And I definitely don't want an internet-connected car.
  • jimt1234 1y ago
    IMHO, a computer car and even internet-connected car is fine. However, I want a computer car that I actually own. If it's my car that I paid for, I should have full access to the software that runs it. If not, then I don't own the car, I'm just renting it.
• amelius 1y ago
  Where is the Apple car? Was the project canceled, and why?
  • pnw 1y ago
    Yes, Titan was cancelled in 2024 after eight years of development. There's a good breakdown on The Information about why, it mostly boils down to software challenges (especially ADAS), leadership turnover and a fair amount of internal skepticism that it was even a worthwhile project. Apple had a secret test track in Arizona, with buildings made from shipping containers. You can see it on Google Maps under "Chrysler Oval Track".
• 1a527dd5 1y ago
  I would really rather that cars didn't run software, or at the least the minimal software to get the job done where there is no other option. My current car is a Kia; I love it. But the door locks are software controlled (you can tell from the lag). The issue is I like to lock my doors as soon as I'm in the car. The software can't cope with this; about 500ms later it unlocks the doors again and won't let me lock until the software has realized that I can now lock the doors again. So there is a 3-4 second gap in which I want to lock the doors but I can't. This is appalling for safety; I grew up in a dodgy area and all my then cars kept me safe by allowing me to lock as soon as I entered. Now I have to more cautious than ever. The other issue is that it has collision detection and automatic braking; it works great 99% of the time. But one time it got confused with over head sun and road markings and decided to emergency stop on a school road. I was lucky there was no car behind me.
  • minusLik 1y ago
    The cars I know lock their doors automatically when they go at a certain speed (e. g. mine does at 20 km/h). Doesn't yours?
    • 1a527dd5 1y ago
      It does. But that isn't what I want it to do. I want to manually lock the doors as soon as I close my driver side door.
      • minusLik 1y ago
        Does it work better when you use the key fob from inside the car? I would expect that because they surely tested a "unlocked accidentally and locked again right away" kind of scenario.
        • hedora 1y ago
          At least on ours, it tries to maintain the invariant that all doors lock at once (for aesthetics?), so you cannot lock anything if any door is open. It also likes to auto-unlock, but not auto-lock when you’re outside the car. If two people lock it at the same time, it locks, then unlocks. The smart lock stuff on it is even worse. I didn’t think it was possible to screw up car door locks so badly, even knowing Tesla’s implementation burns people to death sometimes.
• arakageeta 1y ago
  These companies fail because vertical integration, and even a monorepo, is needed to make these efforts successful. This is completely at odds with the existing OEM/Tier 1 business model and engineering process grown up around it. Also, neither OEM nor Tier 1 have software cultures up to the challenge. This is why the Chinese OEMs, Tesla, and Rivian are able to move fast.
  • ttoinou 1y ago
    Why is a monorepo hugely beneficial here and what do you think they are doing right now ?
  • RealityVoid 1y ago
    Bingo! That's exactly it. That's what Geohot said as well about the reason of their failure.
• acheron9383 1y ago
  As someone who works professionally on embedded software devices that update over the internet, car companies are stuck not because they can't get software talent, but because they have no ability to actually build the electronics alongside the software, which is ultimately what constrains embedded software. Without the right hardware, the constraints are just insurmountable, you can not do X feature because board A doesn't have the API to your MCU, or it runs some dogshit speed communication system that means you have 500ms lag. The feature is just unworkable, and if the PMs push it anyways you get what happens for the legacy car makers, terrible underpowered infotainment systems with no central design philosophy, stuck in an awkward, bad, middle between a full software stack and all buttons for everything. Their model of integrating 3rd party vendor computers just doesn't really work for this kind of thing; Tesla, Rivian, and the Chinese EV makers all manufacture all their own electronics, which lets them achieve the outcome. But you can not just roll all your own electronics in a year.
  • averageRoyalty 1y ago
    I understand the concept, but the question I have is why? These companies have huge wallets, and can surely scoop up a smaller automative microcontroller company and bring it in-house? It seems like a problem than enough money could solve quickly, but they've been doing horribly at this for decades now.
    • jandrewrogers 1y ago
      There have been attempts at it. Unfortunately, they consistently botch the execution so badly that most of the executives in the business have PTSD from the experience. And these were very expensive failures that become lore inside the companies. When they do acquisitions of small companies entering this market those end up getting smothered by the culture of the automotive companies. Everyone has spent a mountain of money on this problem but spent it all assiduously avoiding addressing the root causes.
    • tashoecraft 1y ago
      How many issues due large companies run into thinking they can just throw money at it? Just look at google and stadia, or amazon and their failed game studio. They have immense money and knowledge and ended up with nothing. Each car has dozens to 100+ ecus, written in different languages, by different teams, different requirements, and different companies. Some are proprietary. Ford can’t just tell Bosch, hey your abs module needs to now integrate with our api, multiplied by 100+ companies. The legacy car makers need to revisit everything, and move most of it in-house.
• gU9x3u8XmQNG 1y ago
  There's another huge constraint that the article and a lot of responses do not seem to mention: - Compliance and, - Regulation. In Australia, for example; we have very strict requirements for manufacturers - and it seems mostly out of regulatory incompetence that vendors like Tesla are able to deploy and bypass in the way they do. I've been told, by stakeholders in industry, that the systems that facilitate the software of vehicles to align with such requirements historically were strictly controlled. (The same applied to the hardware) Whilst it's also over simplifying it; - I am not excited at the prospect that `developer-a` can `git commit` functional changes to my vehicle. I'm not sure you should be, either!
• deergomoo 1y ago
  I want a 7-10” central display that spends 99% of its time showing CarPlay but also has a radio if I need it, the backup camera when I’m in reverse, and lets me change a couple of settings for convenience features like auto locking etc. Everything else can be dials, knobs, and buttons. My Mazda3 is perfect for this and I’m quite sad that I’m almost certainly not going to be able to find anything like it by the time I come to replace it.
  • ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    This is basically exactly what I have with my 2010 Chrysler 300 and 2010 F-150s with aftermarket stereos. And they didn't cost me $80,000.
  • hedora 1y ago
    Look at aftermarket MMI boxes. They do this for $150. (Screen and controls not included because they use the factory ones.) Someone should tell an automobile manufacturer. It’d save them ~ $1B.
    • DidYaWipe 1y ago
      What is an "MMI box?"
      • lmpdev 1y ago
        Multimedia Interface?
        • DidYaWipe 1y ago
          Thanks. Seems to be some kind of Audi-specific branding. No wonder these clowns still can't put together a car radio that works reliably, let alone an automotive interconnect system; they're still using the term "multimedia." Welcome to CD-ROMs, circa 1994.
          • hedora 1y ago
• winddude 1y ago
  as a car guy and software engineer I just want to say car's need way less software, way more separation of concerns, more standardisation and more open platforms, but most of the money is made on service, so the manufactures are incentivized to make closed systems.
  • jimt1234 1y ago
    Not necessarily less software, but more open software. There's been a lot of legal action around "right to repair" recently - I think there was a major decision regarding John Deere tractors a few years ago. But honestly, when it comes to cars, I haven't seen any significant decisions. I hope I'm wrong. Not 100% sure.
    • CelestialMystic 1y ago
      Not less software, no software. Have a quick flick through this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQlFIl18x9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQlFIl18x9g Obviously I don't expect you to watch all of this but to have the lights working you need to program a computer to do so. This guy had problems just sourcing the right "module", then it has to be programmed. The car is basically an ornament until they fix it. This vehicle is about 20 years old and seems to be in reasonable condition for its age and would otherwise be perfectly fine to drive on the road. Now he is lucky to be friends with a guy that has access to the BMW software and has decent knowledge of how the software works. Contrast that to my 1994 Land Rover Defender. There isn't a computer in it at all. The most complicated electronics is probably the wiper circuit and (which is partly mechanical). To fix electrical issues you use a multi-meter and adding/removing fuses. My toolbox is spanners, screwdrivers, socket set and a multi-meter. I managed to fix my vehicle in a car park at 11pm, with no prior experience of repairing this vehicle. If you want things to be able to be repaired by normal people they have to be simpler and typically that means everything has to be modular with a well define spec or easily reproducible for a person in his shed with easily available tools. The trade off is that it won't be refined.
• light_hue_1 1y ago
  No one is talking about the terrible wages they pay developers. On average, the best people will tend to better jobs. Salaries are half of places like Google. Of course their software is in trouble.
• encrypted_bird 1y ago
  My ideal car: - No Internet connection - No touchscreens - No LCD dashboard; I like dials. - 100% user-repairable; there should be no need to go to a dealer if one can easily fix a problem themselves or one wants to go to an independent mechanic (often cheaper!) - Buttons and (analog, not digital) dials for the media center - Media center with ONLY Bluetooth, CD player, and radio media center - Analog locks (not software based) - A Physical, metal key (not a chip)—I like to be able to go to my local hardware or key shop and make backups, thank you very much. - I don't need navigation; I have a phone for that. And I don't need an app either: - Wanna check the fuel/battery level? A little thing called a fuel gauge on the dashboard will work just fine. - Wanna check the tire pressure? Use a pressure gauge, feel the tire directly, or look at the tire, or base it on feeling while driving, i.e. the same little things we've done for decades just fine (not to mention the app or dashboard may not take into account used or third-party tires, as each tire brand/type/size is filled up to its own pressure rating). - Wanna lock/unlock doors remotely? Detached key fob. - Need diagnostics? OBDII still works excellently.
  • jmb99 1y ago
    Pretty much that exact list is why both of my cars are 94 Buick Roadmasters (admittedly, no factory Bluetooth, but yes on everything else). Incredibly reliable, very easy to work on, cheap high-quality parts, everything’s analog, you get a full suite of gauges (except oil pressure, but there is at least a light for low oil pressure and low oil level). 94-95 is OBD1, but GM’s OBD1 implementation is almost as detailed as OBD2 (just without per-cylinder misfire detection and secondary post-cat O2 sensors). Keys are $4 at the hardware store (if you disable the pass-key system, which was an anti-theft system that relied on a resistor in the shaft of the key - if you leave that, more like $25). Key fobs are $15 and can be programmed in 30 seconds. Oil changes cost $60, transmission fluid changes cost $150, diff fluid changes $150 ish (cut all those numbers roughly in half if you diy). Tires are $90-110 per for good ones, less if you have someone who can get them for you at cost. And they’re incredibly comfortable. Only real downside is fuel economy, ~17mpg city, ~25mpg highway. With some tuning knowledge you can get that up to 30mpg highway on premium fuel. And if you don’t like the image of driving an old car, that can be a downside too.
• 0xbadcafebee 1y ago
  Writing software, and doing it well, is expensive and time-consuming. It's like manufacturing anything else from scratch. It requires an investment in resources and expertise, proper planning and execution. Much like building a car, you can build software inefficiently. But if it comes out like shit, that directly affects your bottom line. To run a profitable businesses with shitty software, you need a big fat pipe of money from a captive market. Most automakers don't have that kind of market. They cannot afford to waste time writing shitty software that won't increase their bottom line. Building a highly effective software team is one of the hardest things to do in tech. We actually know how to do it - review the DevOps studies from the past 10 years - yet organizations don't do it, because it requires very specific leadership goals, buy-in, and culture. Most organizations are led by "personalities" that "go with their gut" rather than data-driven decisions, and most people, let's face it, just aren't very good at their jobs. Finding a company with good leaders, good managers, and good workers, is like finding a leprechaun. Automakers should have learned this decades ago, that only extreme attention to detail and high quality results in better outcomes (and thus bottom line). It's fucking hard work to make a good car. It's also fucking hard work to make good software. Did they really think "just add more software" would be easier than making more cars?! They don't need to make all this software. Automakers are happy to buy some parts commodity, and have some made bespoke. Software doesn't all have to be bespoke. Take 100 different x86 computers and the same OS will run fine on all of them. They don't all need to invent their own novel way of networking and controlling embedded devices. Look to the software that works well everywhere for inspiration. It's all standards-based, loosely-defined, layered, simple, with replaceable parts. Kinda like a car.
• tgsovlerkhgsel 1y ago
  Legacy car companies haven't realized that good UX is no longer optional. If the system people use to interact with your car is unpleasant or unusable garbage, it ruins the whole car. Just like it doesn't matter how good your kitchen is if the waiter is rude and spits on the food in front of the customer. And yet most of the companies don't seem to be willing to spend the one-time cost of getting the UX right.
• thaumasiotes 1y ago
  > Thus, the double-edged sword of SDVs. They are more upgradeable and flexible than their predecessors, but that advantage allows companies to deliver under-baked software with a “fix it later” approach. The article seems to overlook the fact that if you can receive a benevolent update over the air, you can also receive a malevolent one over the air. Over-the-air is not a good update model for cars. It would be better if you had to install the update manually.
• ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  I worked on a project to create a software-defined still/video camera. It did not succeed, despite some very smart people on the team. This stuff isn’t easy at all.
• daft_pink 1y ago
  like airlines, car companies are generally a terrible investment.
• jccc 1y ago
  > Tesla was able to fix this with a software update over the air, something no one else could do for a braking system. That was impressive, but the example presented a worrying question: Did engineers not do stopping-distance testing before they shipped the car to customers? I wonder if anyone here can think of an example (or six) of other more worrying questions about this. Before cradling your head in your hands and asking where you can get a decent new car that's just a goddamn car.
  • hinkley 1y ago
    Electric cars can’t even.
• exabrial 1y ago
  All I want my car to do is drive from a -> b. Connecting AirPlay is nice, but not necessary. All other touchscreen stuff is dangerous, crappy, and outdated the minute it's rolled over the showroom floor. Just stop, please.
• aguara_guazu 1y ago
  DLC vibe anyone?
• catigula 1y ago
  Car software is so thankless and opaque. Look at the market landscape: literally nobody knows that Toyota produces the #1 system for automated driver safety aids (ADAS) and it isn't close - their current generation of vision/radar fusion sensors have the only car on the market that passes 2029 federal regulations for AEB (62mph to dead stop if an obstacle is detected being a metric that some other manufacturers called not feasible) on a 2023 Corolla. Compare that to IIHS data for other brands/makes, even "safe" ones - many of them perform abysmally. The systems are awful. It took me a genuinely decent amount of digging to uncover that most cars, even lauded ones, are equipped with "compliance software" that meets bare minimum requirements, i.e. Honda, Hyundai, etc. And yet every review and even poster on the internet calls Toyota woefully technically inept because Kia makes fancy screens. Alas.
  • dingaling 1y ago
    ADAS is generally considered 'adverserial software', few drivers welcome it and many switch it off at ignition. So unfortunately regardless of Toyota's possible prowess in the field it's unlikely to receive many plaudits for focusing its efforts there.
    • catigula 1y ago
      I understand, but that's partially caused by compliance software being problematic. Now with tightening federal regulations and lawsuits for faulty ADAS manufacturers are tightening the belt. Investment must be substantial for the 2029+ regs from all manufacturers. Toyota is just ahead of the game currently as of their latest offering and shows you their value as a company in being so. To be honest, though, I'd be interested in exploring your premise. The statistics regarding ADAS from insurers shows a straightforward benefit in accident reduction.
      • rconti 1y ago
        Drivers consider it adversarial because it not only "takes away control" but also because it messes up their feedback loop. I'll give two examples. From a recent Toyota rental (~2024 RAV4): The lane departure system (which seems to have 2 stages?) gently corrects your steering if you get anywhere NEAR a line in the road. It's not a clearly-artificial buzzing in the wheel or a tug at your hands, it feels extremely subtle, like driving over a seam in the road. Every time I drove that damn thing I found myself second-guessing the surface and wondering if there was something I hadn't noticed in the road. From a few years ago, some other rental: Automated brake force increase thing. If you abruptly lift off the throttle and quickly move to the brake pedal, it felt something like doubling the brake force. Why? Because apparently studies have found in many collisions, the driver didn't come close to using all of the braking force, because they don't know how to drive. Okay, so it makes you safer, but no can no longer know how much braking force you're going to get from moment to moment? Do these systems not create a dependency loop where the very senses the driver is _supposed_ to rely upon to safely and smoothly operate a vehicle are blunted (seemingly) arbitrarily by some computer system? It can both be true that this makes cars safer, while at the same time making drivers hate the systems. I don't disable ABS on my car because it does something I cannot do (high frequency brake control of each individual wheel), but I sure disable ADAS whenever I get a chance!
• felineflock 1y ago
  About a year ago the Ford CEO (who is also Chris Farley's cousin) explained why legacy car manufacturers could not make good software: each of their cars have 150+ modules, each of them from several suppliers, each of them writing their own software. For every software change on each module, they have to go to a supplier to ask because of IP rights. That is why Ford is/was trying to build a new generation of modules with in-house software which they never wrote before. Also pertinent: "Why Ford decided to merge its next-gen architecture with its current platform" https://archive.ph/CR2Pv https://archive.ph/CR2Pv
  • kqr2 1y ago
    They also dictate that their suppliers will all use AUTOSAR which is a legacy framework that makes even toggling a GPIO difficult. https://www.reddit.com/r/embedded/comments/leq366/comment/gmiq6d0/ https://www.reddit.com/r/embedded/comments/leq366/comment/gm... you'll spend a few more months sitting in online seminars while some talking head explains why it takes 6 hours to configure a million goddamn things so their garbage tool can shit out an entire Italian resaurant's worth of spaghetti code just to blink an LED at 1Hz. Except it's not 1Hz, it's 10Hz, or 0.1Hz, or some other bullshit that you didn't want, because you muttered the wrong incantation to the configuration utility somewhere around step 2 out of 800, so guess what, you get to back and do the entire fucking thing again.
  • slowmotiony 1y ago
    Surely that's not why the interface is a laggy 10fps piece of shit and the touch latency is over 200ms. If my iPhone 3GS from 2009 can display the UI in 60fps without lagging like crazy then so can a $100k BMW that's straight from the factory. It doesn't need hundreds of extra modules.
• tsunamifury 1y ago
  Well good luck. If anyone ever wants to hear I got the Porsche CEO to step down for his terrible tech strategy. There is no hope
• ElijahLynn 1y ago
  "So Who Wins? The clear leaders here are the companies that weren’t already locked into the old-world approach to automotive software. Tesla, Rivian, Lucid and almost all of the Chinese automakers have built ground-up systems that work without legacy bloat."
• unethical_ban 1y ago
  >Now, they need to make compelling apps, slick new features and all-new electrical architectures that neither the companies nor their suppliers are used to using. They need to build Tesla-level upgradeability with far less willingness to ship unfinished goods, all while tucking it behind a military-grade firewall to ensure your car can’t be remotely hacked. Did the market demand this? Does safety? Fuel efficiency? I'm holding onto my 2014 vehicle precisely because of this over the air update, constant tracking bullshit. If you can't deliver a reliable car without needing to patch it weekly, I don't want it.
• rustcleaner 1y ago
  We really need the right to modify our vehicle software, with zero 'safety' or 'environment' camel noses to shoe-horn in the total lockdowns we see prevalent today. 'FOSS' hardware should be exempted from a whole bunch of regulations to make it enticing and accessible to technicians, home builders, and boutique bespoke builders. What we don't want is Tesla's/Apple's model, we want the GNU/Linux on Talos II model with no surprise NSA backdoor management engines. Like... can we pleeeease have this already!??
  • vv_ 1y ago
    > We really need the right to modify our vehicle software We really don't and neither do the manufacturers. Unless you want frequent crashes and user-caused engine problems. Programming an Engine Control Unit (ECU) is not trivial. > with no surprise NSA backdoor management engines These backdoors are generally required by law (e.g. Lawful Interception for Cellular Technologies) and are highly standardized. It is very unlikely that Tesla/Apple make backdoors on purpose.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• davkan 1y ago
  This stuff is exhausting, I’ve never been happier to drive a 93 manual than hearing about infotainment systems. I recently purchased a new bike which has electronic shifting and while it performs better than and and requires less tuning, I honestly miss the pure simplicity and connectedness of a cable actuated derailleur.
• mdavid626 1y ago
  Looking back at the last 10 years how my fellow developers write code, the last thing I want is software defined vehicles. No one is rewarded for writing good code or for handling all the edge cases. People are rewarded for getting things done. The problem is, that this approach works e.g. for non-critical web applications, but not for cars, which are dangerous, heavy object traveling at high speeds. Every car I've driven I disabled all drive assist features (except for ABS and ESP). They just simply don't work well. Edge cases are not handled well - there is a little snow on the sensor? Beeps continuously, because you're hitting the wall going 100km/h on the highway... I hope more cars/trucks like the Slate truck will come. We want cheap, simple and safe cars.
  • zelos 1y ago
    Automated Emergency Braking has made driving significantly safer, according to the statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_emergency_braking_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_emergency_braking_sy...
    • DoingIsLearning 1y ago
      I would argue that the software quality of ADAS systems is very different from Infotainment. Infotainment systems are a race to the bottom on BOM+SW price point. ADAS OEM's understand that there is a human cost, liability, and reputational cost for failure. The real risk with these monoliths is when companies start to remove the distributed/redundant nature of safety critical systems, in order to reduce hardware costs. There are multiple very good reasons for a distributed system in a car. However, irrespective of how clever your architecture is, there is only one good reason for centralized systems in a car and that is cost. It benefits no one but shareholders and C-suite. OTA updates are sold as a key benefit but again it's marketing, they only reduce costs for the manufacturers and effectively remove a lot of the penalties of recalls. I would argue that difficult/costly recalls put pressure on manufacturers for 'first time right' design, OTA favours happy-go-lucky software.
      • graemep 1y ago
• ErigmolCt 1y ago
  The wildcard here might be consumer tolerance
• nottorp 1y ago
  I would like a list of those companies making "software defined" vehicles so I can avoid them. Not because of the shit infotainment systems - although the idiots could save money by just doing carplay and android auto, they'll never do something better. But because I want physical only failsafes for stuff like brakes and cutting off the engine. Also, use the savings in software to bring physical buttons back. Besides the life threatening "software" features, don't forget that they could also adjust engine power in software. As in, include 75 hp in the selling price and sell you highway speeds for $999 for a week or $299 per month with a 2 year commitment...
• rustcleaner 1y ago
  That's it, it's time to start a FOSS car project which is operated by poor lawsuit-proof individuals, because we will need to "steal" existing ECU firmware and incorporate it illegally into this FOSS car project. The idea here is to component-wise replace all the major computers on a bunch of well known car makes and models, creating a standardized car model (software platform), so we can kill trackers, black box recorders, take back control over power and efficiency from the ecofascists, etc. We are only as sovereign as we are willing to fight, and if voting worked do you think they'd let you? lol
• zombot 1y ago
  Only car companies? Isn't it rather that everybody and their hamster is pivoting to become a surveillance company, if you just manage to cram software into whatever it is you're doing? Get extra score for making it "AI"!
• postexitus 1y ago
  I have a BMW with iDrive 7 and none of this feels familiar - am I in the lucky minority which happens to have chanced upon a good manufacturer which did a good job on integration - or am I so clueless that I don't recognize I am lookin at a dumpster fire?
• VagabundoP 1y ago
  I looked into getting an aftermarket replacement for my sucky infotainment system; replace it with an Android tablet or something. But it seems like too much trouble, if I could even do it.
  • e40 1y ago
    Alas, I understand why, just not enough people want it. Unlike the engine mod market, where aftermarket ECUs are a thing. Unfortunately, it sometimes involves the wiring harness, which is very expensive to mess with.
• andy_ppp 1y ago
  I would love a car platform that ran open source software, I think a lot of people would buy hardware they knew all the software was controlled by the owner. The way electronics plays into cars at this point is quite excessive, even seats and windows are running software.
• aetherspawn 1y ago
  Software isn’t super hard I suppose, but you still need a dozen “rockstar devs” and $1mil in licensed software to push out a car, so yeah probably it’s a minimum $5-10m exercise for basic software that can just drive around. And if you start talking about razzle dazzle infotainment smart phone experiences, well that’s where you get the $1b price tag from. My startup is actually aiming to disrupt the low end of this with a generic VCU that lets you design any vehicle you want and then tweak a few arguments to set how it should be controlled. The goal is to let you build a Slate-like car or truck (infotainment excluded / BYO) without writing software.
  • 71bw 1y ago
    Interesting, mind sharing a bit more about the startup?
    • aetherspawn 1y ago
      We use a production VCU hardware with custom software. It currently supports most of the VCU functions you would find in a production vehicle, including in-built CCS2 and NACS charging on the single controller (wires directly to socket). We’ve put customised versions of our product in a few commercial vehicles, mainly retrofits. Our backstory is that we’ve been consulting in custom E2E vehicle controls for a long time and now we’re productising for better scalability of our expert team (capturing expertise in product so we can eventually take a step back). Currently doing an angel/seed round: looking to raise US$ 250K. Very close to profitability due to low burn rate and having a lot of existing IP, so not planning to do any subsequent round like Series A. We think it could grow into a $50m company with low headcount in the style of Airbnb. Based in Australia.
      • 71bw 1y ago
        Willing to invest $5 if you're down... :-)
        • aetherspawn 1y ago
          Thank you for the interest, I wish VCs shared your enthusiasm haha!
• xyst 1y ago
  Vehicle manufacturers could barely build a functional and usable "infotainment" systems. Now these same dinosaurs want to build and ship "software defined vehicles"? What a joke.
• javiercornejo 1y ago
  no excuses... it was their primary business since ever and software wave is coming from 60s when human went to space, so software as car engines are relevant long time ago, they couldn't tolerant this mess with providers, ECUs and technologies, that long, for their core business.
• jesucresta 1y ago
  It is funny that developers are always looking at the processes of car making to improve their own extremely broken ways and now it is car-makers that "should" be trying to be more like the agile software devs. As a dev the last thing I want is a software-defined car. Look what we did to TVs.
• misja111 1y ago
  > Consumers have had it with clunky, slow automotive technology, and the modern car is so computerized that a seamless electronic interface is an absolute necessity. Say what? Give me a clunky manual interface with buttons and knobs any time over an electronic interface for which I have to look away from the road.
  • vv_ 1y ago
    You're part of a small minority of people that want to had old and outdated _infotainment_ systems. The only exception to this is that people want to have climate control knobs and buttons for some features (e.g. heated seats, driving-mode, etc). However, this is not what the article is discussing.
    • hedora 1y ago
      The article is discussing moving safety critical functions like door handles and drivetrain into a centralized computer. This has been a disaster so far, and consumers hate it. They cite tesla as an example of a “good” approach, and don’t understand that (in addition to Elon) a large percentage of the market won’t consider a car where the computer decides which way the vents point, and if you are allowed to open the doors after an accident. It does mention that people hate touch screens, and probably will not like these new cars. Other than cost savings, and “the infotainment computer is slow” there zero discussion of how these new systems improve the car or the user experience. “Slow infotainment” should be fixable by throwing a better cpu/ram in.
  • slowmotiony 1y ago
    I wouldn't even mind replacing the analog meters with a computer screen if it worked well. Instead it's a laggy slideshow where the tachometer is just basically an arrow randomly appearing in different places a couple times per second.
• 1970-01-01 1y ago
  IMHO, Tesla stubbornly refusing to launch an App store will be seen as is its biggest failure when one of their many competitors finally takes on this challenge. They have millions of iPads bolted onto electric wheels, and for some reason refuse to monetize it.
• taeric 1y ago
  To throw a curve into this discussion, I'm not entirely clear that software companies have any clue how to enter this space. Cars are supported for far far longer than your average software system is expected to run, nowadays. Google thinks they have a good support policy on phones that are approaching a decade in age. My truck is literally older than Google. And the mechanics down the street can easily get it back up and running from any trouble I typically see.
• Hilift 1y ago
  > When the Model 3 first came out, it took far too long to stop in Consumer Reports testing, thanks to bad anti-lock braking system (ABS) calibration. Tesla was able to fix this with a software update over the air, something no one else could do for a braking system. That was impressive, but the example presented a worrying question: Did engineers not do stopping-distance testing before they shipped the car to customers? Narrator: No, they really did not.
• stefanoco 1y ago
  This thread is becoming huge and so searching through the comments is not easy. Nonetheless it’s my impression that little or no attention was directed to the regulatory compliance needed for vehicles to be marketed under the rules of UN (known as UN/ECE Regulations and approval scheme) and similar approaches worldwide. Which means that roughly speaking that the security and safety of the car being sold today rest assured until I don’t change (upgrade) the software governing its functionalities. It’s totally unclear how it might be possible at least in Europe to upgrade major parts of vehicles software without breaking its approval. Comments on this?
• lotharcable 1y ago
  There is a 0.0% chance I am going to buy a car that requires a network connection. All of this is complete nonsense and a huge waste of resources. Especially for electric cars. These things are so simple that it is not funny. The level of sophistication required is barely much more then what went into a 1990s era Sony Walkman. What a humiliating fail for modern automakers.
• cowboylowrez 1y ago
  I was able to pair bluetooth once in my car, but that was it, no more bluetooth. Nothing works for me anymore haha