German here. My Problem with the German Car Industry is that they still see the car as a product, not as a platform. A car is a major investment and one that sticks to me for a while. I must rely on the car manufactures to continuously push updates and improve the lane-keeping assistant etc. (Maybe even the style of the UI?). I don't see this happening, at all. The lane keeping assistants get shipped and then forgotten, everybody is working on a new integration that is maybe coming out in years (crazy to think about if your only used to software-cycles). I don't want to be in the situation that i can't pair my smartphone with my car next year because mercedes doesn't bother updating it's software. Tesla does OTA updates and sees it's car as a platform, at least in my perspective. Software is all i know and they don't understand software yet. Softwares lives, unsupported software is dead.
I don't think that they are completely missing the electric car trend. They are being cautious, but everybody is at least getting it's feet wet. I hope they can then "just" scale their production. I don't think this is enough, but i hope they can turn around quickly enough when this gets serious.
But overall the future doesn't look too good.
Besides, i don't have the money right now to buy a car (also i don't want to).
As someone who worked at one of the OEMs in the german automotive industry I can second this. However the big problem is that the complete engineering process that many of those companies have does not allow for any updates and a car platform. The process is mostly: You write dozens of specifications for specific components of a car and then get contracts with external suppliers that develop and produce those. After the development cycle for a specific model is over (~3-4years) all these components have been integrated into a complete car that gets sold. When the next development cycle starts basically everything is done from the beginning, since the components may be developed and produced by completely different suppliers. So no chance to update anything, since the component might have not only different hardware, but also completely different software - even though it might look the same from user perspective. One way to solve this would be to develop more software and components in-house in order to continuously improve them. But as this is against the established engineering process it will only be very slowly introduced - if at all. In addition to that these companies mostly don't understand software (and software development), so the results won't be great in the beginning.
Platforms are really great for the platform owners because they create lock-in.
A product is something you buy and own. It might not have the latest whizbang features but it does its job and won't stop working because a new version comes out. Kind of like software before it became apps or mobile phones before they became smart.
Cars are indeed becoming platforms. From Renault's leased batteries which contain some form of DRM, cloud-based access in Toyotas to Teslas updates and analytics. None of the above has really existed for a long time i.e. more than 10 years, so we don't know what will happen to these platform cars.
Cars are products not platforms, and it will be thus for the time being.
Cars are very complex. There's a lot going on. Changes to one small thing, affect many other things. Safety is a huge concern, and everything has to be tested, tested, tested.
I don't think Tesla's car is really a 'platform' - rather, maybe that have a more advanced and seamless means to update their software, after all, they are pretty new.
Perhaps internally - the software could be more 'platform-like' - in which case, re-using components could be easier, and upgrading legacy cars could be much more feasible.
Maybe we're arguing semantics ... but from a driver's perspective ... it's a 'product'. Some companies, because of their internal processes, just do a better job of keeping things up to date.
I worked together with many Japanese CE companies during the transition to MP3.
At first I was surprised why they were so slow to adapt and were happy to work with the music industry who tried to ban unprotected MP3s and planned to sell MP3s for $5.
It went against everything that consumers wanted at the time.
But... once you saw that these companies employed so many terrific engineers who could build tiny miniaturized drives for tape decks, laser pickups that could withstand vibrations, etc... it was understandable. All these engineers, of which many were in their 50s were about to lose their value and their expertise.
The company tried to retrain quite a few of them to S/W engineering. It was heartbreaking how ashamed many of them were about their struggles.
The German ethos is quite similar to Japan. A prime responsibility is employment and valuing their workforce. That is why they are so fearful of a change in the entire eco-system of the internal combustion engine.
German here and no offense taken, but: What are your grounds for assuming that it is a nation's work ethos that is keeping companies from innovating? How is a multinational's German work ethos keeping it's Indian or US-American employees from innovating? Why aren't German Ford-Workers failing in Germany because of their american work ethos?
It is a rather cajoling prejudice. But in my experience of working in big multinational companies (DAX or DJI enterprises) change isn't prohibited by management's guilt or a society's taboo of layoffs. Instead it's the sheer number of employees, responsibilities and added layers of business-structure.
What's adding to the complexity of business structure is that with every country it operates in, new regulations and country specifics are to be dealt with. No new merger or acquisition will result in equilibrium of efficiency. You may have to - out of the most ridiculous reasons - work with a team that's located in another company, city or time-zone - or complete different culture, which means more overhead.
I think this work ethos cliche stems from a misconception. Yes, in Japan as in Germany old employees are guarded like infants. But that's often due to the old contracts that they got [1]. Those were granted seldomly since. Instead most of these companies (or rather their work pipelines) are filled with temp staff, external contractors and suppliers. There is no "ethos" protecting those people from being fired immediately.
[1] Contracts of war-torn countries. Contracts of countries that just years before believed that they would rule the world and now had to beg for glimpses of sovereignty. Rebuilding the economy was more than about jobs. It was about the gaining back sovereignty. That's why firing those 50 year olds is more expensive than keeping them. And thats why the companies at the same time try to dodge the necessity of having to employ someone just because some external market demand.
Reminds me of a two pictures a guy took to document his toys for his renters insurance. In 2000 he had twelve electronic devices, in 2010 he had six. Half the devices had been rolled into his smart phone.
I have been around for long enough to see how the German car industry reacted to safety belts, crash safety requirements, catalytic filters and tighter emission rules. Every time they claimed that it would hurt business and cost jobs. But they did perfectly fine or even used the new features as selling point eventually.
It's pretty safe to ignore objections from industry. Most of the time they just don't want to adapt and keep doing business as usual.
Um, the Germans invented and pioneered all those safety things. Mercedes had crumple zones and collapsible steering columns in the 1960s. They were among the first with seat belts as standard, ditto airbags. They probably did object to the emissions stuff because that reduced performance.
Quite interesting -- German government wants to keep the valuable parts of future manufacturing processes in Germany whereas the companies don't care where their future manufacturing value comes from and will remain more interested in optimizing for their current revenue stream for some amount of time in terms of how they deal with the German governments. That revenue will eventually disappear though ... I wonder if they could put a hefty tax on the gas powered cars but offer a rebate for that tax for every electric car sold that is proportionate to the amount of the electric car value that was domestically produced. Investment in domestic electric car production would then become a direct mechanism for preserving their existing revenue stream while forcing them to set themselves up for domestic production of electric cars in the future ...
I'm surprised how short sighted these car manufacturers are. The German government seems right here: Germany derives a lot of value from owning (large parts of) the supply chain of the car industry. However, the car industry itself also benefits immensely from having so many high quality suppliers close by. One would think that forward looking CEOs want to ensure that this capability remains intact.
VW made a bad bet on bad Diesel technology, and Toyota is making a bad bet on hydrogen technology. (The Toyota Mirai hydrogen-powered car, at California Toyota dealers now.[1] As of September 29, 2016, 641 cars have been sold. $57,500, including three years of liquid hydrogen.)
The German car companies have a problem. They have all that investment in the technology of making precision power machinery. But electric motors just aren't that complicated mechanically. Their edge over China disappears.
GM seems to get it. Chevrolet is shipping Chevy Bolts to dealers right now.
> GM seems to get it. Chevrolet is shipping Chevy Bolts to dealers right now.
All the German car makers are also shipping electric versions of their cars, just no one wants an electric Golf or up!.
> They have all that investment in the technology of making precision power machinery. But electric motors just aren't that complicated mechanically. Their edge over China disappears.
This is something that can be combined with a lot of other tech – there’s so much technology that can be precision-produced.
No they made a bet on their employees, like all companies do, and it turned out bad. The diesel technology works, we tested them extensively in typical testing conditions and we accepted the vehicles. That there was deception in the company to hide that efficiency and power are different sides of the same coin isn't a failure in diesel technology.
Ever wondered why electric cars from established manufacturers are all ugly? that's why: they develop the technology but they don't want people to buy them yet. They are too good for the customer and they would not be able to make money off of them, after the initial sale.
The key to electric vehicles is a shift to buy-by-the-ride (since you can get one that will take you wherever you want without worrying about range issues). That shift is also bad for most of the existing car manufacturers
> The key to electric vehicles is a shift to buy-by-the-ride
I don't agree with this, I think the immediate market for electric cars is commuter transport for households with two cars. If you have a car with 120 mile range, and you commute 80 miles a day, you will save tens of thousands of pounds/dollars/euros over the lifetime of the car, and you don't have to worry about range issues because you can just use your other car for long journeys. That is an enormous market, and the technology is already there to provision it.
I don't think so. Cars are usually more than just getting from a to b.
Cars are a form of freedom. This buy the ride will revolutionize public transportation, but I doubt that it will fundamentally change the car industry.
It's interesting that the article implies that the German manufactures are so intent on keeping the 'value add' from the internal combustion motors. For the electric vehicles, value add is shifting, and if you look at Elon Musks strategies with Tesla, he's made a bet that it's shifting a significant portion to the power generation, and batteries.
"It's interesting that the article implies that the German manufactures are so intent on keeping the 'value add' from the internal combustion motors."
Enjoy that. Enjoy that right into the grave.
I bought two successive Audi A8s ... and then I saw a car that had derived AWD from two different motors and had a ridiculously low center of gravity due to the "skateboard design" and had faster acceleration than a supercar.
Since that moment, German auto manufacturers have missed 2 new car (flagship cars, even) sales from this consumer, and counting ...
I wonder if anyone has thoroughly considered the impact of tens of thousands of gas stations closing their doors as the demand for petroleum goes down.
A classic response to this is "Did anybody consider the economic impact on ferriers when the demand for horses goes down?"
And yeah, there are people projecting such impacts, but overall it's usually considered valuable to innovate. Some jobs will inevitably be left behind as older tech becomes obsolete. There's been a few different ideas on how to solve this problem, but none of them are perfect.
That may not happen. According to various sources fuel sales are not where gas stations make their money. On average they are only bringing in 3 cents of profit on a gallon of fuel. They sell fuel primarily to attract customers and then make their profits on sales of snacks, cigarettes, lottery tickets, and the like. Disrupting the cycle of impulse buys by individuals lured to the store to buy fuel is likely to have a measurable impact on business, but it is unclear if this would drive any/some/most/all convenience stores out of business.
Yeah, the Saudis, North African states, Iran and Russia will be making a lot less money from oil. What's not to like about that? Their economies are almost entirely oil and gas reliant.
Problem I think is still range.
Tesla model S is no doubt a great, albeit very expensive, car, but it's real world range on European motorways, is still pathetic.
At 100 mph, range is is measly 100 miles, my BMW 535d does 500 miles at this speed, even in the UK averaging 110 mph is quite common, when not too busy.
In Germany one regularly sees cars travelling at 140+ mph for long stretches, which would be impossible for a Tesla.
> even in the UK averaging 110 mph is quite common
The UK provides open-data reports about traffic flow for different road types [1].
The UK speed limit for motorways is 70mph. 46% of traffic exceed that (in free-flow traffic conditions), but only 11% exceed 80mph, and just 1% exceed 90mph, so I wouldn't describe 110mph as "quite common".
Where did you get those numbers? Tesla's range calculator claims different[1]. Can you also point to a similar calculator from BMW? All I found is for electric; why is there not one for gas fueled cars?
I know HN has a large fanbase of Tesla and Elon Musk, but yet I'm still surprised to see no one address the problem of the supply side of renewables before moving towards a larger consumer base of electric cars.
I would be a very happy man to be able to own a Tesla Model S, but gasoline just has some advantages, especially so if we still are powering the majority of our grid with fossil fuels: 1) it has extremely high energy density relative to lithium ion batteries, 2) IC technology is very well-developed, 3) it is low cost in the near-term, and 4) no energy loss through transmission over the grid.
Depending on where you live, most of the juice you put in your Tesla (or other EV) is generated by fossil fuels, anyways. It seems to me that we're putting the cart before the horse. We need to solve the problem of powering our grid with renewables first before we should pressure the car makers out of economic equilibrium.
How about people with both an electric car and solar panels? How about people who pay for carbon offsets and own an electric car? Or people who voted for renewables minimums and own an electric car?
I'm also unsure what you mean by "pressure the car makers out of economic equilibrium"? Are you referring to the economic equilibrium with negative externalities paid for? California started down the path of encouraging electric cars because of smog, which has a large negative effect on LA and the SF Bay area.
I liken it to the time period when Kodak had made the first digital camera, but allowed other companies to surpass them and eat their breakfast, and now Kodak is bankrupt.
The german (and american) auto companies will either need to drastically alter their composition or other companies will take their place.
Nothing beyond the funny level. Occasionally, people who somehow got their hands on the naming rights to a vintage brand long dead are using "electric!" as a hand-wavey excuse as to how they will reconstitute the name to its former glory, but those rarely get to their second concept rendering. And then there are probably some leftovers from the era of approaching EV from the bottom, with minimalistic vehicles that are more in line with electric assist velomobiles than by electrifying big, heavy cars. But those are more established niche than startup.
[+] [-] LeanderK|9 years ago|reply
I don't think that they are completely missing the electric car trend. They are being cautious, but everybody is at least getting it's feet wet. I hope they can then "just" scale their production. I don't think this is enough, but i hope they can turn around quickly enough when this gets serious.
But overall the future doesn't look too good.
Besides, i don't have the money right now to buy a car (also i don't want to).
[+] [-] Matthias247|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blub|9 years ago|reply
A product is something you buy and own. It might not have the latest whizbang features but it does its job and won't stop working because a new version comes out. Kind of like software before it became apps or mobile phones before they became smart.
Cars are indeed becoming platforms. From Renault's leased batteries which contain some form of DRM, cloud-based access in Toyotas to Teslas updates and analytics. None of the above has really existed for a long time i.e. more than 10 years, so we don't know what will happen to these platform cars.
[+] [-] edblarney|9 years ago|reply
Cars are very complex. There's a lot going on. Changes to one small thing, affect many other things. Safety is a huge concern, and everything has to be tested, tested, tested.
I don't think Tesla's car is really a 'platform' - rather, maybe that have a more advanced and seamless means to update their software, after all, they are pretty new.
Perhaps internally - the software could be more 'platform-like' - in which case, re-using components could be easier, and upgrading legacy cars could be much more feasible.
Maybe we're arguing semantics ... but from a driver's perspective ... it's a 'product'. Some companies, because of their internal processes, just do a better job of keeping things up to date.
[+] [-] pmyjavec|9 years ago|reply
Same, I can't wait for self-driving cars to take over so I can safely ride my bike around ha! Australia, particularly dangerous place for cyclists.
[+] [-] julianpye|9 years ago|reply
But... once you saw that these companies employed so many terrific engineers who could build tiny miniaturized drives for tape decks, laser pickups that could withstand vibrations, etc... it was understandable. All these engineers, of which many were in their 50s were about to lose their value and their expertise. The company tried to retrain quite a few of them to S/W engineering. It was heartbreaking how ashamed many of them were about their struggles.
The German ethos is quite similar to Japan. A prime responsibility is employment and valuing their workforce. That is why they are so fearful of a change in the entire eco-system of the internal combustion engine.
[+] [-] woodpanel|9 years ago|reply
It is a rather cajoling prejudice. But in my experience of working in big multinational companies (DAX or DJI enterprises) change isn't prohibited by management's guilt or a society's taboo of layoffs. Instead it's the sheer number of employees, responsibilities and added layers of business-structure.
What's adding to the complexity of business structure is that with every country it operates in, new regulations and country specifics are to be dealt with. No new merger or acquisition will result in equilibrium of efficiency. You may have to - out of the most ridiculous reasons - work with a team that's located in another company, city or time-zone - or complete different culture, which means more overhead.
I think this work ethos cliche stems from a misconception. Yes, in Japan as in Germany old employees are guarded like infants. But that's often due to the old contracts that they got [1]. Those were granted seldomly since. Instead most of these companies (or rather their work pipelines) are filled with temp staff, external contractors and suppliers. There is no "ethos" protecting those people from being fired immediately.
[1] Contracts of war-torn countries. Contracts of countries that just years before believed that they would rule the world and now had to beg for glimpses of sovereignty. Rebuilding the economy was more than about jobs. It was about the gaining back sovereignty. That's why firing those 50 year olds is more expensive than keeping them. And thats why the companies at the same time try to dodge the necessity of having to employ someone just because some external market demand.
[+] [-] Gibbon1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxxxxx|9 years ago|reply
It's pretty safe to ignore objections from industry. Most of the time they just don't want to adapt and keep doing business as usual.
[+] [-] ams6110|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breatheoften|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hencq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tanto|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|9 years ago|reply
The German car companies have a problem. They have all that investment in the technology of making precision power machinery. But electric motors just aren't that complicated mechanically. Their edge over China disappears.
GM seems to get it. Chevrolet is shipping Chevy Bolts to dealers right now.
[1] https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/fcv.html
[+] [-] kuschku|9 years ago|reply
All the German car makers are also shipping electric versions of their cars, just no one wants an electric Golf or up!.
> They have all that investment in the technology of making precision power machinery. But electric motors just aren't that complicated mechanically. Their edge over China disappears.
This is something that can be combined with a lot of other tech – there’s so much technology that can be precision-produced.
[+] [-] undersuit|9 years ago|reply
No they made a bet on their employees, like all companies do, and it turned out bad. The diesel technology works, we tested them extensively in typical testing conditions and we accepted the vehicles. That there was deception in the company to hide that efficiency and power are different sides of the same coin isn't a failure in diesel technology.
[+] [-] GoToRO|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plandis|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whenwillitstop|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gumby|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Brakenshire|9 years ago|reply
I don't agree with this, I think the immediate market for electric cars is commuter transport for households with two cars. If you have a car with 120 mile range, and you commute 80 miles a day, you will save tens of thousands of pounds/dollars/euros over the lifetime of the car, and you don't have to worry about range issues because you can just use your other car for long journeys. That is an enormous market, and the technology is already there to provision it.
[+] [-] macco|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oblio|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digikata|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsync|9 years ago|reply
Enjoy that. Enjoy that right into the grave.
I bought two successive Audi A8s ... and then I saw a car that had derived AWD from two different motors and had a ridiculously low center of gravity due to the "skateboard design" and had faster acceleration than a supercar.
Since that moment, German auto manufacturers have missed 2 new car (flagship cars, even) sales from this consumer, and counting ...
[+] [-] B1FF_PSUVM|9 years ago|reply
Yeah, that's what they've been doing with the software cheats in VW cars (aka Dieselgate).
It's a total shame for the undeniably brilliant German engineering, and they're handling it - collectively - by pretending it did not happen.
The silence is deafening. I doubt it will profit them in the long range.
[+] [-] rplst8|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hiddenkrypt|9 years ago|reply
And yeah, there are people projecting such impacts, but overall it's usually considered valuable to innovate. Some jobs will inevitably be left behind as older tech becomes obsolete. There's been a few different ideas on how to solve this problem, but none of them are perfect.
[+] [-] knieveltech|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petre|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] garyclarke27|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manarth|9 years ago|reply
The UK speed limit for motorways is 70mph. 46% of traffic exceed that (in free-flow traffic conditions), but only 11% exceed 80mph, and just 1% exceed 90mph, so I wouldn't describe 110mph as "quite common".
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/spe01-ve...
[+] [-] macns|9 years ago|reply
Where did you get those numbers? Tesla's range calculator claims different[1]. Can you also point to a similar calculator from BMW? All I found is for electric; why is there not one for gas fueled cars?
EDIT: forgot the link[1] https://www.tesla.com/en_EU/models?redirect=no#range-calcula...
[+] [-] greglindahl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wallace_f|9 years ago|reply
I would be a very happy man to be able to own a Tesla Model S, but gasoline just has some advantages, especially so if we still are powering the majority of our grid with fossil fuels: 1) it has extremely high energy density relative to lithium ion batteries, 2) IC technology is very well-developed, 3) it is low cost in the near-term, and 4) no energy loss through transmission over the grid.
Depending on where you live, most of the juice you put in your Tesla (or other EV) is generated by fossil fuels, anyways. It seems to me that we're putting the cart before the horse. We need to solve the problem of powering our grid with renewables first before we should pressure the car makers out of economic equilibrium.
[+] [-] greglindahl|9 years ago|reply
I'm also unsure what you mean by "pressure the car makers out of economic equilibrium"? Are you referring to the economic equilibrium with negative externalities paid for? California started down the path of encouraging electric cars because of smog, which has a large negative effect on LA and the SF Bay area.
[+] [-] sickbeard|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluehawk|9 years ago|reply
The german (and american) auto companies will either need to drastically alter their composition or other companies will take their place.
[+] [-] wslh|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldcode|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greglindahl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathiasben|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kuschku|9 years ago|reply
Deutsche Post DHL (Germany’s federal mail service) is now building their delivery vehicles themselves, so they can get electric ones quickly.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/deutsche-post-baut-elektro-aut...
[+] [-] usrusr|9 years ago|reply