3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - ghaff 1y ago
    Well, it’s not just about pay scales. The developers just don’t want to live in Detroit (or even Ann Arbor) for the most part. And coastal East isn’t really that much cheaper for the most part. I’d probably add that the pay scale for software vs. electrical/mechanical people probably wasn’t notably different in the 90s or so. And California rates didn’t compensate for CoL in general. Very different.
PeterStuer 1y ago
Old car is massive amounts of mechanotechnical engineering, with some software for keeping the beast under control and provide some basic entertainement. New car is basically a computer on a simple chassis with an equally simple drive train. Software and battery tech is everything.
- smilekzs 1y ago
  I'd argue that chassis tech is more sophisticated in the BEV case due to more weight. Adaptive dampers, air springs, rear-axle steering, etc. might not be necessary on a comparably sized ICE vehicle. OTOH, ABS and ESP systems can achieve similar or even better results with less complexity because motor torque control is inherently low-latency, which can also complement brake deployment (hydraulics is not as well behaved as e-motor). You do get rid of emissions control and tiny little sensors / flap actuators sprinkled all around the engine bay, so yeah, probably overall still a simplification win, but I doubt you can get very far without "massive amounts of [Mechatronics] engineering".
Zigurd 1y ago
One of these things is not like the others. Tesla, for good or ill, needed to write a full stack for their EV. Not only did they need to do it, but they did in fact do it and ship it and develop it over several years. Recruiting a Tesla software guy is probably the best choice between these three. And he'll cost you less. Both Google and Apple have car software, and who knows if Apple actually developed a full stack of the way Tesla did. But anyone can download and play with android automotive. It's unclear what getting one of the android automotive developers would do for you. Whoever convinced the people writing requirements documents for car user interfaces that they needed to use Unreal Engine to show you what your own car looks like and spin it around in. 3-D deserves some kind of salesmanship Nobel prize. That is the most pervasive useless thing I've seen in a long time.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  > One of these things is not like the others. Tesla, for good or ill, needed to write a full stack for their EV. And so did traditional manufacturers, they just had the benefit of being able to phase it in if they so chose. Or they could have done a hard cutover, either way, the failure is on them for ignoring the benefits of the Software Defined Vehicle discussed in the article. > It's unclear what getting one of the android automotive developers would do for you. Do they do vehicle control systems or just infotainment? > they needed to use Unreal Engine to show you what your own car looks like and spin it around in. 3-D deserves some kind of salesmanship Nobel prize. I mean that's exactly the kind of thing that makes Tesla fanboys rave endlessly about their car. It just needs to be decoupled from the actual software system, like any UI.
  - Zigurd 1y ago
    Android automotive doesn't come with software for battery management and functions like climate control, headlights, error notifications, and other driving functions. But it does provide the best toolchain, widget set and user interface framework for those functions. It also comes with support for multiple screens, multimedia, multiple languages, speech recognition, app stores, cameras, wifi hotspotting, OTA updates, modes for vehicles in motion, Bluetooth, pointing devices so you don't have to be all touch all the time, etc. All that stuff adds up. As Volkswagen found out. Green Hills supports running android in a VM so you can do all of the safety critical things like traction control, and ABS in a secure environment.

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.
- ghaff 1y ago
  Well, it’s not just about pay scales. The developers just don’t want to live in Detroit (or even Ann Arbor) for the most part. And coastal East isn’t really that much cheaper for the most part. I’d probably add that the pay scale for software vs. electrical/mechanical people probably wasn’t notably different in the 90s or so. And California rates didn’t compensate for CoL in general. Very different.

PeterStuer 1y ago

Old car is massive amounts of mechanotechnical engineering, with some software for keeping the beast under control and provide some basic entertainement. New car is basically a computer on a simple chassis with an equally simple drive train. Software and battery tech is everything.

smilekzs 1y ago
I'd argue that chassis tech is more sophisticated in the BEV case due to more weight. Adaptive dampers, air springs, rear-axle steering, etc. might not be necessary on a comparably sized ICE vehicle. OTOH, ABS and ESP systems can achieve similar or even better results with less complexity because motor torque control is inherently low-latency, which can also complement brake deployment (hydraulics is not as well behaved as e-motor). You do get rid of emissions control and tiny little sensors / flap actuators sprinkled all around the engine bay, so yeah, probably overall still a simplification win, but I doubt you can get very far without "massive amounts of [Mechatronics] engineering".

Zigurd 1y ago

One of these things is not like the others. Tesla, for good or ill, needed to write a full stack for their EV. Not only did they need to do it, but they did in fact do it and ship it and develop it over several years. Recruiting a Tesla software guy is probably the best choice between these three. And he'll cost you less. Both Google and Apple have car software, and who knows if Apple actually developed a full stack of the way Tesla did. But anyone can download and play with android automotive. It's unclear what getting one of the android automotive developers would do for you. Whoever convinced the people writing requirements documents for car user interfaces that they needed to use Unreal Engine to show you what your own car looks like and spin it around in. 3-D deserves some kind of salesmanship Nobel prize. That is the most pervasive useless thing I've seen in a long time.

cosmicgadget 1y ago
> One of these things is not like the others. Tesla, for good or ill, needed to write a full stack for their EV. And so did traditional manufacturers, they just had the benefit of being able to phase it in if they so chose. Or they could have done a hard cutover, either way, the failure is on them for ignoring the benefits of the Software Defined Vehicle discussed in the article. > It's unclear what getting one of the android automotive developers would do for you. Do they do vehicle control systems or just infotainment? > they needed to use Unreal Engine to show you what your own car looks like and spin it around in. 3-D deserves some kind of salesmanship Nobel prize. I mean that's exactly the kind of thing that makes Tesla fanboys rave endlessly about their car. It just needs to be decoupled from the actual software system, like any UI.
- Zigurd 1y ago
  Android automotive doesn't come with software for battery management and functions like climate control, headlights, error notifications, and other driving functions. But it does provide the best toolchain, widget set and user interface framework for those functions. It also comes with support for multiple screens, multimedia, multiple languages, speech recognition, app stores, cameras, wifi hotspotting, OTA updates, modes for vehicles in motion, Bluetooth, pointing devices so you don't have to be all touch all the time, etc. All that stuff adds up. As Volkswagen found out. Green Hills supports running android in a VM so you can do all of the safety critical things like traction control, and ABS in a secure environment.