Foxconn hits the gas on vision for 'fabless' EV future | Hacker News Reader

Foxconn hits the gas on vision for 'fabless' EV future

asia.nikkei.com

44 pointsbaybal256 comments

This mentions the Wisconsin 'factory," which is some sort of weird scam/distraction. So if they claim they will develop or build EV tech there then they aren't working on it. They do legitimate business elsewhere, maybe the Mexico facility will be real, maybe the platform is real, but if they are "working on" "developing" "EV tech" at their potemkin facility in Wisconsin you will know it is a lie.

The (now fallen from grace) Reply All podcast did a pretty good episode on this: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/wbhjwd

> The (now fallen from grace) Reply All podcast

Wow, I did not hear about that and that was one of my favorite podcasts. Currently reading as I write this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/25/business/media/reply-all-...

Yet again this article mentions 5G being "a must for automated-driving technology"

I don't see why this is necessary? A car is going to need to make decisions without a connection so why does everyone go on about this all the time? Genuine question.

> A car is going to need to make decisions without a connection so why does everyone go on about this all the time?

Because they don't know it?

I'd say even in such reputable establishment as Nikkei, airhead "tech journalists" are running the show.

People are afraid to show their incompetence, and switch to technical gobbledygook.

It comes up in virtually every article about automated cars, with zero explanation. If it really is just that journalists are too afraid to ask / don't know better, that's pretty damning for the entire tech journalist industry!

Sure, they can operate without 5G, but I can see strong benefits to having connectivity. Traffic, construction, road changes happen and fully automated needs to know where it’s going. It seems like a must to me, and definitely assumed for any future car platforms.

I'm not saying they don't need the internet, just that 5G is specifically for super high speed internet. Why can't 4G do all that? Or your home wifi connection at night?

First, all of that can be done with 4g.

Second, supposing you did need connectivity to have a self driving car, the challenge is having a good signal everywhere, not having 5g. You can't even get 4g everywhere.

Third I would never purchase a self driving car that requires any connectivity in order to work well.

> Third I would never purchase a self driving car that requires any connectivity in order to work well.

Communication is quite a key to solve the task, but I believe the entire framing of the problem is wrong: you don't need a self-driving car, you need an automatic road.

Why wont we write some feedback to Nikkei?

It comes up in virtually every article about automated cars, with zero explanation.

I've noticed that.

If you were just doing car to car communication for automatic driving and didn't need to send ads, track, or remotely update the car, the way to do it would be through the vehicle radars. That's how aircraft send altitude, ID, and anti-collision data back to the ground and to each other. Since you know the range and direction of the signal source, totally bogus signals are readily detected. Doesn't even need a permanent ID; choose a big random number at each start.

But no. The anal probe approach is essential to so many business models.

> If you were just doing car to car communication for automatic driving and didn't need to send ads, track, or remotely update the car, the way to do it would be through the vehicle radars.

In a vehicle application wouldn't that suffer heavily from line-of-sight problems?

That's the whole point. You only need info about things you can run into.

Likely due to an intentional misdirection campaign by the carriers poisoning the mindspace of journalists: https://pxlnv.com/linklog/5g-pixie-dust/

Automated driving will make collective decision making more plausible. For example, individual cars and particularly trucks outfitted with a coupling mechanism to form chains in order to reduce drag when driving on the highway.

Wouldn't it make more sense for them to connection locally somehow? Via wifi or something, rather than that go through a 5G tower, which might not have signal at that point anyway?

Still, you'll need network for authentication and receive push notification in case of rerouting, maybe public key crypto can help in some cases but network is always useful.

Also to stream Netflix to bored passengers or zoom while zooming about.

Netflix+Zoom for all the bored passengers is the single best answer I've heard to date about why this is needed! You really might need 5G (rather than 4G) for 5X Netflix streams.

You don't need collective decision making if you can just run something like an air trafic control for cars, and do it using a computer.

If you do so, the ennormous technical challenge of SLAM, and route planning becomes redundant, and obviated, completely removing the need in some magic AI.

But you can do so with a cheap, and reliable UHF link, and not a fancy 5G modem.

Imagine weaponizing the platooning feature using remote C&C mesh-swarms. It will have to be limited in features with regulation to prevent that from happening.

what do you mean, like linking many trucks as a type of kinetic bomb. Haven't thought about security implications, but that might be one. Safety is defiantly a reason to have some oversight over what the swarm is doing.

For context, I work in the industry. There are effectively two major use cases for which 5G makes sense: teleoperator backup, and V2X.

The former is for Level 4 vehicles that might get into situations requiring a human to take over (ex. traffic is being directed by a human at a broken light). If you don't have a safety driver, the vehicle needs to be able to call home and ask for help with video feeds and no wi-fi connection.

The latter is for a bunch of concepts that are mostly drawing board-only right now, but could maybe become real in time. Ex., platooning, bypassing traffic signals entirely, automated redirection for traffic decongestion. The issue with this is that OEMs really don't want to pay for the data cost, so there's at least as much effort going into non-cellular alternatives as there is into 5G.

But in general, yes, articles stating 5G is necessary to autonomous driving are pretty far off the mark.

> OEMs really don't want to pay for the data cost

Isn’t a large part of the point of 5G the enablement of direct Device-to-Device (D2D) connections as a transparent optimization of device-to-tower-to-device links? That’s what is supposed to enable the platooning thing, IIRC.

I assumed that there would be no cost for 5G D2D data, since the carriers aren’t a part of the D2D conversation. Just like you’re not travelling over a particular 802.11 AP if you’re temporarily talking to a peer via an ad-hoc connection (e.g. AirDrop.)

Re: V2X. I believe that it can do a lot to increase safety and systems margins ultimately as autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles become more pervasive.

Letting vehicles announce hazard plus their location and intentions can let other vehicles benefit.

I don't see how it can materially increase safety, as the vehicles will have to be designed to operate safely when 5G/V2X is unavailable.

Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

You don't think that e.g. alerting as to a wrong-way driver or that panic braking is starting before the car behind you could detect it from relative motion has any ability to add margin?

V2V is being discussed to augment human drivers and prevent them from rear-ending / improve collision mitigation systems. Why can't it help machines too.

AI 8k+5G, duh.

Makes total sense to have a white label car platform, especially in a post level 5 self-driving future when automobiles become automaton providing a range of services going from taxying people to delivering groceries and even joy riding experience with vehicles that accelerate halfway through a corner for extra G. The fleet managers will want to customise everything ranging from designing the cargo area to branding the exterior.

Most sedans, and hatchbacks are already made using "car platforms" by major manufacturers, which are manufactured in ennormous quantities for maximum economies of scale, and are shared by a dozen or so car models per platform.

Platform kits are then only customized with body panells, interior, and a badge by the car brand.

Just to provide examples:

General Motors EV: https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/16/21439374/gm-unveils-ultiu...

For example, Ultium is expected to provide the foundation for GM’s upcoming Hummer pickup truck and SUV; the luxury Cadillac Lyriq SUV; an electric delivery van; and two electric vehicles that the automaker is making in partnership with Honda.

Volkswagon: https://jalopnik.com/the-fascinating-engineering-behind-vws-...

It is supposedly capable of underpinning everything from the aforementioned I.D. compact car (which VW also refers to as the “Neo”) and I.D. Crozz SUV, to a sedan based on the I.D. Vizzion concept, to a modern interpretation of the VW Microbus based on the I.D. Buzz concept.

Difference is that MEB or Ultium are developed internally in US or EU. They gonna engineer essentially identical part that most people not gonna care for. Differentiator is UX - this is where Tesla still winning and where Apple wants to step in.

Plus manufacturing in Taiwan gets you near China costs + top notch engineers minus wariness of Chinese EVs (which most people scoff at yet they are inevitable winners).

p.s. I don't think it makes sense for Apple to be selling cars themselves. Rather they can make new iteration of CarPlay and partner up with Foxconn to sell the package to traditional car companies or other third parties - who just select trim, tyres and cabin based on the local market demographics.

Now, we know who is going to manufacture Apple Car.

Question is who is going to sell it. It might be Apple's tech, but no way they gonna support your seats and other shit like that.

One company making the driveteain, another the body and passenger area. We are returning to the age of coach construction a la the 1920s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coachbuilder

Lots of companies have tried this. The concept even has a knickname: the EV skateboard. None have really taken off.

https://www.autoweek.com/news/trucks/a31707688/you-could-bui...

Returning? You can buy brand new Vintage Bentleys today. Made in Poland, authorized by Bentley. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-h6p73i6_g

This is how motorhomes are made to this day. If you buy a gas Class A coach new it is made on a Ford F53 chassis while the body is made by any number companies completely different.

If it’s a diesel it going to most likely be a Frieghtliner, but might be a Spartan chassis. The engine will be Cummins and the transmission Allison.

The skateboard was actually a very successful concept. The most important ev to date has been the tesla model s, started shipping in 2012 - https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/12/the-tesla-model-s-skatebo....

Multiple other ev companies used the skateboard. After 9 years, tesla is probably moving to a related system, where the batteries are structural components. But it's been a major success, including for the S, 3, Y. There are more tesla skateboard evs than all other evs combined.

Now I am not clear on part of their plan, contracting out all production to Foxconn, does that include the 20% that is not part of the platform?

If not it could herald in the days of custom coach builders that were prevalent nearly a hundred years ago which resulted in some amazing cars sharing a similar chassis, motor, and more.

The more the merrier in this space. Frankly I think most brands have been downright boring in their EVs and especially VW which has a dedicated platform that packages more like a traditional one; no frunk and such.

Actually I think VW is one of the few companies taking EV's seriously. Most of the other cars on the market are available as ICE cars as well as electric, that inevitably leads to compromise.

At this rate I have a strong suspicion that China's EV industry may overtake US.

The sheer accerlation in technological innovation coming out of China has been staggering over the last few years.

Isn't Foxconn Taiwanese rather than Chinese?

Bad idea, Tesla proved that vertical integration results in excellent E-vehicles.

For example, the seats on Tesla’s are amazing compared to OEMs that all outsourced something so fundamental to the driver experience.

If every OEM outsourced to Foxconn, that sounds like a race to the bottom. This worked for android because everyone in the world needs to own a phone, this isn’t true for vehicles.

There's a lot of variance between seats, and luxury cars tend to have better seats than Tesla's. For example, the Lincoln seats have 30 settings to adjust, as well as a massage function. [0]

[0] https://youtu.be/jbB40dpMTvU

I’ve heard mixed reviews of the Lincoln seats because of the adjustments. There are just so many settings that getting them right is overwhelming and difficult.

I have had the same experience. I tried a BMW X7 and could never get a comfortable seat position. There were just too many controls.

I only wish Tesla has thigh extension. Otherwise the seats are really comfortable.

Lincoln, that is such a cool brand that everybody raves about, everyone talks about Lincoln because of their seats that are so much better than Tesla's. This is why Ford has such a high valuation. They invest in the right kind of innovations, like seat massagers, I mean, if I had 80K to spend on a car, I would totally buy a Lincoln just because of that.

And still, I own a Google phone, but I wouldn't buy some noname brand Android from China, because I have no idea what the quality is going to be like. What Foxconn wants to do is going to result in a flood of cheap Chinese noname electric cars. Think of the products you see on Amazon.

Would you buy an ILove2Life EV200X? It claims to have better range than a Tesla Model 3 and it costs 25% less. It also has cool features like UltraBass speakers built into the headrests, whoa! When people buy a car, they usually expect it to last them at least 5 years, and they expect it to be in good working condition when they sell it (otherwise there would be no buyers). That's hard to do with zero brand trust.

And more important, the Chinese phones unfortunately can come with govt backdoors. I love the hardware on the new oppo but I cant trust my life with chinese os providers. Is there some way to make sure there aren't hidden backdoors in chinese phones? The only way would be if the os was completely open source and available to built with device drivers (which are themselves never open source...).

A completely open source OS wouldn't be enough. You'd also have to have a completely open source boot ROM, and you'd have to trust that the device doesn't have hardware backdoors.

People only going to hear "25% less" part and only government protectionism can stop it.

Also you have the alternative to buy from other more reputable OEM - better fittings, but same core.

I don't know about that. Most people I know have an iPhone. The people who have an android usually have a Samsung. My mom is clueless about tech and she just got a Motorola android phone. That's about as noname as it gets in North America. There isn't (yet) some huge proliferation of noname Chinese phones, even though some of them cost 60% or even 80% less than an iPhone.

First of all you scope the problem to America who will be first to tariff the China EV’s, nor is indicative of global trends.

Second, savings on a vehicle aren’t comparable to savings on a phone.

Tesla did something like this in their early years, with the Roadster built on partially-assembled chassis ("gliders") from Lotus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com