Will other EVs ever catch up with Tesla?

[Mach1E]

this is a great point.

Apple invented the touchscreen phone and changed the industry. it essentially put Nokia out of business and Samsung was way way behind.

today, Samsung and Apple phones ... it largely comes down to philosophical preferences.

First touchscreen phone was the IBM Simon in 1992.

Apple was 15 years late to the game. Definitely changed the industry, but very far from the “first.” Just shows that “first” doesn’t necessarily win.

https://simpletexting.com/where-have-we-come-since-the-first-smartphone/

Sponsored

 

[agoldman]

Tesla's lead will last a good bit longer, but with every new alternative model, and improvements on fast charging and more reliable stations, there is a limit to how long. Also pretty soon, if Tesla doesn't step up their game with design and quality control, they won't be able to keep pace either. That won't heppen for a while, but eventually it will. The models are already looking stale in comparison with what's on the horizon. Time will tell.

 

[dbsb3233]

They are, Tesla body styles are going really start getting stale. This will pose a very big problem for them as more choices arrive.

Exactly. Tesla's business model is to make a bazillion of just a few cookie-cutter models. I think they're gonna saturate the market for the 3/Y at some point. (Basically 2 sizes of the same car with the same mundane look). That might be fine somewhere like the China market, but consumers in the North American and European markets like variety. It's not a Model T market anymore, or even a VW bug market.

Tesla will probably add some new models at some point, but variety is not their strong suit. Their whole production process is geared toward making a ton of one thing. And as you say, that will get stale with today's consumers.

 

[Maquis]

Tesla's lead will last a good bit longer, but with every new alternative model, and improvements on fast charging and more reliable stations, there is a limit to how long. Also pretty soon, if Tesla doesn't step up their game with design and quality control, they won't be able to keep pace either. That won't heppen for a while, but eventually it will. The models are already looking stale in comparison with what's on the horizon. Time will tell.

Elon said in the last earnings call that there would be no model updates in 2022. It’s happening now.

 

[Maquis]

First touchscreen phone was the IBM Simon in 1992.

Apple was 15 years late to the game. Definitely changed the industry, but very far from the “first.” Just shows that “first” doesn’t necessarily win.

https://simpletexting.com/where-have-we-come-since-the-first-smartphone/

I remember when Apple announced they were getting into the phone business, the pundits saying “cell phones are a commodity business….what the hell is Jobs doing.”
He certainly proved them wrong.

 

[sotek2345]

I am not sure I want automakers investing hard into software and trying to "catch Tesla". Some investment sure - but Apple Carplay / Android auto is much better solution in my option. We upgrade our phones far more often than our cars (as a society), so let's leverage than to keep older cars relevant for much longer. Effort should be focused on the EV powertrain (batteries, motors, power electronics).

 

[Carsinmyblood]

In 1923 HALF of the cars on American roads were Model T Fords. Henry refused to update the Model T and lost his advantage in the marketplace to bigger cars, stronger engines, heaters.....

Musk is already behind in styling. We'll see if he leads or trails as we head towards EV 2.0.

 

[RonTCat]

They will, this will also be customer driven to an extent. Some people still like buttons.

1. Tesla is VERY nimble with physical and software changes - HUGE advantage. It will be tough for others to break the bureaucracy to become as nimble. 5 year GAP (at least) probably 8-10.
2. Software (Tesla)- The car is very automated, and extremely forward thinking! Built in features to be activated years in the future- (6-8 year GAP to catch up with Tesla - optimistic)
3. Software - Until the larger automakers stop being cheap with processing power etc. They will be hampered. Tesla won't be caught because of 'continuous improvement' cycles. Tesla has shown it will invest in the computing to maximize functionality and the forward thinking features. I just don't see Hyundai, Chevy, VW or Ford catching up until they stop using the bottom line as a determination of functionality. LUCID and Tesla won't be caught for 6 years. Rivian and Lucid might eclipse Tesla, but they cannot build the volume of cars. This won't change for 10 years if they even survive.

As someone pointed out, Ford hired Doug Field. He was basically chief engineer for Model 3.

So would Ford know exactly where Tesla's strengths and weaknesses are? Yes. So use the strengths, avoid the weaknesses. And, of course, Tesla has software strengths and weaknesses.

That Tesla is "way ahead" in software is the prevailing "hot take". I know this is counterintuitive, but they aren't really ahead in software, they are are ahead in hardware. The paradigm for "fixing" software issues for years was "to buy better hardware". Tesla followed this viciously to success.

Tesla has a hardware advantage because they designed hardware from the ground up, clean sheet of paper, whereas all the legacy makers have just evolved their systems. Legacy makers are "updating the airplane while it is in the air". Tesla just started building a new, better airplane.

So how does this superior hardware manifest itself as apparently better software? When you have software features that rely on data/input from 6 different, older hardware devices, you will get software that seems "laggy", or faults when the timing of data comes in has issues. When you use new hardware that combined these 6 devices into 1, the exact same fundamental software now runs buttery smooth and fast.

So software advantage? No. Hardware advantage? Yes!!!

For how much longer? A couple years at most. The legacy makers already have had their clean sheets of design paper out. Software will magically follow.

 

[dbsb3233]

When you have software features that rely on data/input from 6 different, older hardware devices, you will get software that seems "laggy", or faults when the timing of data comes in has issues.

This is why I wish there was an option to have Sync4 start booting in accessory mode as soon as we press the driver door button to open the door. The often slow device handshakes (apparently?) seem to cause a rather slow boot-up sequence when pressing the Start button. Giving it a head-start (like the time it takes to open the door, crawl in, and buckle up) would use up probably 15-20 seconds of that boot time, and Sync4 would be nearly ready by the time we're settled.

I know the drive functions are fully-ready immediately, which is good, but it would be nice to be able to do radio and climate before putting it in gear. Those are often still loading for another 20 seconds or so.

 

[secretvampire]

I dunno, reminds me of the old tale:

NASA spent millions developing a pen that could write in extreme temperatures, upside down and in the vacuum of space.

The Russians used a pencil.

Off topic, but FYI:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-nasa-spen/

 

[macchiaz-o]

So how does this superior hardware manifest itself as apparently better software? When you have software features that rely on data/input from 6 different, older hardware devices, you will get software that seems "laggy", or faults when the timing of data comes in has issues. When you use new hardware that combined these 6 devices into 1, the exact same fundamental software now runs buttery smooth and fast.

Lag, perhaps. But faults due to timeouts are a continuing concern regardless of how services are distributed in the system. Putting services into the same circuit board doesn't inherently solve any timeout issue.

There are advantages (and some risks) to migrating legacy comms into a new-shiny-thing.

A big one (and possibly a cost and regression risk): Engineers will get a chance to learn new "popular" things and will be engaged in the process. This is hugely rewarding for the team that gets to be a part of making it happen and hopefully Ford recognizes this benefit.

Another benefit... There are fewer intermediate hurdles such as bridges between different message encoding formats, serial to Ethernet comms, clock synchronizers, real time to pre-emptively multitasked, etc. Many "chips" and wires will be removed and the communication architecture is simplified.

 

[Kevin P]

Tesla is a software company at heart that makes cars... Ford is the opposite. Fortunately, it's much easier to improve software than a car's durability, fit and finish once it's left the factory.

Agreed, fixing software is a lot easier than fixing manufacturing challenges.

 

[coolshades]

I am not sure I want automakers investing hard into software and trying to "catch Tesla". Some investment sure - but Apple Carplay / Android auto is much better solution in my option. We upgrade our phones far more often than our cars (as a society), so let's leverage than to keep older cars relevant for much longer. Effort should be focused on the EV powertrain (batteries, motors, power electronics).

i don't know about that.

i think autonomous driving is inevitable. it won't happen as quickly as Musk is predicting, but for sure in the next few decades it will be here.

autonomous is mostly about software.

 

[Ride_the_lightning]

Lag, perhaps. But faults due to timeouts are a continuing concern regardless of how services are distributed in the system. Putting services into the same circuit board doesn't inherently solve any timeout issue.

There are advantages (and some risks) to migrating legacy comms into a new-shiny-thing.

A big one (and possibly a cost and regression risk): Engineers will get a chance to learn new "popular" things and will be engaged in the process. This is hugely rewarding for the team that gets to be a part of making it happen and hopefully Ford recognizes this benefit.

Another benefit... There are fewer intermediate hurdles such as bridges between different message encoding formats, serial to Ethernet comms, clock synchronizers, real time to pre-emptively multitasked, etc. Many "chips" and wires will be removed and the communication architecture is simplified.

The risk of course is in mixing vital safety-related systems with non-vital infotainment systems. I’m glad Ford is taking a methodical approach to these kinds of changes. However, there are certainly subsystems that could stand to be modernized.

Also, I owned a 2021 model 3 prior to my MME. The Tesla software isn’t that great. It’s less laggy but that’s about it. No AA or CarPlay, so it was actually more annoying to do many things, and their native Spotify was limited to 96kbps on their super amazing sound system. OTA updates also don’t happen as often now, probably because it’s matured. At some point you get more customers complaining about a random update than being happy with it (I.e my father in law bitching every time Apple changes where something familiar is on his iPhone). Lots of Tesla owners were mad when they completely changed the look of the interface in late 2020.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Most of what Tesla is "ahead" on is BSing its customers.

Sponsored