Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

insideevs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 848 posts

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

#111

Post by bitwize »

FrankWilhoit wrote: post #2

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…

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.

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

#112

Post by ghaff »

Xenoamorphous wrote: post #89
gambiting wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally yes, but I would buy a car that has no screen at all, just give me a phone holder on the dash.

I’d rather have a big screen for GPS.

My car even has a relatively small console screen but still prefer it over my (non-plus size) iPhone. I could live with just my iPhone on USB but consider the center screen a plus. (The vehicle is pretty good about climate control etc. on buttons.)

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

#113

Post by greenavocado »

serial_dev wrote: post #92
smartmic wrote: post #30

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 c…

I’m not sure I understand everything you said but I went with Dacia Duster, it’s the affordable brand, but I like that I can have a new car that has the controls and everything like a car from a decade ago… (lol) physical buttons, relatively good quality as they get to rely on Renault’s everything, I don’t need to go to settings to open the glove box, they don’t try to “out-innovate” everybody with ads, subscription…

A fender bender is lethal in a Lada

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

#114

Post by dboreham »

ghaff wrote: post #83
stahtops wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BMW i3 is great for city/town if you’re OK with electric. Not 4x4, but minimal “assist”, just traction control. Internet remote stuff is optional but nice. In the fully autonomous future the car I want to own and drive will still be my 6MT 911! :-) If I want to be driven, I’ll just book a waymo.

>If I want to be driven, I’ll just book a waymo. So move to one of the 2 or 3 cities in the US that have Waymo?

To be fair: only small parts of those cities. E.g. no Waymo to LAX.

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

#115

Post by HPsquared »

stahtops wrote: post #87
HPsquared wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are safety standards for automobile software: ISO 26262. Software for steering or braking systems is of high quality. It's not the same team that does the infotainment.

How do you square this with the article? It states that consumer reports, (a for profit company providing independent reviews, and not a regulatory body) said the Model 3 stopping distance was not good. Allegedly due to a “bad ABS calibration”. Tesla released an OTA SW update. Why wasn’t the bad calibration and degraded performance caught by regulators testing automobile safety standards? The article also posits that…

Ah interesting, I wonder if Tesla is an exception and if their systems do in fact follow ISO 26262. Standards are not necessarily legal requirements, and not necessarily checked by external people.

It sounds like their ABS system wasn't designed as carefully as conventional systems if there was such poor braking performance. Reading around, it might have been related to the emergency brake assist functionality not being calibrated properly.

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

#116

Post by vardump »

tacker2000 wrote: post #81

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"?

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.

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

#117

Post by ghaff »

gambiting wrote: post #54
dmitrygr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait till you see how much it costs (in sales) to NOT have it. Eg: I won’t buy a car without it.

Generally yes, but I would buy a car that has no screen at all, just give me a phone holder on the dash.

And what happens when phone sizes change? I've certainly had phone clips that didn't comfortably fit a new phone with case.

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

#118

Post by mulmen »

pc86 wrote: post #94
smartmic wrote: post #30

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 c…

The core competency of most software companies is not software, I'm not sure how GM thinks it can do anything halfway decent (it can't).

I visited Detroit last year and went to the GM headquarters. It’s open to the public with no appointment. You can wander around the Escherian maze with no guidance. A physical manifestation of every business decision GM has made in the last four decades.

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

#119

Post by ratatoskrt »

paulddraper wrote: post #109
mschuster91 wrote: post #73

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

...why? Seems pretty sensible to me?

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

#120

Post by hengheng »

Hobadee wrote: post #102

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!

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.

Post reply on HN