Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Power

Will Elon Musk License Tesla's Technology To Other Automakers? (inc.com) 128

Posted by EditorDavid from the Tesla-inside dept.
Audi's CEO "willingly admits that Tesla is two years ahead of the industry in some critical areas of building electric vehicles," reports Electrek. But where will that lead?

"Earlier this week, Musk made a subtle comment on Twitter that could majorly upend the auto industry," reports Inc. magazine: In response to an article in Teslarati highlighting German automakers' attempts to bridge the gap between Tesla's technology and their own, Musk tweeted the following: "Tesla is open to licensing software and supplying powertrains & batteries," tweeted Musk. "We're just trying to accelerate sustainable energy, not crush competitors!"

Consider for just a moment the brilliant potential of Musk's statement. In addition to leading its rivals in electric vehicle production (and the larger style batteries needed to support these), Tesla is also at the forefront of utilizing modern technology in its vehicles. In fact, many have described Tesla as "a tech company that happens to make cars." In contrast, though, Musk has repeatedly spoken on the challenges of actually manufacturing cars at consistent quality, as well as delivering them. At one point, he described Tesla's journey as going from "production hell to delivery logistics hell...." [L]egacy automakers excel where Tesla is weak: namely, manufacturing and delivery. Since they've been making cars so long, they've developed huge factories, along with consistent and refined processes.

But what if Tesla could reach a deal with automakers to license its strength — software and battery technology? Then everyone benefits...

If you're surprised by Musk's tweet, you shouldn't be. In fact, for years Musk has insisted that his primary goal is not to compete with larger automakers but rather to win them over.... If the legacy automakers are smart, they'll jump at the opportunity to negotiate a licensing deal.
The article cites a 2014 blog post in which Musk promised Tesla wouldn't initiate patent lawsuits against companies who wanted to use its technology, "in the spirit of the open-source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology..."

"Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world's factories every day."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Elon Musk License Tesla's Technology To Other Automakers? More

Will Elon Musk License Tesla's Technology To Other Automakers?

Comments Filter:

  • Probably.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    That's fine and all, but why is it that he's hasn't updated the sensors since 2016? Why haven't the cameras been updated with all the dynamic range improvements since? And then there's the issue of camera placement .. why are there only side facing cameras on the B-pillar? How can having cameras solely on the B-pilalr be optimal for seeing forward cross traffic in urban situations, especially when people are illegally parked in such a manner that you have to inch forward and lean forward .. having cameras o

    • This article talks about electric motor technology, not automation technology. AV's aren't even the focus of most of the auto industry. It's developing a fleet of EV's.

      • IMHO, most automakers don't see automation extended beyond "super cruise control" that mostly exists now (distance sensing, lane keeping, etc).

        You might even argue they don't *want* self-driving, since that seems to be a kind of tipping point technology where maybe people stop seeing a car as something they would own and be something that they just use when they need it. This could potentially lowering the demand for car ownership, especially in urban areas where hailing a self-driving car would be all the

        • Not all the benefits of having a car. As one who has not owned a car for 3 and a half years I'll tell you the one thing that cab hailing services doesn't solve, and so neither would hailing a self-driving car you don't own, is the portable secure storage. Imagine going to the city center by light rail, purchasing a couple items, lugging them onto a bus, going to another shop, buying more, going to a third location now lugging around everything that you have purchased. So you have to plan your trips in an or

          • I kind of wonder if the "self driving ride hailing" model will shift a bit to where people may be more easily able to "hail" a self driving car and keep that same one for a day or a half day or whatever their shopping needs were. Buy stuff at one store, put it into the trunk, and you end up collecting all your stuff in the same self-driving car.

            It's probably going to be more reasonable to hail a self driving car and keep it than it is to hire an Uber type car and do the same thing because the driver isn't

    • Busy trying to figure out how to make cars (Score:4, Interesting)

      by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Sunday August 02, 2020 @09:28PM (#60359147) Journal

      A couple years ago Tesla was innovating regarding what kind of car to make, improving their designs, while making tens of thousands of prototypes. Meanwhile, the car companies were each building MILLIONS of cars per year.

      Volkswagen, Toyota, GM, etc were (and are) car companies, making millions of cars. Tesla was a car research company, selling basically prototypes.

      Then in the last few years Tesla has tried to turn into a car company. They've been trying to figure out how to make cars in production volume like the big boys. That has left them much less time to muck around with nifty little changes to the car design - they're now trying to design a manufacturing process.

      Musk is probably smart to try to license what he has to companies who already know how to build and sell millions of cars. Tesla's strength is R&D and taking risks, not production and managing operations in a steady, reliable way.

      • Exactly. Production is a completely different sort of engineering all on its own. Its one thing to invent something. Its entirely another to scale it up to production levels.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          Quantity has a quality all its own. Usually this means that quantity can beat quality, with enough quantity, but in this case, means that quantity is an engineering challenge that appears to be harder than initially anticipated.

      • Look many of the design decisions in the Model I think Tesla is doing a fine job. Look many of the design decisions in the Model Y, they are specifically geared towards making it more robotically manufacturable â" more than niceties for the car owner. It might be hard to make something 100% lights-out factory manufacturable.. but it is achievable if there is a constant relentless push to making it happen. I think the next few design your iterations will be aimed at making the car 100% robotically manuf

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        They've been trying to figure out how to make cars in production volume like the big boys. That has left them much less time to muck around with nifty little changes to the car design - they're now trying to design a manufacturing process.

        The "big boys" make cars in production by NOT mucking around with nifty little changes.
        And engine model will have a ten year life span.
        A slight change in the shape of a body panel is a considered a major change between year models.
        There is such a thing as a YEAR model.

        What I'm getting at is that Tesla has to eliminate everything that makes the company Tesla before they are ready to join the ranks of the Million Per Year Club.

    • Maybe he is convinced (or hoping) that the current array of sensors is sufficient for self-driving and collision avoidance. In other words, he is looking for improvements in software rather than hardware. The latter wold require him to retrofit new hardware to the cars of everyone he's sold autopilot to.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 )

        Maybe he is convinced (or hoping) that the current array of sensors is sufficient for self-driving and collision avoidance.

        he PROMISED that they would be enough. as a company. to a paying customer.

        he sold them as being ready enough.

        anyway, he just talks bs half the time. problem with that is that he is also a spokesperson for a publicly traded company. but he does speak bullshit at least half of the time 100% of the time.

        • At the time I thought it was basically a Kickstarter type of deal: you front the cash, get a discount on final retail price, and see what comes out the development pipeline. That's a lot of cash to drop on a promise, especially on something as complex as self-driving. And if you replace your car before Tesla deliver, you lose your investment (apart from the use of the limited driver assist features you've enjoyed, which in all fairness are pretty good).

  • The brilliance...ze goggles do nothing! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday August 02, 2020 @06:49PM (#60358803) Journal

    Consider for just a moment the brilliant potential of Musk's statement

    Imagine building a technology then licensing it....a business strategy that no elementary school student has ever thought of.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      Has no automaker ever shared technical advances with others, either for a fee or for free? Is it really that "brilliant" or common-sense? I lean towards the latter.

      • Automakers have been pooling patents for decades

      • Re:The brilliance...ze goggles do nothing! (Score:5, Informative)

        by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) on Sunday August 02, 2020 @07:49PM (#60358939)

        It's not overly uncommon. Tesla does provide the drivetrains to Toyota for the electric RAV4. BMW sells Toyota the engine for the new Supra. And re-badging is fairly common. The Geo Prisim was a re-badged Toyota Corolla (At about a $2-3K savings.). Mazda used to let Ford sell Mazda2s and Mazda3s as the Fiesta and Focus. Towards the end of the brand's history, Saturns were just re-badged Opels and Vauxhalls. Fiat sells a Spider that's an MX-5 with some interior changes and their own engine dropped into it. And for a real laugh, look up the Aston Martin Cygnet. It's a Scion iQ dressed up in a cheap tux, pretending to be James Bond for halloween.

        • > BMW sells Toyota the engine for the new Supra.

          And Toyota sells engines to Lotus so they can make real sports cars using Toyota technology.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          Don't forget the Lada, which was really a Fiat.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            The amusing bit here is people praise Italian design and denigrate Soviet design, but this was an Italian body shape. Perhaps the Soviets looked around the world to find the ugliest Western car model available, though. :)

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by pjt33 ( 739471 )

              I think that the people who praise Italian design are thinking of Ferrari, Lamborghini, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, ... Not Fiat.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          BMW has a really good EV drivetrain too. Not sure if they are licencing it to anyone yet, but it's used in the new Mini Electric and it has top notch efficiency.

        • Saturns were just re-badged Opels and Vauxhalls

          Nope. Saturn had their own engine plant which exclusively made all the engines for the S-series vehicles. They were the only company at the time using lost foam casting for the blocks and heads. In '02 GM forced them to switch to the ecotech line(GM had a glut of the ecotech engines - they were shit FYI). The astra was the only model with an Opel engine in it(also was the only rebranded opel). Switching to ecotech was the first nail in the coffin in killing those cars. The second was forcing them away from plastic composite body panels and to metal.

          The "grand experiment" of Saturn was far too successful, since it created a fanatical brand loyalty and people held onto them far longer then the normal 5yr period. Saturns with 1m miles were not uncommon.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Pascoea ( 968200 )
            I've had 2 Saturns, an SL and and SL2, and liked them both. They had their issues, like any other car, but they were functional and cheap. They really lost their way when they started to do "cheap luxury" cars, like the Aura. From what I hear, they weren't a bad car, but GM already had Chevy, Pontiac, and Buick making that kind of car.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Mashiki ( 184564 )

              Had an SW2 myself and loved that critter to no end. The biggest complaint with those engines of theirs is they ran hot, so very, very hot that they'd cause the rad intake side to start cracking. Since they switched to plastic end tanks years before hand instead of keeping with metal. 4 or 5 rads in that car, but amazing gas mileage too with the stick models. Major repair wise though? Alternator, new clutch and a battery over 20 years is nothing short of amazing. Regular maintenance wise it was light, t

          • The "grand experiment" of Saturn was far too successful, since it created a fanatical brand loyalty and people held onto them far longer then the normal 5yr period. Saturns with 1m miles were not uncommon.

            So basically the same thing they did with the EV1 [wikipedia.org].

        • Mazda used to let Ford sell Mazda2s and Mazda3s as the Fiesta and Focus.

          Ford at one point owned 33% of Mazda and both companies rebadged models. The Mazda Navaho was based on the Explorer; and the Ranger formed the basis for some of Mazda's pickups.

      • Re: The brilliance...ze goggles do nothing! (+1) kenh 3 hours ago Has no automaker ever shared technical advances with others, either for a fee or for free? Is it really that "brilliant" or common-sense? I lean towards the latter.â Volvo shared the modern seat belt design. Common sense can also be brilliant. Like wearing a mask in public to reduce risk of virus transmission.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        Yeah, it's not like the Chevy Small-block has never shown up in "competitors" cars, or "suspension by Lotus" on a label on a car that isn't Lotus, or transmissions and brakes being sourced from shared companies to competing models. How many cars have Brembo brakes?

      • Safety belts were invented by a Swedish company. Saab? Volvo? Don't remember. They made the patent license cost free to all manufactures on the world.

      • Common rail diesel. Invented at Fiat, produced by Bosch.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        Shared technical advances?
        Hell, they stick their own name on cars manufactured by other companies in order to fill a hole in their product lines.

    • The basis of the VHS vs BetaMax wars. HDDVD vs BluRay. VC3 vs mpeg-4. In the end its about royalties and licensing more than better design.

    • I'll license my technology to Audi, they seem just as interested. Hold me up as an icon!

      Audi said Tesla was doing better in a) Having designed cars from the ground up to be EVs. So they have bigger batteries because they are making custom frames, presumably while Audi and others are taking advantage of their economies of scale to make cheaper frames that don't fit batteries into as well. b) In software and esp. self-driving software. I'm not sure of the selling point of (b). I've never said "I really

  • R&D costs are temporary and eventually are paid off (if successful). But licensing is permanent. Why do you think so many software manufacturers have moved to a subscription model? So if Musk is thinking of a perpetual licensing scheme where he's getting a cut for every EV on Earth then I don't see this as a long term solution. But maybe I'm missing something here with my logic?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by malkavian ( 9512 )

      Because nobody wants to be paid for what they've just done, if they're really interested in the subject. They want the money for what comes next.
      Seems that Musk is in that boat. He can produce cars in competition with the legacy (big established companies) where he simply can't match production rates, despite having a superior core tech, or he can license what he has now to the world, rake lots of money in from that, make things generally better, and plough the money into R&D of the next big thing (th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      He said he'd give away the patents, that doesn't point to a profit-seeking motive. He also tried to paint Tesla as "open Source".

      Software companies prefer monthly/annual revenue streams to one and done sales.

      Microsoft Office used to cost over $300/copy, and no one bought upgrades (retail), when the price became $100-150/1 yr for 5 computers, families grumbled and bought the subscription and put all their files in OneDrive, then, 12 months later, it was easier to just renew than seek out alternatives.

  • Computer technology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ) on Sunday August 02, 2020 @10:14PM (#60359201)
    Where Tesla does not just exceed but completely dominates other vendors is in software and general computing technology.

    I own a BMW i3, it is possibly the worst car I have ever owned. Mechanically, it is ok I guess. If a Toyota Prius is a perfect 10 (it is not, but just setting a point of reference) the i3 is a pretty solid 8. BMW did a great job on comfort, but did not waste time on things like hinges or door locks and such.

    Tesla by comparison from my experience with the model S and model X is mechanically around a 6.5 or maybe a 7 on a good day. It is cheap and plasticy. The seats feel... well, it feels like the bought the best materials they could find, but companies like BMW and Toyota would design the right materials for the job. Tesla did not do poorly, this is just one of those places where classic car manufactures with a lot more experience and ... well long term skills excel. I assume in 10 years, Tesla will have their own polymers and fabrics development departments. But for now, they are just far behind. They focused elsewhere.

    They made what may be the best drive train and battery technology in the business and also focused on their true core strength... software.

    They are decades ahead of BMW on software. They a years ahead of Toyota. The most important thing they have is a platform with a clear understanding of patching. BMW and Toyota and the rest have for decades believed software is something you can get right or good enough and it should last as long as the vehicle and if there is a major problem, you can just plug in a new computer after a recall. If you need proof, BMW does not have progressive software updates... it is all or nothing. The dealership I get my car serviced at refuses to update my software because they are sure it will break more than it fixes and there are too many things broken to begin with. Toyota never even offered software updates for my old Prius.

    Tesla started with modules and built modules and used package management. They made agreements from day one with mobile phone providers to ensure all cars with the Tesla name could be updated. They made sure that within reason, all their cars could be diagnosed and managed remotely if needed. It made absolutely no difference how good their software was... because they could fix it and deploy fixes, they were just plain better than everyone else. They also appear to have a strong grasp of quality control in software. I can only assume, but I believe they must have unit tests and integration tests for everything. They probably exceed most every other company in terms of regression testing and code coverage.

    If I ever buy a new car... which is less likely now than ever since the car I have should theoretically last me 30 years, I will research the cars on the market closely and will purchase a car from a company that understands software at least as well as Tesla does today.

    In the mean time, I will hold out hope for self driving ride sharing services. I believe a properly managed fleet of self driving vehicles is far smarter and more efficient and far more environmentally friendly than everyone owning their own vehicles that are serviced rarely and are just plain wasteful. Thankfully, where I live has dropped far below two cars per family and may already be less than one on average.

    • If I ever buy a new car... which is less likely now than ever since the car I have should theoretically last me 30 years

      Fantasy. Complete fantasy.

      • In what way is a 30 year old car "complete fantasy"? They may be light drivers. If you don't drive hard, and you keep up with maintenance, then 30 years is not that unusual. It depends heavily on the make and model of course. Around here it seems like at least half the pickup trucks are over 30. Cars less so, but to keep one running that long is not unreasonable if you're dedicated.

        US data were hard to find, so here's something from the UK. [www.gov.uk]

        Yes, it's a rounding error in the fleet, with a trough that go

        • All the old cars are being phased out not because they break down but because of the environmental regulations. But before that only a minority drove 30 year old cars.

    • Re:Computer technology (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bgordon ( 74043 ) on Sunday August 02, 2020 @11:44PM (#60359335)

      They also appear to have a strong grasp of quality control in software. I can only assume, but I believe they must have unit tests and integration tests for everything. They probably exceed most every other company in terms of regression testing and code coverage.

      You had me going until here. This doesn't match my experience or that of any other Tesla owner I know. The more typical experience is that the first few updates are great. Then once your car isn't the newest model with the newest hardware inside, every update has a significant chance of introducing bugs that might or might not be fixed in a subsequent update. As far as I can tell, their regression testing doesn't cover anything more than the basics outside of the safety critical systems.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        The conditions that a car has to operate under have not changed much since Musk first thought of building cars. If you're getting "updates" for anything other than network connectivity, or ability to handle accessories you're adding, then you're not a customer. You're a beta tester.

    • Other auto makers have gotten used to buying many components and whole subsystems from suppliers like Bosch, and I'd wager that as a result part of their software is also developed by suppliers. Tesla has a single interface and a single menu to manage all settings in the car: climate, charging, entertainment/nav, and driving. In contrast, my EV has 3 different bits of software for that, 3 menus with a very different look and feel, one of them even living on a different screen. And it's not just software:

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The most important thing they have is a platform with a clear understanding of patching.

      Right, what we want is beta quality software that gets patched after release, maybe, and when the new model is out they lose interest in your one. Tesla even label their software as beta, they aren't even shy about it.

      There are many threads over at Tesla Motors Club with people complaining about updates downgrading features, introducing new bugs or making their older cars extremely slow to the point of being unusable for some things.

      Tesla software isn't even the best anyway. Polestar and Honda both have And

    • Why would I ever want software in my car? I don't keep using any device driven by software as long as I keep a good old-fashioned ICE car.

      I mean, some small software for ABS or similar controls make sense, as do sensor readings into a bus, but that really is write once for the life of the vehicle. But I would rather my navigation was driven by a separate device (e.g. cellphone) attached via Bluetooth to the radio (which is replaceable) than a built in touch screen. Why would you assume someone good at ma

  • point of software (Score:3, Informative)

    by world1703 ( 6695366 ) on Monday August 03, 2020 @04:21AM (#60359755)
    Why do you think there are no updates in a BMW? I got a software update on my BMW X3 a month ago. The navigation software occasionally crashed before (three times in a year), so I asked for the update. The update process is complicated to do by yourself: you have to submit some lengthy vehicle code number to a website, then download a big file to a USB flash drive. But their download software sucks and the car didn't like my USB flash drive, so I went to the dealer and had them do it. No big deal as the next BMW service center is just 5min away. The next Tesla service center is very far away, there are only few. Some cities don't even have one. Of course Tesla must provide a different way for updates. What's the point about Tesla being better in software? I use my car's navigation software, and the radio, and MP3 player. That hasn't changed much in the past 10 years. I know there's some self-parking feature in my car that I haven't even bothered to try yet because I just don't care about those gimmicks.

  • Tesla would *not* be "reach[ing] a deal with automakers to license its strength — software and battery technology". It would be licensing a *part* of its strength. Tesla's other product strengths include:
    - Motors and the rest of the powertrain
    - Design refinement to simplify construction and reduce costs. Everything from how door handle mechanisms have been simplified through to wiring harnesses that use a fraction of the materials used by other manufacturers
    - Significant large advances such as the Cyb

  • All this hub bub over "EV technology". When people want it and it is profitable, the other car companies will have it Muskk or not.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close