Other Manufacturers Kicking the Tires on Rivian Software / Interested in Partnership

[captainjp]

This 10000%. It’s not just a matter of "copying the software," as some have suggested. The entire system is deeply integrated with the hardware, far beyond just the polished UI that most people see. It's exactly why manufacturers can do an update to adjust reversing speed, ride control, etc. The idea that “they would just get it from Porsche if theirs is so good” completely misses the point—it’s like trying to install a Windows version of Excel on a Mac and expecting it to work seamlessly.

The old CAN bus model was never built for the modern EV ecosystem, where over-the-air updates are crucial but difficult when dealing with modules from multiple manufacturers. Porsche and VW are stuck managing a web of components that aren’t easily updated or controlled, unlike Tesla/Rivian, which designed its architecture around software-defined updates from the start.

And sure, VW/Audi group cars have been around long enough that mechanics and tuners have figured out ways to work with them—BMW too, for that matter—but trying to retrofit an entire integrated vehicle software stack isn't cut and dry. The level of coordination needed to make all these modules talk to each other correctly isn't something you can just "port over" from one system to another.

I think we’ve strayed far from the point here. I don’t think anyone is suggesting it’s a simple port to the hardware. VW and Audi are incorporating the Rivian platform. Yes? This is not a simple port. Correct? This is a ground-up integration to these vehicles. Correct?

The point was this: If Porsche platform is so superior to Rivian’s, then why is VW car group paying $6Billion dollars to Rivian to integrate its platform into their vehicles? Why wouldn’t they just build from the ground up a platform that they already have the rights to?

it’s a rhetorical question.

Sponsored

 

[KW_88_SS]

I don’t think he’s implying that it’s a simple plug-and-play swap. I think the point is why is VW paying $6 billion for a platform if they already have access to a more superior one for free?

The Taycan platform (J1) is built on the MSB platform, originally designed for ICE vehicles, it carries inherent design constraints that make it fundamentally different from what VW appears to be trying to build. Just because Porsche has a well-regarded EV platform doesn’t mean it’s a direct fit for VW’s goals.

J1 was adapted for an EV. VW isn’t just looking for any EV platform; they’re investing in an architecture that can support widespread electrification at scale at cost, not a platform developed for a supercar-ish pedigree.

The software isn't just the UI on the screen, it's everything in the car.

 

[captainjp]

The Taycan platform (J1) is built on the MSB platform, originally designed for ICE vehicles, it carries inherent design constraints that make it fundamentally different from what VW appears to be trying to build. Just because Porsche has a well-regarded EV platform doesn’t mean it’s a direct fit for VW’s goals.

J1 was adapted for an EV. VW isn’t just looking for any EV platform; they’re investing in an architecture that can support widespread electrification at scale at cost, not a platform developed for a supercar-ish pedigree.

The software isn't just the UI on the screen, it's everything in the car.

I still think you’re missing the point.
It was a rhetorical question.
@Donald Stanfield do you want to chime in here?

 

[captainjp]

I still think you’re missing the point.
It was a rhetorical question.
@Donald Stanfield do you want to chime in here?

I do appreciate your knowledge and input, btw.

 

[KW_88_SS]

I think we’ve strayed far from the point here. I don’t think anyone is suggesting it’s a simple port to the hardware. VW and Audi are incorporating the Rivian platform. Yes? This is not a simple port. Correct? This is a ground-up integration to these vehicles. Correct?

The point was this: If Porsche platform is so superior to Rivian’s, then why is VW car group paying $6Billion dollars to Rivian to integrate its platform into their vehicles? Why wouldn’t they just build from the ground up a platform that they already have the rights to?

it’s a rhetorical question.

This has been answered multiple times by several people. But even now, the details of the agreement are being misrepresented. VW isn’t “paying” $6 billion—they’re investing for 50% ownership in the venture. That’s a significant difference.

It’s the same reason they don’t put 911 engines in a VW Jetta—it’s not cost-effective, doesn’t scale, and isn’t suited for the intended use case. The notion that "Porsche's platform is superior, so why not use it?" completely ignores the realities of cost, scalability, and integration at a mass-market level.

 

[captainjp]

This has been answered multiple times by several people. But even now, the details of the agreement are being misrepresented. VW isn’t “paying” $6 billion—they’re investing for 50% ownership in the venture. That’s a significant difference.

It’s the same reason they don’t put 911 engines in a VW Jetta—it’s not cost-effective, doesn’t scale, and isn’t suited for the intended use case. The notion that "Porsche's platform is superior, so why not use it?" completely ignores the realities of cost, scalability, and integration at a mass-market level.

?
Pointless

 

[KW_88_SS]

Pointless

I can't help that you don't get it. Do you think companies build every piece of software from scratch? Would you expect an online payment company to build its own cloud infrastructure instead of using AWS, even though AWS has a competing product? That’s not a realistic expectation(and it's also a real world example).

Google’s offering might be cheaper, but if it doesn’t fit the use case, it’s not an option. These decisions aren’t binary.

Here—read this: Build vs. Buy. Learn something.

You’re acting like it’s my fault that you don’t understand something this basic.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I still think you’re missing the point.
It was a rhetorical question.
@Donald Stanfield do you want to chime in here?

Sure.

The Taycan platform (J1) is built on the MSB platform, originally designed for ICE vehicles, it carries inherent design constraints that make it fundamentally different from what VW appears to be trying to build. Just because Porsche has a well-regarded EV platform doesn’t mean it’s a direct fit for VW’s goals.

J1 was adapted for an EV. VW isn’t just looking for any EV platform; they’re investing in an architecture that can support widespread electrification at scale at cost, not a platform developed for a supercar-ish pedigree.

The software isn't just the UI on the screen, it's everything in the car.

I know the software is the whole architecture, not just the screen. What do you think VW purchased from Rivian? If Porsche's platform was superior VW would have bought it instead of Rivian's. Part of what superior means is deployability. If Porsche's system is so complex and costly that it cannot be used widely, then it's not superior.

Also we aren't talking about Porsche's platform as a whole we are strictly talking about software. Rivian's software is better. Rivian gets more OTA's and is more configurable through code.

 

[captainjp]

The Taycan platform (J1) is built on the MSB platform, originally designed for ICE vehicles, it carries inherent design constraints that make it fundamentally different from what VW appears to be trying to build. Just because Porsche has a well-regarded EV platform doesn’t mean it’s a direct fit for VW’s goals.

J1 was adapted for an EV. VW isn’t just looking for any EV platform; they’re investing in an architecture that can support widespread electrification at scale at cost, not a platform developed for a supercar-ish pedigree.

The software isn't just the UI on the screen, it's everything in the car.

Electric Car Platforms
Porsche engineers took the lead to develop VWG’s first fully electric chassis platform; dubbed the J1, this underpins the recently introduced Taycan electric car (see the December 2019/#269 tech feature) and the upcoming Audi e-tron GT. It was also rumored that Bentley would introduce a BEV based on the J1 platform, but that is unconfirmed as of this writing.

 

[KW_88_SS]

Sure.
I know the software is the whole architecture, not just the screen. What do you think VW purchased from Rivian? If Porsche's platform was superior VW would have bought it instead of Rivian's. Part of what superior means is deployability. If Porsche's system is so complex and costly that it cannot be used widely, then it's not superior.

Also we aren't talking about Porsche's platform as a whole we are strictly talking about software. Rivian's software is better. Rivian gets more OTA's and is more configurable through code.

1. Let’s be clear—VW didn’t ‘buy’ Rivian’s software. This is a 50/50 joint venture, meaning they are co-developing new technology together under a brand new entity. The fact that you’re still trying to frame this as a simple ‘purchase’ shows you don’t understand how corporate partnerships work.
2. Cost and complexity matter. VW needed a scalable, adaptable solution, which is why they co-developed a joint venture with Rivian. You can’t take a car teetering on supercar status and expect it to scale for mass-market use. That’s not inherently good or bad—it’s just a reality of engineering. Or are you suggesting Ferrari should dump their engine tech into Alfa Romeos? Oh wait, that won’t scale, so I guess Ferrari sucks at making engines now? Make it make sense.
3. More configurability doesn’t mean better—it means more reliance on software to compensate for hardware limitations. More patches and tweaks don’t make something superior—they show it wasn’t right to begin with. Let me say this as plainly as possible: constant OTAs are not a flex. They’re a sign of a sloppy initial deployment. People are blindly buying into Rivian's marketing as proof of 'better,' despite decades of research and white papers proving otherwise. But sure, let’s ignore all that because marketing says so!
   

You’re literally sitting here arguing with a software engineer about what ‘better’ means in software. Maybe take a step back and rethink that.

 

[KW_88_SS]

Electric Car Platforms
Porsche engineers took the lead to develop VWG’s first fully electric chassis platform; dubbed the J1, this underpins the recently introduced Taycan electric car (see the December 2019/#269 tech feature) and the upcoming Audi e-tron GT. It was also rumored that Bentley would introduce a BEV based on the J1 platform, but that is unconfirmed as of this writing.

And? The MSB (Modularer Standardantriebsbaukasten) platform is still the basis for the J1 platform, which underpins the Porsche Taycan and Audi e-tron GT. It's just an adaptation of the MSB platform specifically designed for electric vehicles except that it's specific for EVs and the MSB platform is for gasoline cars.

 

[kurtlikevonnegut]

I think @KW_88_SS @captainjp @Donald Stanfield might be missing the forest for the trees here. It really doesn't matter who's software is "better," only what the perceived value is. VW perceived value creating a JV with Rivian to the tune of $6 billion in investment. The origin of this thread was reporting that other manufacturers are seeing similar value and evaluating their options.

It doesn't really matter which software is superior or inferior if there is perceived value and if that perceived value results in additional revenue for Rivian.

 

[Zoidz]

More configurability doesn’t mean better—it means more reliance on software to compensate for hardware limitations.

I agree with most of what you stated except for this. Configurability does not imply reliance on the software layer to compensate for hardware limitations. As you certainly know, hardware can be intentionally designed to encourage configurability via software. That's not a limitation.

 

[captainjp]

I think @KW_88_SS @captainjp @Donald Stanfield might be missing the forest for the trees here. It really doesn't matter who's software is "better," only what the perceived value is. VW perceived value creating a JV with Rivian to the tune of $6 billion in investment. The origin of this thread was reporting that other manufacturers are seeing similar value and evaluating their options.

It doesn't really matter which software is superior or inferior if there is perceived value and if that perceived value results in additional revenue for Rivian.

I personally don’t have an opinion either way on which is better. I only have one point of reference. I agree with you on the point of value. The J1 platform example that was used actually shows that Porsche doesn’t just have platforms unique to its own brand. Audi and Porsche actually share many of the same components.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Yes? This is not a simple port. Correct? This is a ground-up integration to these vehicles. Correct?

*shrug*

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/...-do-in-years-of-spending-billions-242729.html

Sponsored