Hacker News Reader

Comment by a3n | Hacker News Reader

> Clearly they don't understand the market, if the other parts of the market are paying 20Million Yen for this position then that is where it "should be" and you have to figure out how to cover that cost.

Or figure out how to get along without it, or with less of it.

As I was reading this article, I kept wondering if cars really need all the IT/SW tech being poured into them.

Maybe people wouldn't buy cars without it. Or maybe people who currently don't buy or otherwise use cars would be attracted to a simpler and cheaper solution.

A safe frame, seatbelts and airbags, reliability, reasonable gas mileage and honest pollution controls, plus a good enough radio/stored music player, and a warranty. We already have all that, to a mostly excellent degree. No additional IT talent required.

It seems that car manufacturers have trapped themselves into being feature whores.

View on HN

> It seems that car manufacturers have trapped themselves into being feature whores.

That's because customers are feature whores. If there are two cars and one has a backup camera, internet connection, and an automatic transmission, people are going to buy that over a car with just a radio and a stick shift.

For the vast majority of drivers, a car is an appliance and any appliance that is easier and more comfortable to operate is better to them. So when a car can park itself, call the ambulance if you crash, keep your coffee hot in heated cupholders, and tap into your cloud music account, all the better for them.

> customers are feature whores

Yeah... or maybe because those features are now required by law:

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/u-s-requiring-back-up-cam...

That's a law going into the effect over a year from now. Backup cameras have been popular long before the Feds decided to mandate it. The point is that plenty of people pay extra of their own volition to have stuff like backup cameras, blindspot warnings, automatic headlights, etc.

AFAIK, only back-up cameras (in 2017) and airbags are required in the US. Traction control might be on the list to become required.

ABS, brake-assist/auto-braking, blind-spot detection, lane-keeping, etc are all optional.

And, FWIW, my latest car has most of these features not because I'm a feature whore, but because safety is good. And inexpensive (relative to a life-altering collision).

Automation is the biggest opportunity in car safety. The mechanical engineering on cars has entered the terminal stage. Software is all that's left to do, really.

Carmakers are still making considerable advances in mechanical crash safety -- the US added an off-center front impact requiement recently.

Nonetheless, the gains that stand to be realized by automation are clearly far greater than what remains to be gotten mechanically. Much better to avoid a collision altogether than to try to survive it.

> Much better to avoid a collision altogether than to try to survive it.

That's a horrid strategy from a sales perspective. Crash test ratings are one of the main benchmarks used by a large group of new car buyers (women and couples not shopping for the cheapest compact on the lot).

The mechanical engineering on the Toyota Camry might be a solved problem. The Germans have yet to figure out how to make the mechanisms behind their fun driving dynamics reliable too. A car that drives like a $60,000 sportscar, without the high price tag or maintenance burden, would do quite well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com