Slashdot Mirror
The Auto Industry May Mimic the 1980s PC Industry
An anonymous reader writes: An article at TechCrunch looks at some interesting parallels between the current automobile industry and the PC industry of the 1980s. IBM was dominant in 1985, employing four times as many people as its nearest competitor. But as soon as Windows was released, the platform became more important for most end users than the manufacturer. Over the next decade, IBM lost its throne. In 2015, we're on the cusp of a similar change: the computerized car. Automakers, though large and well-established, haven't put much effort into building the platform on which their cars run. Meanwhile, Google's Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are constantly improving. As soon as those hit a breakthrough point where it's more important for a customer to have the platform than the manufacturer's logo on the side, the industry is likely to resemble a replay of the PC industry in the 1980s.
Hardly anyone over the age of 25 cares about the eye candy touchscreen and gadgets in the car. They either car about space for kids and/or general crap, fuel economy, performance or looks or a combination of the above. Everything else can be done on a smartphone.
By 2025, all cars will be self-driving cars from Google. There will be no more car brands, other than Google. We will all be riding in Google self-driving cars, no matter where we live.
IBM wasn't undone by the platform, they were undone by the CLONES running the platform. And at the end of the day, a car is still 99% hardware. It takes a lot to build one, and I can't envision a world where cars can be easily home built from standard parts.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Nah, cars have used modular electronics for ages. Car makers don't make much of anything actually, that is why they are called Assembly Plants. So they can install anything and change it on a whim from model to model and the owners can also change things if they have the money and the inclination.
The death and rebirth of industries is what made this nation (in the past) great. The natural evolution of business, to big business, to death allows small companies to rise up from the debris of the bloated bodies of old dead old businesses. Sadly, the bailouts of giant corporations and the "to big to fail" ant-evolution mind set are making it harder and harder for America to innovate and stay relevant.
Let the big car companies die and, hopefully, the big bloated government will clear the path for innovation and creativity.
Some things need to be said...
Cars are not PC's, but the author of TFA tries to argue that they are little more than a computing "platform". Automobiles are, of course, much more than that. Most of that "much more" is totally unrelated to computer-related functions or features, so to suggest that the auto industry will follow some parallel of the PC industry is just silly.
Vendor-driven marketing platitudes bearing little resemblance to reality using shortened memes for theme driven effect.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
So, are we talking about the year of Linux on the Blacktop?
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
It may drive like shit, and explode in an accident, but it has Google Music or whatever.
Too many differences to list. One, the cost of entry into the market for making automobiles is staggering, so there aren't going to be any new manufacturers. Quite different from the PC. Two, the cost to the buyer. PC's got cheaper but cars are getting more expensive. Three, you can live without a PC (you could back then, anyway) but very few cars are bought as luxury items. So, the vast majority of cars are going to continue to be sold as transportation devices and not as smartphone substitutes.
Along these lines, I see piracy to become a problem for these platforms. When every teenager in the neighborhood starts building their own computerized cars, they are just going to steal the platform (Android Auto and Apple CarPlay).
This article might have merit if they were talking about battery technologies. And more specifically, the infrastructure in which to recharge said batteries. As it sits the poster must live in a state where marijuana is legal, because the supposition is a pipe dream.
I disagree with the premise of the article, as there are quite a few things about automobiles which are independent of the OS the in-vehicle entertainment and nav console - much more than a beige box pc.
However, it's worth noting that people over 25 are dying. Old people (over 25) as a market segment will change dramatically over then next 30 years as nearly everyone over 50 will no longer be in the market for an automobile. The "money" demographic will shift to those who are just now getting their driver's licenses.
I do find it depressing that, in an age where interactivity with personal devices can be done in an agnostic way, more and more interfaces are becoming OS specific.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The point of a PC is to run programs, so anything that helps it run programs is valuable. The point of a car is to get you from point A to point B, so anything that helps you get from one place to another reliably is of value for a car. All this computerized car stuff is irrelevant with respect to the primary function of a car and really is only appealing to those who want to think of their car as a PC instead of a car. In fact, in many ways, this current fad is detracting from the utility of the car - making them harder to maintain/repair, increasing cost, decreasing reliability, etc. At the end of the day cars need to be inexpensive and reliable ways to get from point A to point B - anything else is fluff despite what the techno hipsters want to think.
Cars will still cost a fortune and need to be reliable enough to get around for years.
Just because it runs some fancy app interface that will be obsolete almost as soon as it's installed isn't really the reason to buy a specific brand or model of car.
Head units are replaceable, even if the manufacturers keep trying to make it harder to do.
As an EE with more than a little experience in electronics in the transportation industry (Aerospace), there is a lot more to a platform than electronics. The hardware reliability is paramount and it takes years to learn what you need to know to extend the life of a car from 5 years to 10 and 15 years. I can't see the electronics platform content providers the poster is talking about acquiring that knowledge and learning how to do the processes needed to attain that level of reliability for decades, because that's what it took for those in that manufacturing space who primarly mission in business was to do so. The logo the poster is talking about are relatively hardware poor compared to those who make powered wheels. Windows took over because it made people more efficient by putting the power to make individual choices in their hands and providing a killer app, namely visicalc. (Which is why google glass died, it never had the killer app you couldn't live without). The primary mission of cars is to transport people and stuff over a distance .... and to provide young males with an image.
So tell me how a content provider logo on the side of my mini van loaded with 6 Cheerleaders is going to let me do something I couldn't do before that I can't live without. Given each of those girls are texting each other in the car and out of the car and posting selfies to social media as I am driving down the road?
in my cars.
There are two cars I want right now (well, one is being released soon).
1. The Elio for getting to work and back. Perfect for getting me and my backpack the 30ish miles there and back, and even good for going to lunch with a coworker. Excellent fuel mileage, and unlike a Smart Car (which doesn't really get that great of fuel mileage considering) I wouldn't be concerned about having to defend my manhood every time I stepped out of it or worry about random strangers trying to give me a wedgie for driving it.
2. The Subaru Outback as my vacation and haul the family around ride. The ability to easily carry many bicycles, kayaks, luggage, and people offroad, at good high cruising speeds Not to mention, great gas mileage for a rugged/versatile vehicle.
I don't care about data platforms, just the ability to interface with what's there. The Elio would let me put whatever I wanted in there and tie it to the stereo, I'm guessing a Nexus 9 would be perfect. The Subaru support Bluetooth audio so I'll put my Nexus 9 in there too!
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I still remember how awful early consumer operating systems were. They crashed, they had ridiculous requirements, and bad design. While all of this was unfortunate, the improvements were to the primary purpose of these systems.
For cars, the awfulness of digital platform is for secondary purposes - these systems do not improve how the car drives, yet implications for your safety when something goes wrong are much higher.
The big difference is that the auto industry is extremely capital intensive compared to the software industry. You can't start a car company out of a garage like you could a computer company. Even Tesla (with all of Musk's cash backstopping it) almost went bankrupt trying to get off the ground. For this reason, established players have a massive advantage. The more likely scenario is not that Automakers will lose their position as automakers, but that they will be forced to purchase automation equipment from tech companies. But automakers have always used third-party component suppliers- so this would really not be a huge change for them.
No.
End of nonsense.
The thing that's important about a car isn't the in car entertainment system. It's the wheels and the engine and the bits in between that let me get to where I need to go. I need that to last a decade or more. I need it to be a good match for the way I drive. The in car computer system? Don't care. My current ride doesn't even have much of a driver facing interface, other than some indicator lights. My in car entertainment system consists of a radio and whoever is in the passenger seat. Navigation comes from my smart phone. I upgrade the smart phone every couple of years, which expands capacity.
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
The tech in cars seems behind the curve, so the PC analogy may be apt in several ways.
A couple pulled over asking me directions, they had GPS in their car (mounted in dash not user replaceable) but it showed them driving on a lawn 30 meters away.
My phone was spot on, if anything I could suggest that might help it would be this.
DO NOT embed the tech in the car so that it is difficult for the user to replace, software and hardware will become obsolete quickly, the car its self not so much.
Make mounting and interface universal and easy to replace with better tech.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
So we are using computer analogies to describe cars, but we use car analogies to describe computers. I would have thought of a good joke hear, but my mind is too busy saying WTF .... Fizzle
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The article dismisses the significant difference between the auto industry and the computer industry: if your computer is a piece of crap, it's just some lost $. (ie the only thing lost is some money and perhaps time). If your car is badly made, it can quite easily kill you and your family in a host of interesting ways.
This means that buyer conservatism is high, and willingness to 'experiment' is extremely low.
You'll notice in similar industries where computer equipment is of comparable mission-critical role, they are likewise extremely slow to adopt "the next big thing" and nothing like the 'retail' electronics marketplace.
So no, the automotive industry won't behave anything like the retail electronics market. Not at all.
-Styopa
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
... I miss older cars that tended to work and had more robust and replaceable parts. Rather than putting PC/smartphone crap in the car, I'd prefer them taking it out and putting in a few interfaces/power sources so that there's no need for additional, unsatisfactory toys. Let the car drive and hopefully drive well. Let the toys remain mobile with the driver, so that they keep working when outside the vehicle.
The title says it all. Guess who has money for a new car or a house and who has not. In the next 20 years not much will change. To boot , the law make it a risky proposition in many country to have too much distraction.
Now if you ask me personally, I can't wait for manually driven car to die out to be replaced by autonomous car.
OK, here's the author's analogy. A PC was hardware that ran software. By choosing a third party operating system, the IBM PC's designers turned it into an interchangeable commodity.
These days a car is a hardware that runs software too. By choosing third party dashboard OSs, the manufacturers are turning them into interchangeable commodities.
Really? If the same dashboard OS ran in a Mercedes C class and a Ford Fiesta, they'd become interchangeable?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
100 mpg, low cost, low weight, and some low cost insurance scheme if I don't drive it much. don't really need anything else. A couple USB sockets maybe, just for power.
Equipment must include speedometer, passenger blind, a way to open windows, seats and belts. Well, if it does have windows.
It must be able to reach at least 70 km/h and have at least a few kilowatts of maximum power.
PC's in the late 80s were standardized - Functionally there was very little difference between an actual IBM PC running DOS or a far cheaper PC clone running DOS. That changed with IBM attempting the PS/2 architecture but by then everybody was settled on the AT (and later the ATX) motherboard architecture. AMD vs Intel exchange some performance vs price differences but ultimately that's like choosing a V6 over a V8 over an I4 and most people aren't going to care.
Each car manufacturer has its own architecture, designs and manufacturing styles - Just slapping a google-droidPod-phone-radio into the car isn't going to make a major difference when I'm looking for dependability or gas mileage (or battery mileage) or style/appearance.
A closer analogy would've been the 6502 systems (the original Apple vs IBM vs Commodore 64 vs Atari)
With all the tech that will likely be coming with the self-driving options in the next couple decades, minor entertainment console updates will be an afterthought and/or ignored outright and replaced with our non-static tech of mobile devices as we lounge in the vehicle.
There were hundreds of automobile startups in the 1900s-1920s until standardization and consolidation. Electric and steam vehicles were competitors before internal combustion won out.
A computer doesn't do anything but run the software written for it, so it was natural for the people who controlled the software to become dominant. A car still has to be, y'know, a *car*. It has to perform functions that software is there to enhance, but its purpose is not to run that software.
It was raining when I went outside today and I got wet. I find that an interesting parallel.
At least once a week I miss a green light cycle because one of the drivers in front of me is dicking around with some electronic gadget - either their phone or the "infotainment" system in their car (but mostly phones). It has gotten seriously bad when people are so addicted to instant gratification and constant contact that they sit through green lights on a regular basis.
Once that happens, then the industry will entirely change. There will become three basic kinds of vehicles:
1. Recreational vehicles that do not have a computer. Further segregated into speed, off-road, and specialty classes.
2. Cheap. Probably focused on low gas useage, low speed, simple transportation designed to get you to work and the store at a reasonable rate, all while you read, listen to music, or watch videos. Power, speed, appearance will pretty much be ignored here. You want to show off, pick a girl, you get yourself a recreational vehicle.
3. Cargo. People will still need to haul stuff. Minivans/SUV types for parents, trucks for workmen, the main difference will be whether the cargo area is designed for people or for goods, and if for people will it have a minibar stocked with high end liquor, or a Videobar stocked with cartoons.
The idea that the dashboard will become the all important feature only applies to Mommy-mobiles. It will be a relatively small portion of the market.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Pretty soon nobody will buy a car if they can't swap in their own entertainment system, their own map/nav system. That profit center is gone, these auto makers have to wake up and realize it.
The auto makers are so averse to competition and openness. How old are wi-fi enabled standalone network file servers? Why didn't they build one in to the cars, as you drive into the garage it logs into the router, synchs playlists, music, pod casts, weather reports, map information and is ready to go out with the latest info saved in a had disk? They could have done it 10 years ago.
They hate electronics and hate electrical engineers. The petrol burning engineers seem to have a snooty attitude towards the electrical engineers. They could have removed the first gear ages ago. Just spruce up the starter motor to make it strong enough to move the car to 2 mph using amped up power from the alternator. Couple the wheels to the IC engine mechanically on the second gear. That would eliminate the low end torque requirement and they engine could be tuned differently for fuel economy, peak power at a different rpm etc etc. Much of the fuel economy of the Prius comes from having an IC engine that does not have to move the car from 0 mph.
Of course, I am talking with 20/20 hindsight. But I am not a professional auto engineer. It is their job to have thought about it ages ago. Railways were big in 1950s and 60s. General Electric made a killing replacing all the steam locomotives with diesel-electric locomotives in just one decade. So fast some of the gleaming steam locomotives made just one run, from Baldwin Loco Works, Philadelphia to the scrap yard. Seeing how the torque problem in the locomotives is solved using an electric motor they did not make the connection and try to replicate it in their automobiles. They only were interested in pissing contests involving the sizes of the engines. 4 liter engine, 5 liter, 6 liter. 8 cylinder, 12 cylinder... More and more complex transmissions, clutches, slip rings, torque converters... all pure mechanical systems. Could have been replaced by one clean electric motor. The diesel-engine-generator and electric motors in the locomotive are just torque converters. But no, they would not even think about it.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Dude, if you have a self driving van full of cheerleaders, then what the hell are you doing in the drivers seat?
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
I have read the article and I don't see the connection. A 1980's IBM PC without an operating system is just a noisy and expensive room heater. A 2000's Toyota without "general purpose platform software" will still get you any place you want safely and efficiently. What kind of added value is such an automotive software platform supposed to offer?
Well, the author provides a list:
- Keeping drivers consistently and happily surprised with new services.
- Taking advantage of usage patterns to help customers become better drivers.
- Offering reasonable, consumption-based insurance and maintenance packages.
- Treating their dealerships like genius bars, not check-out counters.
- Making cars that can talk intelligently with your home and your office.
None of those sound too compelling for me and they certainly can't beat the operating system's pitch of "being able to use the friggin machine at all".
A better analogy is the auto industry in the 70's. The OPEC gas crunch made every car a brick, pressed higher unemployment, and resulted in towns full of abandoned vehicles.
For 2015 we're seeing a generation of drivers who simply don't care enough about having their own car. Low wages, transportation options, green choices, etc., are all weighing on an old school industry that hasn't evolved past SUVs. Going into the red while still carrying the burden of school debt is not likely to motivate them much, even with cheaper gas. For them, a new bit of tech, one time payment, and $50 cell charges will keep them connected more than any car would.
If you were a kid, which would you choose? A $25,000 loan you have to have to find parking for, or a $1,000 watch/band/hat you can use anywhere with no further responsibilities? Probably they are going to take the latter.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
This entire premise is flawed. The purpose of a PC is to do "something", it's purpose is to serve as a delivery system for some form of software. The purpose of a car is to provide transportation. In the first case the hardware is there to provide a platform for the software, in the latter the hardware (the car) is the point. Unless there is some cool new app that will teleport people the car will always be more important than the fancy apps it can run.
A company-specific tech platform? Are you fucking kidding me? Why would I want something that's going to be dead many years before my car is dead? I drive a VW with generic Bluetooth, and it works perfectly with any gadget (except Apple... they're fucked). I would never buy a car with a brand-specific entertainment system.
I don't respond to AC's.
With computerised, self-driving cars there will never be a standard that everyone across the industry adopts unless one manufacturer becomes dominant in the field (just be dint of numbers that would probably be a chinese company) or the auto makers take a similar stance and forgo patent protect and allow everyone to use the best available software, processes and hardware systems.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Automakers, though large and well-established, haven't put much effort into building the platform on which their cars run.
There's a reason for that. They're quite bad at it. That, and BlackBerry/QNX are quite good at it. Currently if you want Apple Car or Android Auto in your vehicle that vehicle will be running BlackBerry QNX Car as both platforms are simply plug-ins for QNX Car. BlackBerry needs to renegotiate its contracts such that they get credit just like Microsoft did with Sync so people know how pervasive BlackBerry actually is. Currently over 50% of the cars made worldwide run QNX Car. The problem is car makers choose what plug-ins to license for their vehicles and then customize the interface to their liking. That has led to some atrocious UI over the years but BlackBerry has sought to improve the situation with QNX Car 2.0 by providing more UI tools and widgets. Much of what Android Auto and Apple Car bring to the table have been possible for years. Car makers simply didn't see any need to add those features to their vehicles.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Thay are already shaking up the industry, a focus on software might allow them to put the final nail in the coffin.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
This is hardly a new phenomenon. To quote Don Henley:
Out on the read today, I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac.
A little voice inside my head said 'don't look back, you can never look back.'
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
A fundemental mistake was made in the summary. The reason that Windows changed the PC industry had nothing to do with IBM but with the successful reverse engineering of the IBM BIOS by Compaq. That opened up the PC Clone business as IBM had used basically "off the shelf" hardware in order to get to market and they were over priced, giving Compaq an incentive to enter the market in a meaningfull way.
When the IBM PC came out, we actually looked at buying one though bought a TRS80 instead. The reason was cost. For the $5000 we paid on the full TRS80 system (10M external hard drive, software, printer) the IBM would have been 2x the cost, thus a no brainer for a small mom/pop business for similar performance. Once Compaq broke the Clone restriction though, our next computer was a Tandy 1000 (allowed us to reuse our printer and external 10M hard drive) so there was a cost savings involved. The next system we bought was an Acer running Win95 and that was a disapointment as we couldn't use our Tandy Deskmate software on it (would have loved to due to all the other software we'd already invested in). This has been the one reason we never moved to Apple - replacement cost of our software. It's also what holds us to Windows right now though I've begun investigating what's available for FreeBSD. Should prove interesting in the long run as we don't like the direction Microsoft is heading in regards to Windows 10.
Sitting on the floor is still easy, but getting up involves a lot of aching bones/muscles.
I think a good working definition of "the threshold of getting old" is the age when overexertion causes more pain in the joints than in the muscles.
As a young person, running an unusually long distance or lifting a weight an unusually large number of times causes sore muscles. As a not-young person, running an unusually long distance or lifting a weight an unusually large number of times causes sore joints -- and, unfortunately, it takes a lot longer to recover from sore joints.
Not everything is connected. This is a superficial similarity.
E Proelio Veritas.
Oh great, just what I want, Android in my car. I think I threw up a little in my mouth.
One industry that died with direct PC sales (Yes, you Mikey Dell) was the entire Value Added Reseller industry. There are a few still around, but the serried ranks of 'experts' went poof. This can be equated with the attempts to bypass the Auto Dealership model by Tesla.
I encourage this. The idea that consumers are too stupid to buy cars without expert assistance is as dumb as the idea that consumers needed help to buy complicated computers.
We are entering a second Machine Age and it's the use of robotics and AI that will be similar to the PC industry of the 1980's, not cars. Although cars will take advantage of some of those changes.
That's just plain wrong. The movement to create standards that allow for easier interchange of software components (even though mostly at a system integration level) is becoming larger and larger. While it's pretty Linux centric from a software POV, many of the standards and interface worked on can be ported to other important automotive operating systems such as QNX. Of course, GENIVI concerns itself mostlywith infotainment related matters, but necessarily with the more strictly car related plumbing. See http://www.genivi.org/
As it stands now I heartily agree with you...but if we ever get to that bold future where cars drive themselves and I can "be productive" doing anything but driving for my 3 hour daily commute then the only stuff that might matter is the gadgets. Viewed through that lens I can see it being possible that the "hardware" becomes commodity and the only hardware concerns you have will be the LAN connection and ergonomics of the chair.
Seats, motors, suspension, transmission (except for some electrics), tilt/telescoping steering, steering performance, and trunk space are more important to most people than the infotainment UI.
Unless Apple and Google insist on particular other features of the overall car, the in-dash system is going to be just another piece of the puzzle.
The auto industry could follow IBM if they allowed a bunch of neo-Cons into top executive positions so they could gut the company to make room in the budget for bonuses.
But there are plenty of people who don't know enough about computers even today to make a smart purchase choice, and often make poor choices or rely on the help of others to do it right. Not because they are stupid, but because they lack specific experience.
As for cars, some people like to do test drives, to see all the different options in person, and learn the 'less than obvious' details about a car before they buy, and some like to know there is capable service nearby. You can call them dumb if that makes you feel smart, but they are certainly part of the market and catering to them is smart.
Could someone please provide a car analogy to help explain this discussion?
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
and fails to realize there are many differences between the '80's computer industry and the automotive industry. The computer industry suffered a massive shift because the computer was redefined from big iron to box on a desk. Standardization on one dominant OS changed the structure of the industry and what was important to a consumer. As long as your box ran Windows you didn't care who made it, beyond basic things such as cost, reliability, and perhaps upgradability. The hardware became a commodity and the manufacturers became less important. Cars, OTOH, are more than an OS in the dashboard and the manufacturers control the dashboard. Unlike computer manufactures they can still dictate what goes in their and sell the car on things beside "it runs CarPlay!!! OMG!!!" No one buys a Mustang, Camaro or Corvette for what is in the dash; nor do they buy a minivan for the dash either (beyond perhaps the ability to play videos to keep the rugrats quit on trips). manufacturers can and will differentiate their products, unlike computer manufacturers. They can even offer a choice of dashOS or put in what ever becomes the standard. Even industry attempts to standardize components , such as the DIN for radio size, have largely failed to drive standardization as a number manufacturers have gone to proprietary busses and dash cutouts in their cars. Computer manufacturers had to run Windows (says he who has used Apple products since the old Apple ][) and once they did that their box was very little different form anyone else's in the same price / spec range.
A better comparison would be to look at what is standardized on cars and vital to the car being useful, much as an OS is to a computer; i.e the fuel. Right now, hydrocarbon based rules is the one common denominator between most cars on the road. If Tesla could spark a movement to electrics and offer the same or better convince as current rules then the comparison to the 80's computer industry would make some sense; in that manufacturers who fail to find a way to differentiate their product will face significant challenges remaining relevant. Given that car manufacturers have a large number of years of experience doing just that I doubt even a shift to electric power will cause major upheavals in who actually builds cars, and something as trivial as an in dash OS will not even cause much of a hiccup. All the dashOS will do is decide who gets some royalty payments.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I really dig the Elio, both as a consumer and a "car guy."
Then you are in a small minority. It's a fairly impractical design for most people. Most people will think it is pretty ugly too. This article sums up pretty well why it is likely doomed to failure.
But a sub-10,000 dollar automobile that gets fantastic mileage, in America?
A sub-$10K vehicle with limited seating, small cargo capacity, limited practicality in snow, weird looks, three wheels, slow, etc. If all you care about is MPG and don't need to transport anyone or anything then yeah, it might be a fine choice but that doesn't describe many people. It would be utterly useless to me personally. I can assure you that in the winter it wouldn't even get out of my driveway. (That's not hyperbole on my part. My driveway is a challenge even in a 4WD truck with snow tires sometimes)
Main point of a car is to get you from point A to point B in a comfortable/fun/safe/affordable manner. Even with self driving cars, hardware is at least as important as software and people make strong emotional connection with its design and aesthetics. People will not trade their Mercedes for a Dell just because same software is available. Apple has a chance if they come up with industrial design on par with Macbook or iPad.
A better analogy is the auto industry in the 70's. The OPEC gas crunch made every car a brick, pressed higher unemployment, and resulted in towns full of abandoned vehicles.
As someone who was alive during that time I think your perceptions of that time probably don't match the reality. Most people got gas and drove their cars more or less as usual. The stories you hear were the exceptional situations - the extremes which didn't apply most places.
For 2015 we're seeing a generation of drivers who simply don't care enough about having their own car.
They'll care plenty the moment they need a job.
Low wages, transportation options, green choices, etc., are all weighing on an old school industry that hasn't evolved past SUVs.
Low wages? Workers in the US on average enjoy among the highest wages in the entire world, even among young people. More transport options? Not outside select major cities there aren't. In most places in the US if you don't have a car you don't have a job. "Green choices"? Your choices in most places are either a car or a car with better gas mileage unless you like in one of the few areas with decent public transport like NYC or Chicago.
If you were a kid, which would you choose? A $25,000 loan you have to have to find parking for, or a $1,000 watch/band/hat you can use anywhere with no further responsibilities? Probably they are going to take the latter.
Who cares what a child wants? They aren't the ones buying $25K cars. They aren't the ones that have jobs they need to get to. Driverless cars are still science fiction and will remain so for quite some time to come despite the recent progress.
no, we're not
i know alot of very wealthy people have invested alot of money and research into the idea that it is, but it's always been an over-reach to think they would be in general daily use...especially the google car with no steering wheel
self-driving vehicles are more advanced than ever, because *all automation is getting better*
i can definitely envision self-driving semi-trucks in dedicated lanes, or google car-type things at amusement parks and even in a central downtown area like Manhattan
i know it's hard to hear this but a truly autonomous car that interacts with daily traffic with no restrictions is much, much more complex than anyone other than the actual people who do the coding work will admit
talk to someone who actually codes the AI for this stuff...there's a bright future ahead, but the hype machine is in full effect
Thank you Dave Raggett
Smart phones killed dead time, if you have five minutes riding the bus or whatever and you can rather instantly find/read/check anything you might need which is rather convenient. It's rather limited how entertained you can get while driving a car, since your attention is legally required to be on the road. And if you're only two you're usually socially required to be in the front seat making conversation, not zone out in the entertainment system. Really it's most kids in the back seat who get to do that and then why not on their cell phone or tablet or 3DS or whatever? You need a significant value-add to make up for the fact that it's stuck in the car. And as long as you're driving, the car's handling is going to be a big deal.
Now if we're talking a self-driving car where it's really my en-route entertainment center that's an entirely different matter. You just tell the car where to go and it goes, how it is to drive doesn't matter. It probably doesn't even matter if it takes a few minutes longer because you got to play another round of Candy Crush. In this case, yes having an Android/iPhone dock so it could integrate with the rest of my entertainment world makes sense. Until then, I'll be busy limping along bumper-to-bumper listening to the radio....
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
All this will do is produce another tick box on the order form (electronic or otherwise)
Please choose you in car Operating system:
- Android.
- Apple iOS (+ U$ 99,- )
- Firefox OS
- Whateverelseishipatthemomentos
A car is not a PC. Car manufacturers will not risk missing the sale of a 20k car because of a U$99,- item that can easily be turned into a separate, user selectable, feature.
A computer can't do much of anything useful without a platform. A car, on the other hand, does its primary function without the platform being a factor at all. A better analogy would be comparing the car 'infotainment' platform to Solitaire.
An article at TechCrunch looks at some interesting parallels between the current automobile industry and the PC industry of the 1980s. IBM was dominant in 1985, employing four times as many people as its nearest competitor. But as soon as Windows was released, the platform became more important for most end users than the manufacturer.
What an odd claim... The article describes the 80s PC industry as one dominated by a single company, IBM, with over four times as many employees than the second largest PC company. So which automobile company has more than four times as many employees as the second largest? I can't find employment info, but in terms on unit sales, the top three are at 10 million, 9 million and 9 million. Hardly an industry dominated by a single player - it's the 12th ranked manufacturer that the top one is four times the size of (in terms of unit sales, again.) So whatever state the car industry is in, and whatever happens in the future due to in-car entertainment systems, I don't see how it at all resembles the 80s PC industry.
What people care about is the car itself. And that isn't getting componentized.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
For the record, TechCrunch does not publish "articles" per se, it is more of a venue for content marketing. In this case, the author is a CEO giving a sales pitch targeted at the auto industry.
No, this isn't similar. Auto manufacturers will just buy whatever tech they can't provide that users want. Car infotainment systems providers won't be making cars, and manufactures will not allow them to dictate auto design, so there will be no long-term lock-in. We've already seen a major manufacturer ditch an infotainment system provider. There may be a lot of incompetence in the auto industry, but they won't be making the stupid mistake IBM made with the PC.
What little threat might exist to the status quo? Tesla. Established makers could boot Tesla away quickly if they'd get it together, but so far that has not happened, because they refuse to think "niche". They've always farmed that out if they did it at all, and the future is in tailored products. Wake up, guys.