Automotive Software Redux; Customer Trust

The scale of the automotive software challenge, and the path out

Last week, I wrote about the software challenges faced by automotive OEMs.  The legacy automakers must make dramatic changes in leadership, culture, and equity compensation if they hope to keep up.  There are a couple of points worth elaborating on, and there may be the beginnings of a path out of the morass, albeit not without pain.

Modern cars have an extensive breadth and depth of software — thousands of dollars worth, at the very least.  This software spans all parts of the vehicle — low-level real-time software in various controllers — seats, windows, lights, engine, transmission, everywhere.   All the assist and autonomy features — cruise control, parking assist, traction control, braking control, suspension control, autonomy, etc.   All the networks in the car — internal networks, UWB, Bluetooth, 5G connectivity, wifi, etc.  All the UX features in the cabin — navigation, streaming, calling, messaging, entertainment, climate, etc.  And the cloud backend to support all this — authentication, telemetry, updates, etc etc etc.

In the UX area, some people argue that automakers should dump most of their own UX software and use Carplay and Android Auto.  And this may be the rational thing to do rather than building uncompetitive alternatives.  But the UX for the modern car goes far beyond the scope of Carplay or Android Auto and far beyond in-cabin use:

• Pre-sales — vehicle build, ordering, financing, delivery tracking and appointment
• Use while driving — In-car media streaming, navigation, entertainment, etc.  This is where Carplay and Android Auto also shine.
• Remote car access using a mobile app for security, climate, lock/unlock, etc.
• Post sales — car manuals, problem submission, service scheduling, service check-in, service status tracking, payment, pickup, emergency response
• Charging — on-the-go access to superchargers, charging navigation support, integration with home charging facilities — Powerwall or other
• Upgrade management, Subscription management for data and entertainment services
• And for each feature, there is in-car head-unit software, mobile app software, web front ends, and a cloud backend

Tesla has made a massive investment in end-to-end software, and most of these features work very well with Tesla vehicles.  I haven’t tried a Rivian but I hear good things as well.  Legacy automakers are behind on every aspect of this software experience.  It is not a matter of just flipping to Carplay and Android Auto; there is a vast body of software beyond the in-car infotainment experience. 

The strong view of software in the car is that the chief engineer (or at least a co-chief engineer) for a car should have a software background and be responsible for the entire end-to-end experience.  The UX delivered by software is what the customer interacts with most often, and as we move towards greater assistance/autonomy and electrification, software becomes more dominant.   Building a modern car experience requires a software-first culture, experienced software teams, and a competitive compensation model that aligns with tech industry compensation models. 

Tesla and Rivian have made this jump; these companies were built this way.  It is not clear a legacy OEM can rebuild its supply chain and internal culture in the same way.  They probably need to fund a new greenfield effort completely outside their traditional culture and organization (how IBM launched the PC).  Or maybe the best move for a legacy OEM is to license or acquire the stack from RIvian or Tesla as VW has done.

Perhaps we are at the beginning of a great refactoring of the automotive industry.  Tesla and Rivian have the system architectures and software implementations that all OEMs need.  Legacy OEMs can try to build all this themselves — or perhaps find a way to leverage the assets of the new entrants.  Tesla’s opening up of its charging network is a small step towards this refactoring.

It seems unlikely that Tesla or Rivian will ever build dominant market shares for their branded vehicles — or at least not without a lot of blood, sweat, tears, and much capital expended.  It seems unlikely that the legacy OEMs will ever build the system architectures and software stacks needed.   There is a deal to be made.  

As Hank Skorny points out, the evolution of the auto industry is a substantial industrial policy and economic issue.  Significant employment is at stake.  Chinese entrants are gearing up to compete worldwide. Politicians will get involved.  A simplistic policy will pour funding into legacy US OEMs to stave off imports and job losses.  A better policy would be to encourage the refactoring that needs to happen.

Disrespecting the Customer

Last Saturday night,  I just wanted to watch the end of the Oregon-Boise State game.   It was a great game — 4th quarter, all tied up, Oregon a top 10 team facing a huge challenge.  The Buckeyes play Oregon this season and I’d like to see what we’ll face.  

I fired up YoutubeTV and searched for the game.  I found the box score and underneath the words “GAME UNAVAILABLE.”  Huh?   How can this be?  In 2024, the game is not streaming anywhere?  The Pac-12 tore itself apart, and I still can’t see the games???  Oh, OK, Yahoo Sports told me it is on Peacock.

Google’s Mission is to “organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.”  The streaming information for this game is readily available, and YoutubeTV could have shown it to me, a paying customer.  But YoutubeTV decided to hide that information because they didn’t want to encourage the use of a streaming competitor.  So they make their customers spend a few minutes finding the information elsewhere.  Petty, childish, short-sighted.

We are in a world of N streaming services, and sports leagues are licensing their content piecewise to maximize revenue.   I can’t keep track of all of it; this week alone, Big10 games were carried on CBS, Fox, NBC, Big Ten Network, FS1, Fubo, and Peacock.  The NFL situation is equally complicated, with games on Prime Video, NFL+, Fox, Paramount+, CBS, Sunday Ticket, NBC, Peacock, and ESPN.  Streamers have grand sports ambitions, this issue is going to occur again and again and again.  Streamers can solve customers’ problems and help them find the game, or they can decide to be petty and frustrate customers.

This problem — putting one's own agenda ahead of customer agendas — is not new or unique.

Windows and Netware and customer trust

In the early 90s, if you had a LAN in your office, you probably used Novell Netware to share files and printers.   And you probably used Windows 3.x on your desktop machines.  And boy howdy, trying to configure the Netware client under Windows 3.x was painful.  It had to be installed in MS-DOS, and it stuffed itself up into a little corner of memory, which could get stomped on, and it made your whole system unstable at times.  We received constant complaints about the fragility of the setup, as did Novell.

In Windows 95, we decided to take matters into our own hands, build a protected mode Windows client for Netware networks, and include it with Windows.  No MSDOS installation required, no futzing around with third party drivers and disks, it just worked, and it was stable.  Customers loved it.  Novell hated it because they didn’t control it, they couldn’t revise it to add features, they didn’t trust Microsoft, etc.  So Novell recommended not using it, but they couldn’t be too pointed because it solved the customer’s problem.

Providing this easy connectivity was a little controversial inside Microsoft because Microsoft was also competing with Novell in the server market.  However, Microsoft made the right decision to separate these concerns.  Windows NT Server had to compete and win on its own merits, and Windows 95 machines had to sell into settings where Netware was installed.  Of course, Windows 95 also worked great with Windows NT servers, and the end-to-end Microsoft solution was fantastic, but customers could make their server and client decisions separately.

You want to compete hard and sell a bunch of your products. But it is even more valuable to become the customer’s trusted partner, the “goto” vendor for the customer when they have a problem.  If you can always be the first vendor a customer calls and provide solutions to their problems, you will be in good stead when they buy products.  Conversely, if you refuse to solve their problems for some strategy or competitive reason, you push the customer towards other vendors and look petty.

Remarkable FOMO

The new Remarkable Paper Pro looks amazing — color, great note-taking experience, and long battery life. The company seems very focused.   I am very tempted.  

Note-taking is a widespread use case.  I use Apple Notes all the time. Evernote, OneNote, Notion, Apple Notes, and more are all popular.  There is always innovation in the category, I have tinkered with Obsidian, Logseq, Craft, and Roam. And, of course, many, many people take paper notes.  People have workflows and habits built up around these existing tools.

Any new product faces a severe “time” test.  People only have 24 hours a day, and their days are already pretty full, and no amount of innovation will change the hours in a day.  Most people don’t want to futz around with technology.  Asking people to spend time with a whole new device and experience is a significant ask, it has to make people much more productive.  Does the Remarkable device improve the workflow around notes in a substantial enough way to cause people to change their note workflow?  For some people, the pen, color support, and other features may make the difference.  

The Remarkable device also faces an additional challenge — it asks people to carry around yet another device.  A stylish and lightweight device, but still another device.  It needs to be incredibly compelling or be able to replace existing devices — a very tough test.  The Paper Pro is not a general-purpose device, so it won’t replace a phone or PC; it will have to replace 3rd devices — tablets, kindles — or compel people to have a 4th device.  

I really hope the device finds a user base; it seems well-designed.  But wow, it is a steep climb.