Live data from Hacker News

Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

insideevs.com

391–400 of 848 posts

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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. What was wrong with ECU and ABS etc software prior to the OTA era that we're now apparently entering? I've had plenty of cars--too many--and outside of a few warranty repairs involving re-flashing ECU/A…

Purely from a manufacturer's perspective (not personal opinion):

One, it's expensive. If your update takes half an hour to apply, under the old model someone's being paid half an hour to apply it. Either the manufacturer cuts the billable hours to the dealer and the dealer loses, or the manufacturer is paying that half hour out of increased prices to the consumer. With an OTA system there's usually no cost to anyone besides network traffic. This amounts to billions of dollars in savings for manufacturers.

Second, owners hate 1) paying for updates and 2) getting notifications about it in the mail. It generates bad press and bad experiences for the manufacturer.

Three, it makes the production line more efficient.

Four, the old systems sucked to maintain and for techs to use. They were also insecure and retrofitting security is impossible in a standards compliant way. The internet people have done a much better job with their standards.

Five, most owners are not like you and I. It's a feature for them that their car gets improvements and fixes automatically.

Six, you can be pretty certain what the rollout distribution is. Regulators don't like it when owners are driving around with years old recalls active because they forgot to schedule a dealer appointment. Manufacturers don't like keeping the inventory around.

Seven, "networked services" can piggyback on the same infrastructure and provide additional revenue streams. Certain corporate types think of this as one of the main benefits. Remember how manufacturers used to sell annual maps updates that no one bought? Some consumers also enjoy these sorts of networked services, which frankly I find a bit baffling.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#392

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 soft…

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.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#393

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.

You'll win your customers' love. The industry's awards? Who cares!

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#394
post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

> 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.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To what extent was a clean sheet design a huge advantage over the legacy makers? And to what extent were the subsidies an advantage? They phased out after 200,000 units and Tesla has sold millions.

In Q1 2025, Tesla made $595 million on selling environmental credits/carbon offsets to other car makers. Net income for the whole company was $409 million.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Remove the LTE chip You can't, it's required for eCall which is a mandatory feature in Europe. Unfortunately, it's fraught with issues, especially for the very first eCall modules where the hardware supported only 3G (HSPA)... which is being phased out across Europe together with GPRS (1G)/EDGE (2G), leaving these cars without a working eCall system - and no upgraded hardware modules in many cases.

> required That’s…terrible

Are there new vehicles in the U.S. that don't have an LTE chip and antenna?

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#398
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All depends on how they market it. Wind down windows to me today is an aesthetic statement - “we are selling a cheap, no frills vehicle - look see! Even wind down windows” Such positioning could be what the intended customer base react well to.

Which turns it into more uselessness for marketing rather then practicality. For example, mechanical window winders would need a whole extra disengagement or locking mechanism for child proofing.

Manual windows already had child proofing: Rear windows only go down part way so that kids can’t easily climb out.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To what extent was a clean sheet design a huge advantage over the legacy makers? And to what extent were the subsidies an advantage? They phased out after 200,000 units and Tesla has sold millions.

Tesla has earned since 2017 over $10B in carbon offsets. That is in addition to the state and federal incentives.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking millions of cars driving at a speed that can kill people both inside or outside the car. Anything you can do to reduce those distractions is a net positive for society. Less death. As for criminalizing texting, I’ve heard enough people getting caught and getting big fines that it works enough for me to dissuade me from doing it.

If you live in America it’s just not enforced. Even cops do it. I don’t do it because I just don’t need to but you can watch people doing it for yourself if you pay attention. If you’re focused on less death, sure we can criticize infotainment screens, but the energy is much better spent in demanding enforcement and in whatever we need to do to reduce car usage. Otherwise you’re kind of wasting your time, unfortunate…

It is enforced in at least some parts of the US.
Post reply on HN