4 ms·

This is only half the story, working for a major vendor, we sell both hardware and software, the whole way up to a full customisable well integrated platform. T

This is only half the story, working for a major vendor, we sell both hardware and software, the whole way up to a full customisable well integrated platform. The manufacturers are deliberately choosing less capable systems, or taking thing piecemeal. Most of our customers simply don't believe good interfaces are worth the money... They tend to either want either a set of features checked off (only for existence, not quality), or something along the lines of get as close to a rivian with thirty cents per unit more than we paid last year.

trueismywork 1y ago
You only have to develop those interfaces once for high end cars and get your money there. Rest is then just one of the small modifications.
- typewithrhythm 1y ago
  Not at all, a high end car will use an entirely different architecture to a mid/low end... When you target a certain feature set it can make sense to use one big central processor, for lower end things it's more sensible to use limited smart sensors (from multiple vendors, for absolute cost minimums). And it's generally not cost effective to move an old high trim platform down range due to changes in hardware and regulations.
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    What you mean by different architecture here? I've never seen a situation where manufacturers choose fundamentally different architectures between price points on the same platform. I feel like I'm misunderstanding what you mean though.
    - typewithrhythm 1y ago
      Someone like Ford for example will have several software platforms, some for low cost vehicles, some high, some that are adaptable between trim levels. So as you go up in features on some model "the BigTruk" you might be going through variations of one sw platform, or jumping between platforms. Some have several platforms for high and low cost based on centralised vs distributed, so for example an s class will not have much software or hardware shared with an a class.
      - AlotOfReading 1y ago
        Yes, different platforms have different architectures. Within a platform, the system level architecture will be relatively fixed. OEMs will part subsystems out to different tier 1s for different vehicles on that platform, but that's (ideally) just plugging different boxes together on the OEM side. There's a lot of very expensive development tools (e.g. dSpace simulators) that rely on this model of automotive development.
      - Sevii 1y ago
        Apple doesn't have different software platforms for low vs high cost phones. Why is a car different? It doesn't even have as much functionality.
        typewithrhythm 1y ago
        Because a low and high cost phone do essentially the same thing, whereas a high trim car will do things like steering assistance in a way the low trim does not do at all. And to support the differences high trim will have different sensors and differently distributed compute. This means that the infotainment system will be running in different places on different cars.
        gmueckl 1y ago
        I think it's fair to say that the software in a modern car contains lot more functionality than an average smartphone. Drivers just aren't aware of how much is happening in their car each second.
        omcnoe 1y ago
        I mean there is just no way that that can be true.
        KSteffensen 1y ago
        To someone that knows nothing about car SW architecture, that is surprising to me, I would have expected a number of control loops for things like fuel injection, ABS brake control, drive-by-wire, EV battery charge and discharge, etc. each running on their own processor due real-time safety considerations. These I would expect to be different implementations and parameterizations of the same control theory maths. On top of this comes some functionality to control windshield wipers, lighting, AC, seat heating, etc. Stuff which is probably not top-tier safety critical, but still important. I would expect that stuff to run on one, maybe two processors. Then comes the infotainment system, running on its own processor. Sensors are supplying data to all processors through some kind of modernized CAN bus and some sort of publisher/subscriber protocol. Maybe some safety critical sensors have dedicated wiring to the relevant processor. A lot of variations on this seems possible with the same SW platform, tuned and parameterized properly. The real-time safety critical stuff would need care, but is doable. Am I completely off the mark? Can you give some examples of where I am going wrong?
jwr 1y ago
> customers simply don't believe good interfaces are worth the money I guess I'm in the minority, then, but as a data point: I own a VW ID.4 and I'd pay significantly more to get software that isn't such a burning dumpster tire fire. And no, the excuses provided in this thread don't cut it. To be clear: it doesn't even annoy me anymore that the infotainment is slow and crappy, I've gotten used to it and I just never use it. But I when I want to close both windows and I press two buttons simultaneously, I would like both windows to go up, not one up and one down, as it sometimes happens. The crappiness of the software in this car is mind-boggling and it cannot be excused: most of it is incompetent and sloppy programming. I would pay more for a car where the software department is somewhat competent and knows what they're doing.
- typewithrhythm 1y ago
  There are other competitors for that segment, even the Q4e on the same platform has better UI. People still buy the ID4 because it's not enough of a deciding factor.
  - rapsey 1y ago
    Hyundai/Kia make very good EVs. I am extremely happy with my new Kona. I would not say the software is amazing, but it is responsive, nice to use and has pretty much everything you need.
  - 71bw 1y ago
    Amazing claim to read considering I have experience with modern Audi software on the daily and it is an utter dumpster fire.
- mbac32768 1y ago
  > I would pay more for a car where the software department is somewhat competent and knows what they're doing. I have a Tesla Model Y and I was thinking of downsizing to an ID.4 and you just scared the shit out of me.
  - hnburnsy 1y ago

trueismywork 1y ago

You only have to develop those interfaces once for high end cars and get your money there. Rest is then just one of the small modifications.

typewithrhythm 1y ago
Not at all, a high end car will use an entirely different architecture to a mid/low end... When you target a certain feature set it can make sense to use one big central processor, for lower end things it's more sensible to use limited smart sensors (from multiple vendors, for absolute cost minimums). And it's generally not cost effective to move an old high trim platform down range due to changes in hardware and regulations.
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  What you mean by different architecture here? I've never seen a situation where manufacturers choose fundamentally different architectures between price points on the same platform. I feel like I'm misunderstanding what you mean though.
  - typewithrhythm 1y ago
    Someone like Ford for example will have several software platforms, some for low cost vehicles, some high, some that are adaptable between trim levels. So as you go up in features on some model "the BigTruk" you might be going through variations of one sw platform, or jumping between platforms. Some have several platforms for high and low cost based on centralised vs distributed, so for example an s class will not have much software or hardware shared with an a class.
    - AlotOfReading 1y ago
      Yes, different platforms have different architectures. Within a platform, the system level architecture will be relatively fixed. OEMs will part subsystems out to different tier 1s for different vehicles on that platform, but that's (ideally) just plugging different boxes together on the OEM side. There's a lot of very expensive development tools (e.g. dSpace simulators) that rely on this model of automotive development.
    - Sevii 1y ago
      Apple doesn't have different software platforms for low vs high cost phones. Why is a car different? It doesn't even have as much functionality.
      - typewithrhythm 1y ago
        Because a low and high cost phone do essentially the same thing, whereas a high trim car will do things like steering assistance in a way the low trim does not do at all. And to support the differences high trim will have different sensors and differently distributed compute. This means that the infotainment system will be running in different places on different cars.
      - gmueckl 1y ago
        I think it's fair to say that the software in a modern car contains lot more functionality than an average smartphone. Drivers just aren't aware of how much is happening in their car each second.
        omcnoe 1y ago
        I mean there is just no way that that can be true.
        KSteffensen 1y ago
        To someone that knows nothing about car SW architecture, that is surprising to me, I would have expected a number of control loops for things like fuel injection, ABS brake control, drive-by-wire, EV battery charge and discharge, etc. each running on their own processor due real-time safety considerations. These I would expect to be different implementations and parameterizations of the same control theory maths. On top of this comes some functionality to control windshield wipers, lighting, AC, seat heating, etc. Stuff which is probably not top-tier safety critical, but still important. I would expect that stuff to run on one, maybe two processors. Then comes the infotainment system, running on its own processor. Sensors are supplying data to all processors through some kind of modernized CAN bus and some sort of publisher/subscriber protocol. Maybe some safety critical sensors have dedicated wiring to the relevant processor. A lot of variations on this seems possible with the same SW platform, tuned and parameterized properly. The real-time safety critical stuff would need care, but is doable. Am I completely off the mark? Can you give some examples of where I am going wrong?

jwr 1y ago

> customers simply don't believe good interfaces are worth the money I guess I'm in the minority, then, but as a data point: I own a VW ID.4 and I'd pay significantly more to get software that isn't such a burning dumpster tire fire. And no, the excuses provided in this thread don't cut it. To be clear: it doesn't even annoy me anymore that the infotainment is slow and crappy, I've gotten used to it and I just never use it. But I when I want to close both windows and I press two buttons simultaneously, I would like both windows to go up, not one up and one down, as it sometimes happens. The crappiness of the software in this car is mind-boggling and it cannot be excused: most of it is incompetent and sloppy programming. I would pay more for a car where the software department is somewhat competent and knows what they're doing.

typewithrhythm 1y ago
There are other competitors for that segment, even the Q4e on the same platform has better UI. People still buy the ID4 because it's not enough of a deciding factor.
- rapsey 1y ago
  Hyundai/Kia make very good EVs. I am extremely happy with my new Kona. I would not say the software is amazing, but it is responsive, nice to use and has pretty much everything you need.
- 71bw 1y ago
  Amazing claim to read considering I have experience with modern Audi software on the daily and it is an utter dumpster fire.
mbac32768 1y ago
> I would pay more for a car where the software department is somewhat competent and knows what they're doing. I have a Tesla Model Y and I was thinking of downsizing to an ID.4 and you just scared the shit out of me.
- hnburnsy 1y ago