I don’t understand, where is the soul of traditional car companies so easy to lose?

Autonomous driving is productivity, but not the only one.

Recently, traditional car companies like to talk about the “soul”.

A few days ago, SAIC Chairman Chen Hong’s remarks that “cooperating with third parties such as Huawei in the field of autonomous driving is to lose the soul” caused a wave of waves.

At an automotive industry forum in June, Li Dan, the vice president of the FAW Group’s R&D Center, said something similar: “Before the supplier provided us with a component, now the supplier provides us with a soul, brain, and nerve. All use the full-stack R&D results provided by external companies. Is this company, product, brand still the original brand?”

Two established state-owned companies, SAIC and FAW, talked about the “soul” at the same time, because they recognized the subversion that may be brought about by intelligent technologies such as autonomous driving and smart cockpits. Both of them revealed an idea in their words: losing control of smart technologies such as autonomous driving on their products would be a fatal thing.

Take a look at the new forces that keep these traditional manufacturers awake at night: The car company with the deepest self-developed autonomous driving is Tesla, and the autonomous driving chip is also made by itself. NIO and Ideal both purchase core hardware such as chips, and then independently complete the programming of autonomous driving and the setting of algorithm logic. Xiaopeng is exploring in-depth self-research and developing chips by itself.

For a long time before, the traditional car factories that were aware of the threat, in the intelligent layout, like to choose the form of investment holding or incubation to control the technical solutions in their own hands. Most of SAIC, FAW, Great Wall, Geely, etc. choose to hold technology companies or establish wholly-owned subsidiaries. SAIC Holdings Autopilot Startup Company Momenta, Great Wall Holdings Haomo Zhixing, etc. Geely established a wholly-owned subsidiary Yikatong, and FAW established FAW Nanjing.

In the holding mode, the OEM and the technology company are in a cooperative relationship, and the OEM is in a dominant position. In the subsequent iteration and update of the software, it can better ensure the frequency and cycle of product updates. SAIC’s high-end brand Zhiji adopts the Mpilot autonomous driving solution provided by Momenta. On the one hand, the OEM can guarantee its own right to speak. On the other hand, for the OEM, it will burn money in autonomous driving. In the R&D investment, some costs can be controlled.

Take the example of Momenta and Hao Mozhi. They are both start-up companies. In addition to exporting the technology developed to SAIC and Great Wall, Momenta’s cooperative companies also include Daimler, Weilai, etc., as the scale grows and the degree of marketization increases. , Will embark on the road of independent listing in the future, with profitability. Geely’s investment in the establishment of Yikatong will not only help Geely and its subsidiaries Proton, Volvo and other smart cockpit and autonomous driving technology expansion, but also have the idea of ​​supporting its business independence.

At the same time, traditional car companies will not rule out self-research of self-driving chips with the help of technology companies they hold in the future. Haomo Zhixing and Yikatong have such a layout. They will become the main promoters of OEMs on the road to in-depth self-research.

Until Huawei’s HI (Huawei Inside) mode appeared.

In this full set of autonomous driving solutions, Huawei provides core capabilities such as lidar, autonomous driving, smart cockpits, and smart electric drives to form a complete set of solutions, making auto companies that are accustomed to holding and investing in smart innovations feel uneasy. Therefore, on the one hand, it quickly attracted traditional car manufacturers such as BAIC New Energy, Guangzhou Automobile Group and Changan, and at the same time, more car manufacturers began to worry about their souls like SAIC.

So, is Huawei’s full set of solutions really that terrible?

Huawei itself, of course, has been emphasizing its own “harmlessness.” Recently, in answering this question for the Nth time, Huawei stated that the most important market for Huawei’s ICT (Information and Communication Technology) business is Germany, and Germany’s pillar industry is automobiles. Huawei does not want to lose its jobs by competing with customers.

This seems to dispel some people’s worries.

From the actual operation point of view, Huawei’s solution still requires adequate technical support from the car in key links such as the model structure. For traditional car companies, the development capabilities of the vehicle architecture and application layer are also part of the “self-research” capabilities.

From this point of view, Huawei has actually continued its position as a supplier of incremental components for intelligent networked vehicles. A more vivid analogy is that Huawei hopes to seize the opportunity of restructuring the automotive industry chain and become the Android of the intelligent networked car industry.

You know, not every Android phone can guarantee the rampant market, and the success or failure of this revolution in the automotive industry is not limited to autonomous driving solutions.

How to use a better architecture to meet autonomous driving technology, and how to make the vehicle’s accumulated capabilities for many years better transform itself to adapt to the needs of the intelligent age are equally important decisive factors.

After the Shanghai Auto Show, Jihu, which adopted Huawei’s full-stack solution, did not have a strong share price performance because of its cooperation with Huawei. The increase is far less than that of the parent company Xiaokang of Cyrus, which adopted Huawei’s smart solution.

Behind this gap, investors may question the ability of BAIC Blue Valley, which has suffered losses for many years, to adapt to intelligent transformation.

I don't understand, where is the soul of traditional car companies so easy to lose?

Although autonomous driving is the core technology for the future development of the auto industry, it does not necessarily represent the core competence of auto companies in the future. The law of this industry determines that in the end market, few users will ultimately care about which algorithm, which chip, which lidar or millimeter wave radar is used for its autonomous driving, but care about the whole Experience-the soul of traditional car companies is not so easy to lose.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/i-dont-understand-where-is-the-soul-of-traditional-car-companies-so-easy-to-lose/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2021-07-05 11:13
Next 2021-07-05 11:15

Related articles