The Next Challenge for Software Defined Vehicles:Hardware Generations

[DuoRivian]

Exactly. But it makes me wonder if this might highlight an evolving shift in car purchase behavior into a model where the norm is leasing and an outright purchase is an outlier. I have traditionally hung on to cars for hundreds of thousands of miles and 15 + years. However, they were hardware based, with somewhat minimal computation when compared to what the Rivian presents. If properly viewed as a computer on wheels, the ability to stay "current" will significantly diminish on an accelerating timeline as technology ramps up in a decidedly non linear fashion. This is not to say that vehicles won't be functional for many years, but EOL support will limit said function at a certain point (beyond owner input, strictly up to the manufacturer road map). All of which may make a 3 year lease much more attractive to those who want to be able to enjoy future advances in hardware and software...

I get where you are coming from but for leasing to be viable you still need an active used car market and that requires people having confidence in the long term (10-15 years) functionality of the vehicle.
I expect this will resolve itself since 10 year old Teslas and Leafs still operate. I agree with some of the other comments that major functionality additions are becoming rarer now so if updates (other than serious issues) stopped it would not impact the ownership experience much (other than ADAS but that’s the reality for gen 1).

One could argue services like Apple CarPlay and Android Auto minimize this potential issue since people would have updated phones and services like Bluetooth don’t change much.

Sponsored

 

[R1SNRGY]

I get where you are coming from but for leasing to be viable you still need an active used car market and that requires people having confidence in the long term (10-15 years) functionality of the vehicle.
I expect this will resolve itself since 10 year old Teslas and Leafs still operate. I agree with some of the other comments that major functionality additions are becoming rarer now so if updates (other than serious issues) stopped it would not impact the ownership experience much (other than ADAS but that’s the reality for gen 1).

One could argue services like Apple CarPlay and Android Auto minimize this potential issue since people would have updated phones and services like Bluetooth don’t change much.

True. My '06 Jeep was decidedly unconnected, until I replaced the factory head unit with a beautiful Alpine touch screen and jumped ahead 20 years into the future overnight, with full AA and CP. Perhaps down the line anther 10-15 years, that sort of consumer-sided upgrade path will be a common thing even with these current year vehicles. We already see third party solutions for adding CP /AA.

 

[ATLRivvy]

It’s just buzzwords. If there are hardware generations you have to own, then it’s not software defined.

In truly software defined products, the vendor owns and manages the core hardware/ infrastructure. Autoscaling cloud environments are probably the closest example but in reality there are always limitations .

 

[Zoul]

That's fair, and I generally agree you can't expect full feature parity across generations.

But I think about this slightly differently.

What feels off, compared to phones or laptops, is the lifecycle and cost mismatch:

Hardware: 10–20 years and $50K–$120K. Software expectations: evolving continuously, because both buyers and manufacturers want increasingly software-defined vehicles.

In most industries, the answer has been "just upgrade the hardware." Easy, normal, expected. But with vehicles, that's a fundamentally different calculus than replacing a phone or laptop.

So the question I keep coming back to: do all of those new capabilities really need to run fully on the vehicle? Is there a model where safety-critical systems stay local and hardened, while other parts of the experience evolve independently of the hardware generation?

That's not a complete answer, but it feels like there's real middle ground between "full hardware dependency" and "full feature parity expectations." Why does it have to be one or the other?

I'm not a "that's just how it works" kind of guy, and anything this status quo is eventually ripe for disruption. We're clearly partway there. OTA updates exist, connected services exist, but the experience still hits a hardware wall well before the midpoint of a vehicle's useful life.

The goal shouldn't be calling out status quo. It should be figuring out how to push that wall as far out as possible and not just based on how it’s done today.

Curious whether anyone has seen this done well in other long-lifecycle industries like aerospace, industrial equipment, or infrastructure.

I've been a mechanic most of my life. Most of that is in the commercial vehicle industry. Some of the vehicles I currently work on have not been made or supported by their manufacturer since before I was born. The aftermarket will find a way to support most quality products once the manufacturer stops. If they don't an enthusiast will. Then eventually a collector will.

One example I will give, glider kits for semis. Company's will make a whole new chassis for you to slap a 30year old Detroit or caterpillar engine into. There's a lot of fight going on to make it illegal, but there's still a market for it so it will still happen to some extent. Freightliner used to make gliders themselves.

Another example is the marine/maritime industry. repowers, refits, rebuilds happen all the time. My grandfather spent an ungodly amount of money on a fish finder for a boat that is worth as much as a set of tires. There is a market for fitting fuel injected engines and automonous navigation into sail boats.

There are led sealed beam replacement headlights for vehicles that had AC and fm radio optional from factory. There's a ever growing segment of enthusiasts swapping Nissan leaf powerplants into just about everything. GM performance will still sell you a gen3 LS.

Polestar is planning to start supporting rebuilt battery packs for the 2 and 3. And the 2 is essentially dead in the US. Hell they will even sell you an upgrade kit for the infotainment and you can download the performance pack.

In my opinion rivian would be stupid not to support and monetize the gen 1 and eventually gen2. They are prominent enough products, and the power train is robust enough the aftermarket will support it. Be it mods, retrofits, or replacement parts. Depending on how rivian handles end of official support will just determine how aggressive the aftermarket is about starting their support. But they have no reason to give gen1 all the gen2 features nor gen2 gen3 features. And so on. The other thing to think of is that gen1 appeals to buyers that don't want some of the "updates" from gen2. To a certain extent I feel they may have a market of gen1(or gen2 with gen1 capabilities)as the new dual standard. cut the entry level cost and make money off the "old" design, but I understand there's more complications to that from a production standpoint.

Yes a software defined vehicle has challenges when it comes to hardware, especially if the measure of success is being the most innovative, or having the newest coolest tech. With r2 being marketed as the economic/practical offering I'm not sure that is the right measure of success.

Sponsored