Blindly "stacking materials" is not good for building smart cars

As automotive intelligence becomes a trend, more and more car companies are competing in hardware in the fields of autonomous driving and intelligent cockpits. However, now the intelligent competition of cars seems to have driven into a misunderstanding, that is, blindly stacking materials. Improving hardware configuration is necessary, but it cannot simply use traditional benchmarking and additive thinking. The excessive pursuit of hardware performance indicators is actually a cover for substantive laziness with superficial diligence, and it is difficult for automakers to accumulate real core competitiveness and differentiated innovation.

"For the convenience of children watching videos, there are a bunch of big screens in the car, and I have reservations about this approach." Recently, Daniel Zhang, co-founder and CEO of Nezha Automobile, expressed concern about the crazy piling of materials by car companies on his social media account.

Previously, Li Bin, founder and chairman of NIO, also publicly opposed the installation of large screens in the rear of the car, and frankly said: "I will not let my children see the big screen." We have our persistence. ”

As automotive intelligence becomes a trend day by day, more and more car companies are launching hardware competitions in the fields of automatic driving and intelligent cockpits, and the size and number of on-board screens have become the focus of the competition. The rear screen of the car, which was once only available on luxury models, now also appears on some ordinary new energy vehicles. The famous terrier of "three major pieces of intelligent electric vehicles, refrigerators, color TVs, and massage chairs" widely spread in the industry is a true portrayal of many companies' blind "stacking materials".

If you go back to the roots, Tesla Model S can be called the world's first truly intelligent car. However, Tesla's intelligence does not seem to have much to do with stacking. A little research is not difficult to find that Tesla's intelligence relies more on innovation at the software level. On the one hand, Tesla's cross-domain centralized electronic and electrical architecture solves the limitations of the traditional automotive distributed electronic and electrical architecture in the past, realizes the decoupling between software and hardware, and greatly facilitates subsequent OTA (over-the-air upgrade). On the other hand, Tesla has eliminated the physical buttons by using NVIDIA consumer chips and a 17-inch touch screen, realizing a new interactive experience like the iPhone of people and cars. It can be said that Tesla took the lead in opening a new era of intelligence of "software-defined vehicles", which is not an exaggeration.

Now, the intelligent competition of cars seems to have entered a misunderstanding. "People have me, people have me" and "fighting small with big and fighting with less" have unconsciously become the main routine of industry competition. Taking stock of the smart electric vehicles listed in recent years, they have played "stacking" to a new height.

For a car that wants to achieve a high-level intelligent driving level, it is necessary to improve the hardware configuration, but it cannot simply use traditional benchmarking and additive thinking. Because this does not necessarily create value, but may also affect the user experience. In the age of traditional machinery, we see that the highest limit of human intelligence and craftsmanship can be perpetual calendar watches. This is a program written by hundreds of gears, which can automatically identify large and small months, flat leap years, and at least 5 years without adjusting the date. However, in the era of electronic watches, an algorithm of less than <> yuan can solve this function, and it is far more reliable and stable than mechanical watches. Therefore, in the era of intelligent vehicles, product development thinking must have new changes and breakthroughs. Otherwise, the road of intelligent car building will not go far and it will not be good.

In fact, the actual value of smart cars does not necessarily increase with the improvement of configuration or single point of performance, and may even cause a lot of interference and experience confusion due to too many configuration stacks. What's more, the "stacking" of automobile manufacturers will inevitably lead to rising costs. If you pile for the heap, users at an information disadvantage are likely to pay an "IQ tax" without knowing it.

A key logical shift in smart cars is that hardware needs to become a resource that software can call. In other words, through the control of software, the hardware can present different states in different scenarios and solve different problems. Some people say that the excessive pursuit of hardware performance indicators regardless of the actual needs of consumers is actually covering up the substantive laziness with superficial diligence, and this metaphor has some truth. Because the real value part is created by the supplier. In this way, it is difficult for automakers to accumulate real core competitiveness and differentiated innovation. (Source: Economic Daily)