Ford CEO Jim Farley on why it's so difficult for legacy car companies to get software right & why Tesla’s vertically integrated approach is the right one: “We farmed out all the modules that control the vehicles to our suppliers because we could bid them against each other, so Bosch would do the body control module, someone else would do the seat control module, someone else would do the engine control module. We have about 150 of these modules with semiconductors all through the car. The problem is the software are all written by you know 150 different companies and they don't talk to each other. So even though it says Ford on the front, I actually have to go to Bosch to get permission to change their seat Control software. So even if I had a high-speed modem in the vehicle and and I had the ability to write their software, it's actually their IP and I have 150, we call it the loose Confederation of software providers, 150 completely different software programming languages, you know all the structure of the software is different. It’s millions of code and we can't even understand it all. That's why at Ford we've decided in the second generation product to completely insource electric architecture. To do that you need to write all the software yourself, but just remember car companies have never written software like this, ever, so we're literally writing how the vehicle operates the software to operate the vehicle for the first time ever.”
gdfhbgf 发表于 2025-01-08 11:30 Ford CEO Jim Farley on why it's so difficult for legacy car companies to get software right & why Tesla’s vertically integrated approach is the right one: “We farmed out all the modules that control the vehicles to our suppliers because we could bid them against each other, so Bosch would do the body control module, someone else would do the seat control module, someone else would do the engine control module. We have about 150 of these modules with semiconductors all through the car. The problem is the software are all written by you know 150 different companies and they don't talk to each other. So even though it says Ford on the front, I actually have to go to Bosch to get permission to change their seat Control software. So even if I had a high-speed modem in the vehicle and and I had the ability to write their software, it's actually their IP and I have 150, we call it the loose Confederation of software providers, 150 completely different software programming languages, you know all the structure of the software is different. It’s millions of code and we can't even understand it all. That's why at Ford we've decided in the second generation product to completely insource electric architecture. To do that you need to write all the software yourself, but just remember car companies have never written software like this, ever, so we're literally writing how the vehicle operates the software to operate the vehicle for the first time ever.”
gdfhbgf 发表于 2025-01-08 11:30 Ford CEO Jim Farley on why it's so difficult for legacy car companies to get software right & why Tesla’s vertically integrated approach is the right one: “We farmed out all the modules that control the vehicles to our suppliers because we could bid them against each other, so Bosch would do the body control module, someone else would do the seat control module, someone else would do the engine control module. We have about 150 of these modules with semiconductors all through the car. The problem is the software are all written by you know 150 different companies and they don't talk to each other. So even though it says Ford on the front, I actually have to go to Bosch to get permission to change their seat Control software. So even if I had a high-speed modem in the vehicle and and I had the ability to write their software, it's actually their IP and I have 150, we call it the loose Confederation of software providers, 150 completely different software programming languages, you know all the structure of the software is different. It’s millions of code and we can't even understand it all. That's why at Ford we've decided in the second generation product to completely insource electric architecture. To do that you need to write all the software yourself, but just remember car companies have never written software like this, ever, so we're literally writing how the vehicle operates the software to operate the vehicle for the first time ever.”
gdfhbgf 发表于 2025-01-08 11:30 Ford CEO Jim Farley on why it's so difficult for legacy car companies to get software right & why Tesla’s vertically integrated approach is the right one: “We farmed out all the modules that control the vehicles to our suppliers because we could bid them against each other, so Bosch would do the body control module, someone else would do the seat control module, someone else would do the engine control module. We have about 150 of these modules with semiconductors all through the car. The problem is the software are all written by you know 150 different companies and they don't talk to each other. So even though it says Ford on the front, I actually have to go to Bosch to get permission to change their seat Control software. So even if I had a high-speed modem in the vehicle and and I had the ability to write their software, it's actually their IP and I have 150, we call it the loose Confederation of software providers, 150 completely different software programming languages, you know all the structure of the software is different. It’s millions of code and we can't even understand it all. That's why at Ford we've decided in the second generation product to completely insource electric architecture. To do that you need to write all the software yourself, but just remember car companies have never written software like this, ever, so we're literally writing how the vehicle operates the software to operate the vehicle for the first time ever.”
“We farmed out all the modules that control the vehicles to our suppliers because we could bid them against each other, so Bosch would do the body control module, someone else would do the seat control module, someone else would do the engine control module. We have about 150 of these modules with semiconductors all through the car. The problem is the software are all written by you know 150 different companies and they don't talk to each other.
So even though it says Ford on the front, I actually have to go to Bosch to get permission to change their seat Control software. So even if I had a high-speed modem in the vehicle and and I had the ability to write their software, it's actually their IP and I have 150, we call it the loose Confederation of software providers, 150 completely different software programming languages, you know all the structure of the software is different. It’s millions of code and we can't even understand it all. That's why at Ford we've decided in the second generation product to completely insource electric architecture. To do that you need to write all the software yourself, but just remember car companies have never written software like this, ever, so we're literally writing how the vehicle operates the software to operate the vehicle for the first time ever.”
他讲的其实是硬件问题。 比如CD（或者多媒体）组，有自己的芯片，一般就是一块STM32； 刹车系统也有自己的；底盘是有自己的电子硬件；然后导航部分还有单独；每部分都是单独的，每个模块还有自己的系统；所以车厂开发有个专有名词，叫做联调。就是各个模块通过技术中心验证后，一起接受技术中心测试。每个模块都派人，然后一起出去路试验证。
我以前在日产合资厂，也和Ford，类似。2011年，后来我来美国后，我们那个厂和华为竞标，当时华为已经做到了，车里所有系统一起竞争，一个体系。 当时我前同事都说华为是降维打击，不过毕竟是合资厂，竞标肯定赢。后装的标给了华为
任何人，任何事，任何社会，团体，或国家在很多时间，都是这样：曾经是让自己变强的因素，稍不留意，就会变成让自身变弱的因素。
真的象他说的，那就直接从头开始做一个系列，这个新系列，完全抛弃原来供应商不就完了？
明明是只想吃老本，不思进取，还抱怨别人是从头开始，有后发优势。
因为宫斗
他就是想说：从软件到硬件全方位拉跨，我还没啥办法。
但钱还是照拿
屁吧。就说智能座舱这一块。国内的车厂是两周就能迭代一次的。美国要多久？半年都是快的
问题是加钱了就很多人不买。
话说买两田没买三汽的是因为智能座舱吗？
买特斯拉没有买三汽的也是因为智能座舱吗？
跟韩国车竞争市场另说。
我只是用智能座舱举例子罢了。硬件迭代没这么显著的差距，但是开发能力的差距也很显著了。
特斯拉有自己的客户群。
两田现在主要是丰田，也有自己的客户群。混动常常要加价，或者折扣一般。纯油其实除了口碑已经优势不大。
而汽车工业的推动，跟其他消费品工业不完全一样，很大程度是环保局要求减排低碳，以及车管局要求安全特别目前是电子主动安全性。
三汽的一个很大问题，是客户群主要是大排量油车，稍微激进一点就很容易丢失客户群。
😅
属实，跟电车厂商比垂直集成是骗骗大众带歪而已。
就好比特斯拉敢装全玻璃天花板，但特斯拉敢装有运动部件的 Sunroof Moonroof 吗？
哈哈，特斯拉试过的，结果漏水问题比号称防原子弹不防子弹的那家还坑爹好吧。
而特斯拉能装全玻璃顶，也是因为电车，重心低，装全玻璃顶也不会头重脚轻。
要比垂直集成还是跟丰田混动比，两套系统集成在一起，比一套系统更可靠！我每次打开前盖，都不得不佩服。
那个不行，因为每个车厂有个全球采购认证。 像汽车的各个模块有单独的认证体系。以前我上班的地方，花了快十年才挤进了日产全球采购体系。 好像是中国企业第一次进入日产全球采购体系。
就造成了，CD有自己的模块，有相应的公司做，国外出名的就是博世，德尔福，电装。 然后刹车，底座，汽车电子的各个部分都有自己的，情况也类似，在不同领域也会有不同的公司， 比如做导航的，他们不一定会去做动力系统。 结果到了做车，大家就会每个模块分包到了不同供应商公司； 然后在自己车厂对应不同的开发组。
但是电动车就改变了一切。 国内很多电动车因为没有全球采购体系，汽车整体电子系统一起开发，虽然也有不同供应商。 因为美国制裁，结果出了比亚迪和华为这种，动力，电池，车载电子全部一体化的怪兽。
关键是每家供应商的产品开发周期还不一样，统一协调进行有序软件开发基本是mission impossible
那是因为电车供应链还没有形成。
话说丰田混动第一代，电池就是一堆圆柱形镍氢电池放在一个盒子里，电机就是特别设计的。但就这样丰田还能保证不错的可靠性。
模块化也凸显油车各种复杂结构的问题，电车结构就很简单，电池电机电控三大核心。
不管怎样，估计都是被中国车企淘汰掉。
因为整车厂自己也没写过这软件，也不会写，所以只会写要求给spec
而供应商同时供应多家整车厂，也很难在不确认中标的情况下，完全根据你的要求，花几年时间和多少亿为你单独写一套。。风险太大了。。
美国现在方方面面都是这个样子。 未来四年差不多要吃掉最后一块老本了。
好马工估计没人去车企， 没办法。
其实特斯拉也不能算啥智能座舱，智能影院还差不多，就一块大屏幕 LCD 。
主要靠软件，特别是 FSD 软件，和客户群。
大实话。
你混动自己弄了，但是的混动要能够联动 导航和刹车，那又要好多部门协调。 然后，那几个公司，还要单独通过丰田技术中心审核。
那审核老麻烦了, 比如你是美国的控制刹车系统的公司，想加入混动系统对你的控制，你首先要通过美国丰田技术中心的技术认证。 通过后，然后日本总部技术中心，会派来一老一少的专家组，来美国验收你的技术认证。 接着是去日本总部技术中心验证，你就要排队了，日本那边一年到头都在给各个部门的东西进行验证，因为整个丰田的采购，几万几十万的零件认证都在那里搞，等你排到队可能是5年，6年之后了。因为时间长，所以只有那些长久的大公司，才能进入丰田的认证体系，每次改个东西都是好多年。
像国内的车厂基本上都是吉林大学和东北几个理工大学学机械的。会写软件的很少。国外的情况基本也差不多，懂软件的不多， 特斯拉是例外，很多中国人在里面写软件。在国内比亚迪是例外，比亚迪很多湖大和中南大学的毕业生，还有很多湖南籍的，写软件都很好，因为深圳离湖南很近。
日本车起来的时候车上哪有那么多软件？两田的卖点还不就是可靠性，省油，容易维护？和软件无关，不需要花里胡哨的噱头
韩国车打入美国市场首先抓的也是可靠性，不惜推出当时史上最长的Warranty
美国车企没耐心，CEO短视。比如Chevy Volt 本来是个很好的 hybrid 发展平台。可是CEO被马斯克刺激了，要和特斯拉硬碰硬，放弃hybrid，大笔投资 EV 和 FSD(Cruise)，结果是惨败滑铁卢。
人家丰田耐心专注hybrid，精工细作，现在是遥遥领先
他这里的软件，其实是每个模块自己的一套软件。 日本车厂的很多的。 每个模块对应一个芯片，真的就是有一套自己简单的系统。可以理解为一个单片机系统。 比如日本车，你会发现，本田车，有的车有导航，有的车只有收音机，有的车是小屏幕，有的车大屏幕。 这里的收音机和导航，都是自己独立一套系统，他们有自己的一块硬件，硬件是由一块单片机驱动，他们都有自己的一套小软件，而且是不同的供应商公司做的。
我觉得美国公司并不是多么怕日本车，是说现如今的开发模式，和中国的那种差距很大。
连自己的市场上都节节败退，还谈什么中国车企？不就是混肴视听，转移目标么？就好像蒋介石在抱怨我打输了是因为德军多么的厉害。
这二十年美国本土市场年均销售量没啥太大变化，但是美国三大车企的总销量跌了差不多一半。
和这种光拿钱只会口活的总经理认真讨论，就彻底输了。这帮孙子，只要自己的年薪不受影响，管你福特还是瓦特，永远瞎结巴整。
不过丰田的问题，是不能让领导章男经常下跪 ，，， 因为丰田和特斯拉这两客户群不一样 ，，， 丰田刹车一旦有新闻，章男立马就下跪检讨了 ，，， 特斯拉 FSD 有点新闻，老马上推特 debate club 了 ，，，
关键是丰田章男没推特，也只能保守。
美国车企几乎完全退出轿车市场，就这预判能力，就别用软件整合扯淡了。
就是因为can bus，才导致了各个部分分离。不改的话，差距越来越大。 以后都会要向特斯拉学习，汽车是一台大电脑，有四个轮子。
是。要 software defined vehicle, 用 ethernet
这种单独的模块之间有办法通讯吗？
串口，usb, can bus, 都可以通信，现在比亚迪就直接用网线，因为需要实时处理摄像头。 有一个主机板，然后美国模块用20-30pin的口子插上去，自己内部定义串口协议。 之前都这么做。
那时候几乎都是stm32，导航和复杂的数据处理就有数据处理的复杂芯片，有时不同模块还用同样的芯片，只是供应商不同，内部还定义通信通信，纯粹就是养活一大帮闲人，每个模块还有自己的硬件工程师和软件团队。其实用一块大的芯片就好了。 特斯拉就是一个大的数据控制芯片，管所有的。
大神才会用notepad写软件
BYD是聪明啊，用网线。便宜死，还快。 赶紧卖美国来吧，就冲这根网线，我看这家企业行。
说明CODE量不大。不然肯定不行。
真不是他个人的错， 系统庞大，无法自纠，无力回天
tesla 的兴起 其实跟 FSD 关系不大， 因为 FSD 直到现在还远未成熟。
我个人感觉好多人还是很喜欢电车的， 加速快， 秒杀油车是第一大优点， 还有就是 low manitenance. 价格上一开始 tesla 还是很贵的， 但现在 已经降了好多了。
估计 fsd 的吸引力会越来越大。
因为很多职业经理人并没有远景开发的意愿或能力，也不知道能做几年必须尽快做点门面上的成绩，play safe, 拿高薪平安下庄。
Software defined vehicle 将来都是 Ethernet 的 backbone，是方向。
Maintenance 还上门服务。
因为他们是MBA
内部腐败 公司和国家类似 创业之后阶级固化 关系复杂 腐化了 在你看来很简单的事情 就是因为种种内部腐化 就是做不到
肯定是因为利益啊
是啊，腾讯把QQ放一边，重新发展出一套微信的架构来，不是挺成功嘛。另一方面，硬件厂商转型，尤其是体系这么庞大的，确实也不容易，但是连尝试都不愿意，衰落也不是不可预料的，诺基亚，摩托罗拉……例子不少的。