Tip：Click the above“Follow Me“↑Come on, dear
The century-old invention of the automobile is being reshaped by “intelligence”, a term that makes some traditional car manufacturers feel a bit frustrated.
In the era of smart cars, automobiles are no longer just basic transportation tools; they are gradually evolving into giant intelligent mobile terminals, becoming supercomputers on four wheels.
This transformation is akin to giving cars a robust body and a smart brain, with the operating system (OS) being a core part of that brain.
At this moment, the “new forces” with strong internet genes seem to have found a battleground where they can showcase their skills, each bringing out their unique capabilities.
NIO connects with users through its AI system NOMI, establishing a warm and emotional connection; Car and Home will adopt a four-screen interactive mode, providing a dedicated entertainment screen for the co-driver;Models equipped with the Zebra system make users want to say, “Hello, Zebra” as soon as they get in.
In comparison, traditional automakers’ offerings in the IoT realm pale in comparison.
For traditional car manufacturers, their core advantages accumulated over the years are concentrated in the “body” aspect. Equipping the “brain” is indeed a bit beyond their capabilities.
Some manufacturers, after fierce resistance, feel a deep sense of helplessness, such as Ford.
In December 2017, Ford officially partnered with Zebra Network, announcing that all Ford and Lincoln brands sold in China would be equipped with the Zebra intelligent operating system in the future.
In June 2018, Ford China signed a strategic cooperation agreement with Baidu, stating that they would collaborate on AI IoT technology based on Baidu’s DuerOS.
However, before embracing internet companies enthusiastically, Ford had invested enormous financial and human resources to develop in-car entertainment systems, earlier and more vigorously than most manufacturers. Yet, their strenuous efforts still failed to earn the deep affirmation from most users, leading Ford to finally decide to abandon its stubborn persistence.
Why did a century-old automotive giant stumble when entering the IoT space?
1
Ford’s winding journey with operating systems can be traced back to Microsoft.
Microsoft’s Windows operating system has an unshakeable dominant position in the computer field. In 2017, Windows had a market share of 91.41%, followed by Mac (6.32%) and Linux (2.27%).
However, the brilliance achieved by Microsoft in PC operating systems did not carry over to the automotive sector.
In August 1995, Microsoft established its automotive division and began developing an operating system for in-vehicle information service terminals based on its embedded software platform WinCE. The system’s biggest feature was its ability to support desktop-like software applications, laying a foundational role for the development of in-car operating systems.
After the launch of WinCE, it quickly gained popularity in the global in-car system market, with car manufacturers including Fiat, Dongfeng Nissan, and Kia partnering with Microsoft.
In 2008, Ford officially collaborated with Microsoft, launching the first-generation Ford SYNC system, which integrated Bluetooth technology, USB technology, voice recognition, touch interaction technology, and navigation technology (optional) into the in-car entertainment system.
In the first three months after the SYNC system’s launch, vehicles equipped with it sold over 30,000 units in the US market. Ford repeatedly stated that the SYNC platform was a major factor influencing customers’ decisions to purchase Ford and Lincoln vehicles.
However, some customers found that the experience of Ford SYNC was not as good as expected. Complaints about the system’s touch interface persisted, and users reported slow response times, blue screen crashes, and system failures, which Ford attributed to Microsoft.
At this point, BlackBerry’s QNX system emerged as a significant competitor to WinCE, boasting safety, stability, and fast response times. Additionally, QNX could connect with Android and Apple smartphones, running more applications, albeit not built-in ones, which was still better than WinCE’s lack of application support. By then, QNX held over 50% of the automotive market share, with first-tier manufacturers like GM, BMW, Audi, Honda, and Porsche using QNX in-car systems.
Under the pressure from QNX, WinCE’s market share gradually declined, and Microsoft planned to terminate technical support for its in-car operating system by March 2021.
In 2014, Ford finally made the tough decision to end its six-year partnership with Microsoft and turned to QNX.
2
Ford’s SYNC operating system, now embracing QNX, can be said to have achieved a leap from its previous foundation.
In 2015, Ford held an innovation conference at the Shanghai Expo Center, proudly demonstrating the upcoming SYNC 3 system: touch screens, UI, voice control, and other features were all available and the experience was smoother. Additionally, Ford announced it would open up AppLink (Ford’s vehicle-to-mobile connectivity system) programming interfaces, allowing third-party apps more permissions to use new features offered by SYNC 3.
Notably, Ford’s AppLink, first launched in 2013, was one of the earliest systems in the IoT field that could connect with mobile phones, arriving one year before Google’s Android Auto and three years before Apple’s Carplay.
However, this proud mobile connectivity system became one of the key reasons for Ford’s defeat in the IoT sector.
On April 23, 2016, Ford launched five new models, all equipped with the new SYNC 3 system.
For users, the biggest advantage of the QNX operating system is its extremely fast running speed and high reliability, with very few occurrences of system crashes or virus infections.
However, this long-awaited new operating system did not receive user approval. An interview by Jian Yue Car Review with two Ford owners who experienced the SYNC 3 system revealed that their overall impressions were “very average” and “not satisfactory.” One owner indicated that the overall touch experience was relatively smooth, but the voice interaction localization was poorly done, feeling like communicating with a Chinese-American.
Regarding the mobile connectivity function, both sides stated they hardly used it, saying, “It feels too cumbersome and not very practical; it’s better to just use the phone directly.”
After investing so many resources without providing value to users, one can only wonder how Ford felt at that moment. Similarly, Apple’s Carplay and Google’s Android Auto were also experiencing complex emotions.
At this point, Ford seemed to be influenced by its failed cooperation with Microsoft, realizing that relying too much on partners was not reassuring. Meanwhile, competitors like Tesla and Apple were continuously innovating, making Ford appear outdated.
In March 2017, Ford announced a $375 million investment in Canada, including establishing a new R&D center in Ottawa, Ontario, and hiring 400 engineers from BlackBerry to develop internet-connected vehicles and enhance its software development capabilities to compete with traditional automakers and tech companies.
However, just nine months later, Ford embraced Zebra Network.
Why did Ford, having invested so much in IoT, stop being persistent?
3
Perhaps Ford’s disappointment is not about effort but about the technical route. When one takes a wrong turn, no amount of hard work can lead to the destination.
First of all, in the era of smart cars, “ecosystem” and “openness” have become basic requirements, yet QNX fails to meet these needs. At this moment, the QNX system, like the former WinCE, stands at a critical turning point for survival.
As an in-car operating system, QNX shares a common flaw with the failed Windows Phone system: the lack of a developer ecosystem.
As cars become the third terminal device after computers and smartphones, QNX’s former advantages have completely vanished.
Li Jiangang, Vice President of Koala FM, pointed out that the high R&D difficulty of QNX makes it challenging for automakers to customize deeply and personally, and there is absolutely no ecosystem. Liu Xin, Product Director of Ali OS, noted in an interview with Jian Yue Car Review that modern automotive intelligence and connectivity require new capabilities, such as natural interaction (multi-modal), data capabilities, AI capabilities, and service distribution capabilities, which QNX lacks.
The once-popular in-car system “big brother” now faces the embarrassment of being abandoned.
On August 24, the Volkswagen Group announced a $4 billion investment to develop a new operating system called “vw.OS,” building a dedicated IoT information service platform.
On September 18, the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance announced a technical partnership with Google, completely abandoning the old operating system to provide Android-based infotainment systems for millions of vehicles. This cooperation plan will start in 2021.
Apple began re-developing its own automotive operating system in 2014.
In China, the trend of smart cars seems to be blowing even stronger.
New car manufacturers like Xpeng, NIO, and Car and Home are all embarking on the path of deep customization based on the Android system.
Geely has customized its own GKUI system based on the Android system.
BYD’s approach is even more “radical”; it not only deeply customizes based on Android but also opens up 66 control rights and 341 sensors for developers to create applications suitable for vehicles.
It is evident that the Android system, with its already strong application ecosystem, holds a significant advantage in this competition for smart automotive operating systems.
The Zebra Network, jointly established by SAIC and Alibaba, is taking an unconventional route by developing a dedicated operating system for vehicles using AliOS, which is completely independent of Android and can be said to be “parallel” to Android.
Currently, Zebra lacks a mature application ecosystem compared to Android. Zebra Network CEO Hao Fei stated that they will continue to attract more application developers to join the ecosystem, enriching the application ecosystem of Zebra Automotive OS and enhancing user experience.
At this point, some may question whether Ford’s AppLink platform can open programming interfaces for third-party apps?
This is precisely another major technical route error for Ford in the IoT field: the mobile connectivity mode.
Although the AppLink platform envisions a bright future, integrating Ford’s software development kit (SDK) into third-party mobile apps to adapt them to project onto the vehicle’s screen to enrich the SYNC system’s applications, this idea mirrors the past practice of converting PC web content for mobile display without developing dedicated mobile pages or apps.
Moreover, the difficulty of advancing this technical approach is unimaginable.
For automakers, this system requires Ford to contact all app developers and persuade them to integrate the SDK, an overwhelming amount of work.
For developers, each automaker’s SDK is unique; if there are ten automakers, they would need to integrate ten different SDKs into their apps, each requiring adaptation and debugging. After such operations, it becomes challenging to attract developers to create apps.
For users, a data cable is needed to connect the phone and the vehicle system, and there are times when connections fail, with only a few apps able to connect with the system, making it less convenient than using a phone. At this point, the operating system’s greatest value is its Bluetooth function, turning the car’s audio system into a “loudspeaker” for the phone. The harsh reality is truly heartbreaking for automakers that have invested heavily in operating systems.
Meanwhile, automotive operating systems based on Android or AliOS allow third parties to develop dedicated apps for vehicles, independent of mobile phones, significantly enhancing user experience as these apps reside within the in-car operating system.
Ford is not the only one adhering to the mobile connectivity route; many automakers do not develop their mobile connectivity systems, leading Bosch, Baidu, and Neusoft to steadfastly pursue mobile connectivity, with similarly disappointing results.
Google and Apple have also launched their mobile connectivity solutions—Android Auto and Carplay—but quickly realized these were not the final solutions and began developing built-in operating systems.
Perhaps, traditional automakers like Ford have realized the immense difficulty of accumulating such vast engineering challenges.
They have always excelled in hardware rather than software, lacking prior software teams and technology accumulation, making it exceptionally challenging to build a new operating system, and risking choosing the wrong technical route, wasting substantial financial, human resources, and valuable time.
In this context, deeply embracing internet companies has become the fastest route for traditional automotive companies to enter the era of smart cars.
The transition for giants is not easy; even if Ford is determined to hold hands with internet companies, the old system is still difficult to break quickly. According to insiders, due to departmental interests, Ford’s domestic IoT team hopes to integrate the Zebra operating system into new models while still being compatible with the SYNC 3 system. This would be a disaster in terms of product development and user experience.
The transition between old and new is like the process of breaking out of a cocoon to become a butterfly; there is no such thing as ease and pleasure, and growing pains are inevitable.
Ford is not alone; the challenges it faces are likely shared by many traditional automakers. Compared to many manufacturers, Ford can be said to be one of the most diligent in the IoT field, with significant investments in funds and human resources leading to some accumulation. Meanwhile, numerous traditional automakers with no investments or ideas in IoT must passively rely entirely on third parties to help solve their smartization issues. In the era of smart cars, this may be the most helpless yet unavoidable choice for traditional automakers.
If you have a different understanding of this topic, feel free to add the author’s WeChat (moonlight-1990) for communication, please indicate your company and name.
Recommended Reading: Baidu Apollo’s Battle in 2019
Recruitment
Jian Yue Car Review is hiring content editors, hoping to work with you who possess the following characteristics to create an extraordinary automotive technology new media.
1. Good character and correct values;
2. Strong drive;
3. Good writing skills, writing as a belief;
4. Extremely open-minded attitude;
5. Good English.
Please send your resume to [email protected], along with any work you are satisfied with.
Jian Yue Car Review Only Reports Valuable Automotive Technology