> ... they will almost never be able to build a software driven car, which is the car of the future.
Software can make a lot of things better, but for whatever reason most cars end up with closed software solutions with a limited amount of updates, problems with how responsive/inefficient they are and a plethora of other complications. At that point, slapping an Android tablet on the dash for navigation might be a better idea, since at least that can be changed out or customized with relatively few issues, versus being stuck with a flawed built in system that's a black box as far as you're concerned.
Alas, why even pay for that? Why not have a car with a simple dash, less electronics and simply mounts for you to bring your own. Of course, that's not the direction in which the industry seems to be headed.
Now, this might be a silly comparison, but I can't help but to think of comparing a simple soviet tractor (say, a T-25 https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/T-25?_x_tr_sl... ) which is simple to use and repair, to something like a modern John Deere. Perhaps that's one of the better examples, where the more complex design ends up rather expensive, even if you don't need all of the features. But the former, simpler design? Well, somehow ones like that aren't manufactured much nowadays.
Surely in regards to cars it should also be possible to pick the essentials (e.g. in regards to safety and security) and then offer plenty of different models, with varying different levels of technology embedded. Then again, it's easier to pump up the price if you cram more features in even in the basic models. Of course, it's not like that would be okay if those closed systems were to be replaced with open source either - since that might be a serious safety liability.
The principles behind the auto industry are primarily driven by the last motive. To pump up the price for some shitty upgrade that not many really want. It's the same core, with a few upgrades that are super cheap to manufacture. Like a dashboard change or change a knob to a button etc.
It's like selling a new iPhone with just a few changes to some superficial apps such as I donno, Numbers.
Agree with you on a modular car where you just let people customise and build whatever the heck they want. I even think you should be able to customize a 2 seater v/s a 4/5 seater with plenty of options.
I visited my friend while he was plowing his fields, and one of his tractors was out of commission due to a broken sensor. The first thing that came out of his mouth was: I don’t hate the sensors, they saved one of my tractors from an oil leak one time.
For tractors, the reason they gain features is to improve uptime, thus driving costs down. And they do.
Software can make a lot of things better, but for whatever reason most cars end up with closed software solutions with a limited amount of updates, problems with how responsive/inefficient they are and a plethora of other complications. At that point, slapping an Android tablet on the dash for navigation might be a better idea, since at least that can be changed out or customized with relatively few issues, versus being stuck with a flawed built in system that's a black box as far as you're concerned.
Alas, why even pay for that? Why not have a car with a simple dash, less electronics and simply mounts for you to bring your own. Of course, that's not the direction in which the industry seems to be headed.
Now, this might be a silly comparison, but I can't help but to think of comparing a simple soviet tractor (say, a T-25 https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/T-25?_x_tr_sl... ) which is simple to use and repair, to something like a modern John Deere. Perhaps that's one of the better examples, where the more complex design ends up rather expensive, even if you don't need all of the features. But the former, simpler design? Well, somehow ones like that aren't manufactured much nowadays.
Surely in regards to cars it should also be possible to pick the essentials (e.g. in regards to safety and security) and then offer plenty of different models, with varying different levels of technology embedded. Then again, it's easier to pump up the price if you cram more features in even in the basic models. Of course, it's not like that would be okay if those closed systems were to be replaced with open source either - since that might be a serious safety liability.