5 ms·

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 compa

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.
- Peanuts99 1y ago
  At the same time, we've had car companies putting out cars for 20 years with 10s of different modules built by different companies and things have been working just fine. Suddenly it's a problem because apparently everyone needs a giant screen on the dashboard?
Gigachad 1y ago
The talent might not exist. Software development has been seen as the preferable career over electrical engineering for a long time now.
- ohthatsnotright 1y ago
  When I started my career I had a very keen interest in the embedded space, but when it pays half of what CRUD webapps pay I quickly changed to software only. I still tinker with embedded on the side and maybe at some point I can justify the cut in pay to go back to something I'd prefer to work on.
whatever1 1y ago
The answer is that current car platforms were designed with flexibility as first goal. Car companies realized early on they could outsource component development and production to 3rd parties and they could make them bid each other to further lower the prices. So their platforms were optimized to be able to swap component vendors very easily (to achieve lowest costs). Of course the vendors are not 100% interchangeable and building a platform to accommodate everyone has to make sacrifices.Aka target the least common denominator across all vendors.
- liveoneggs 1y ago
  too bad computers aren't spark plugs
  - whatever1 1y ago
    To be fair, this seemed to be the right strategy since they were able to be profitable in a very crowded market. Yes, the new companies try to verticalize everything from components to software, but none of them seem profitable (marginally Tesla passes the bar, but not so sure if you took away all the subsidies and carbon offsets). So maybe the legacy guys were right all along?
    - garyfirestorm 1y ago
      I can tell you this works if your product doesn’t need frequent upgrades/updates and isn’t cohesive. In legacy auto world, you ask for one line of code change and the supplier slaps 100k bill. This is generally why things look old, outdated, carried over and buggy.
      - whatever1 1y ago
        I totally agree with what you say. I am just not sure if the car market is willing to pay a premium to have this nicer fully integrated experience. Maybe there is space for a couple of premium makers.
bsder 1y ago
Because the auto companies outsource everything, lay the risk onto the outsourced companies and expect that some significant percentage of them will go bankrupt every year. With that kind of adversarial relationship, you are never getting anything above the barest minimum of competence.
- datavirtue 1y ago
  Smells like Boeing.
garyfirestorm 1y ago
I work in one of the big three - the culture here is more waterfall and less agile. They decided at some point ‘we don’t need to be experts in building systems, we should only be good at spec’cing them and putting them together’ This leads to a mindset of relying on suppliers for changing even one line of code and at their mercy. Talent leaves because they didn’t get to do any of the fun stuff. And you’re left with bunch of MBAs trying to wing it in what is available which is - no talent, bunch of admineers, and a long list of supplier bills. They go for cheapest component they can spec for a given feature cutting 4MB memory will save 5 cents per car, we sell half a million cars, that’s big savings! I can go on and on about this, but one of us even tried to be Tesla trying to build our own zonal architecture - and are currently struggling due to costs, tarrifs and turnover. Also you can’t overnight change this mindset - building vs assembling. But there has to be some way and I’m too about to walk out the door due to ~10yrs of frustrations.
- andrewflnr 1y ago
  > They decided at some point ‘we don’t need to be experts in building systems... So they've just chosen death. Fantastic, great to hear.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Well, yes. The legacy car companies are ossified. They want to keep churning out minute variations on the same cars, and regard software as a thin layer for the entertainment system. They don't want to adapt to EVs, which force a redesign of the car as a whole. They're going to get run over by Chinese companies unless they can beg for tariffs to prop up their un-innovation.
- doodlebugging 1y ago
  > They go for cheapest component they can spec for a given feature cutting 4MB memory will save 5 cents per car, we sell half a million cars, that’s big savings! I'm tired. Been out in the sun all day. Explain this to me please. When I do the math I get 500000 * $0.05 = $25000 That's a small drop in a large bucket of their gross income or net profits. EDIT: Harsh sun must've burned a few of my processors. I see now that this would only be one small change that saved an inconsequential amount of money. But each group is incentivized to produce minor changes like this that save small amounts and that those amounts do add to substantial savings and help complete the process of enshittification of the ownership and driving experience for those who choose to buy one of these vehicles.
lmm 1y ago
They don't have a culture that values it, at any level. Historically hardware was important and software was a nice-to-have addon cost center. That's the mentality that the people at the top are still in, and it trickles down.
Mashimo 1y ago
> a smaller automative microcontroller company and bring it in-house? I think in a lot of cases that would be Bosch, which is huge.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
They did the opposite for decades in the hope to save some bucks, they outsourced everything so only business people remained. Worse this really grew into a culture of entitlement where only a ready to use product is acceptable. There is no R&D anymore, there are people looking to buy solutions that don't exist for car makers.
speeder 1y ago
I worked at BMW. I knew there was a project in there, using a certain ECU that was being quite problematic (as in, project being slightly late because ECU was a bit buggy and sometimes crashed when it was supposed to have almost 100% of uptime for legal reasons). You ask: Why BMW doesn't just buy the ECU manufacturer? Well... the company that was selling the ECU to BMW, is BIGGER than BMW. Even if BMW sold 100% of its assets and stock, it wouldn't have enough money to buy the ECU manufacturer.

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.

Peanuts99 1y ago
At the same time, we've had car companies putting out cars for 20 years with 10s of different modules built by different companies and things have been working just fine. Suddenly it's a problem because apparently everyone needs a giant screen on the dashboard?

Gigachad 1y ago

The talent might not exist. Software development has been seen as the preferable career over electrical engineering for a long time now.

ohthatsnotright 1y ago
When I started my career I had a very keen interest in the embedded space, but when it pays half of what CRUD webapps pay I quickly changed to software only. I still tinker with embedded on the side and maybe at some point I can justify the cut in pay to go back to something I'd prefer to work on.

whatever1 1y ago

The answer is that current car platforms were designed with flexibility as first goal. Car companies realized early on they could outsource component development and production to 3rd parties and they could make them bid each other to further lower the prices. So their platforms were optimized to be able to swap component vendors very easily (to achieve lowest costs). Of course the vendors are not 100% interchangeable and building a platform to accommodate everyone has to make sacrifices.Aka target the least common denominator across all vendors.

liveoneggs 1y ago
too bad computers aren't spark plugs
- whatever1 1y ago
  To be fair, this seemed to be the right strategy since they were able to be profitable in a very crowded market. Yes, the new companies try to verticalize everything from components to software, but none of them seem profitable (marginally Tesla passes the bar, but not so sure if you took away all the subsidies and carbon offsets). So maybe the legacy guys were right all along?
  - garyfirestorm 1y ago
    I can tell you this works if your product doesn’t need frequent upgrades/updates and isn’t cohesive. In legacy auto world, you ask for one line of code change and the supplier slaps 100k bill. This is generally why things look old, outdated, carried over and buggy.
    - whatever1 1y ago
      I totally agree with what you say. I am just not sure if the car market is willing to pay a premium to have this nicer fully integrated experience. Maybe there is space for a couple of premium makers.

bsder 1y ago

Because the auto companies outsource everything, lay the risk onto the outsourced companies and expect that some significant percentage of them will go bankrupt every year. With that kind of adversarial relationship, you are never getting anything above the barest minimum of competence.

datavirtue 1y ago
Smells like Boeing.

garyfirestorm 1y ago

I work in one of the big three - the culture here is more waterfall and less agile. They decided at some point ‘we don’t need to be experts in building systems, we should only be good at spec’cing them and putting them together’ This leads to a mindset of relying on suppliers for changing even one line of code and at their mercy. Talent leaves because they didn’t get to do any of the fun stuff. And you’re left with bunch of MBAs trying to wing it in what is available which is - no talent, bunch of admineers, and a long list of supplier bills. They go for cheapest component they can spec for a given feature cutting 4MB memory will save 5 cents per car, we sell half a million cars, that’s big savings! I can go on and on about this, but one of us even tried to be Tesla trying to build our own zonal architecture - and are currently struggling due to costs, tarrifs and turnover. Also you can’t overnight change this mindset - building vs assembling. But there has to be some way and I’m too about to walk out the door due to ~10yrs of frustrations.

andrewflnr 1y ago
> They decided at some point ‘we don’t need to be experts in building systems... So they've just chosen death. Fantastic, great to hear.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Well, yes. The legacy car companies are ossified. They want to keep churning out minute variations on the same cars, and regard software as a thin layer for the entertainment system. They don't want to adapt to EVs, which force a redesign of the car as a whole. They're going to get run over by Chinese companies unless they can beg for tariffs to prop up their un-innovation.
doodlebugging 1y ago
> They go for cheapest component they can spec for a given feature cutting 4MB memory will save 5 cents per car, we sell half a million cars, that’s big savings! I'm tired. Been out in the sun all day. Explain this to me please. When I do the math I get 500000 * $0.05 = $25000 That's a small drop in a large bucket of their gross income or net profits. EDIT: Harsh sun must've burned a few of my processors. I see now that this would only be one small change that saved an inconsequential amount of money. But each group is incentivized to produce minor changes like this that save small amounts and that those amounts do add to substantial savings and help complete the process of enshittification of the ownership and driving experience for those who choose to buy one of these vehicles.

lmm 1y ago

They don't have a culture that values it, at any level. Historically hardware was important and software was a nice-to-have addon cost center. That's the mentality that the people at the top are still in, and it trickles down.

Mashimo 1y ago

> a smaller automative microcontroller company and bring it in-house? I think in a lot of cases that would be Bosch, which is huge.

raxxorraxor 1y ago

They did the opposite for decades in the hope to save some bucks, they outsourced everything so only business people remained. Worse this really grew into a culture of entitlement where only a ready to use product is acceptable. There is no R&D anymore, there are people looking to buy solutions that don't exist for car makers.

speeder 1y ago

I worked at BMW. I knew there was a project in there, using a certain ECU that was being quite problematic (as in, project being slightly late because ECU was a bit buggy and sometimes crashed when it was supposed to have almost 100% of uptime for legal reasons). You ask: Why BMW doesn't just buy the ECU manufacturer? Well... the company that was selling the ECU to BMW, is BIGGER than BMW. Even if BMW sold 100% of its assets and stock, it wouldn't have enough money to buy the ECU manufacturer.