PCM - Taycan pre facelift and future developement

[whitex]

Yes, but in this case we know it's the same platform The computer itself is the same in j1 and J1.2. The PCM has nothing to do with the car actually driving, and it's power arhitecture, engine power distribution or anything like that, as proof of that is that the taycan can drive with the PCM turned off.

So in this case it costs them nothing to keep both j1 and J1.2 on same software. They choose not to do it for the sake of creating a difference between j1 and J1.2.

It seems they accidentally did the zero cost upgrade to j1 and learned very quickly that it doesn't work - see this thread for results:
https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/threads/cant-set-up-a-homelink.19721/

Sponsored

 

[Murph7355]

It seems they accidentally did the zero cost upgrade to j1 and learned very quickly that it doesn't work - see this thread for results:
https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/threads/cant-set-up-a-homelink.19721/

As you note in that thread, this is nothing other than incompetence on the software front.

If they had their act together they should easily be able to see what changes impact which models. This isn't even "different models", it could just as easily impact "different options in the same model" (not that specific Homelink issue...but there's potential across the board).

This isn't "additional cost". This is cost that should all be part and parcel of the way they manage their whole software stack. That they aren't investing in this is further indication that they are going to fall further and further behind on this sort of thing. And that is not good for Porsche, for all the reasons noted up thread.

Relying on old school "but it's not about the software" will not see them well in the future. Whether we old farts like it or not, cars are more and more about the software.

 

[whitex]

This isn't "additional cost". This is cost that should all be part and parcel of the way they manage their whole software stack.

It absolutely is additional cost. It is much cheaper to keep code bases separate, don't bother updating the old one except for high severity safety and security bugs. The new codebase can have more releases, not burdened by validating on older platform, and making it work on older platform (whether build or runtime selection). Again, I am not arguing that it cannot be done, or that it's better or worse for the brand, purely that it costs more than not doing it.

People got spoiled by Tesla. Up until now, nobody was updating car features for free on existing cars as it costs money. Even maps used to cost few hundred dollars to update. Tesla went way above and beyond, supporting their latest software on multiple architecture (ARM, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Tesla). It didn't come without issues (some features get broken for good, for example web browser, used for displaying user manual too, is essentially non-operational on older ARM platforms running latest software - your release notes show a blank screen), or delays (sometimes people with the older platform didn't get the newest UI for a year or longer), but they tried their best. Tesla even went so far as to offer hardware upgrades (e.g. you can swap out your ARM infotainment for a later, Intel based one for ~$1.5K) or AutoPilot computer 2 to AP3 for ~$2K, but they mostly stopped that trend lately (too expensive even for Tesla) - no upgrades for ARM or Intel to AMD, or AP3 to AP4, etc.

The uncomfortable truth is there is very little to be gained by the manufacturer by adding new features to already sold cars. It adds potential support burden/cost, and it actually gives people less reasons to upgrade to the latest model, which of course drives new car sales and therefore manufacturer bottom line.

 

[DCYL725]

Didn't Porshce raise money from the public just so they can build out their EV/software teams, amongst other purposes?

No excuses from now on to be honest. Let's see how they execute going forward.

Personally I'm fine without the J1.2 software, as the current software has been tested the most and would prefer not to add any other variables.

Car's been a reliable work horse for our family, and a blast to drive.

 

[Sly_North]

same in j1 and J1.2

[OffTopic] Is J1/J2 a common naming? I thought the refreshed model would be called 9J1.2, and the original model 9J1.1; as it's the usual notation for other P.cars.

 

[chun]

It absolutely is additional cost. It is much cheaper to keep code bases separate, don't bother updating the old one except for high severity safety and security bugs. The new codebase can have more releases, not burdened by validating on older platform, and making it work on older platform (whether build or runtime selection). Again, I am not arguing that it cannot be done, or that it's better or worse for the brand, purely that it costs more than not doing it.

People got spoiled by Tesla. Up until now, nobody was updating car features for free on existing cars as it costs money. Even maps used to cost few hundred dollars to update. Tesla went way above and beyond, supporting their latest software on multiple architecture (ARM, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Tesla). It didn't come without issues (some features get broken for good, for example web browser, used for displaying user manual too, is essentially non-operational on older ARM platforms running latest software - your release notes show a blank screen), or delays (sometimes people with the older platform didn't get the newest UI for a year or longer), but they tried their best. Tesla even went so far as to offer hardware upgrades (e.g. you can swap out your ARM infotainment for a later, Intel based one for ~$1.5K) or AutoPilot computer 2 to AP3 for ~$2K, but they mostly stopped that trend lately (too expensive even for Tesla) - no upgrades for ARM or Intel to AMD, or AP3 to AP4, etc.

The uncomfortable truth is there is very little to be gained by the manufacturer by adding new features to already sold cars. It adds potential support burden/cost, and it actually gives people less reasons to upgrade to the latest model, which of course drives new car sales and therefore manufacturer bottom line.

So, in the 150.000 extra over other similarly equipped EVs, the PCM update and maintenance is not accounted for? Those 150.000 extra go to CEO yacht directly?

Why should the customer give a f**k? They charge extra for luxury, then they need to provide the luxury. Otherwise they should build their next car in cooperation with Dacia - which by the way, has a better and faster runing central computer in their 15.000 EV.

 

[chun]

[OffTopic] Is J1/J2 a common naming? I thought the refreshed model would be called 9J1.2, and the original model 9J1.1; as it's the usual notation for other P.cars.

I think it all started from the official "demo" of the cars when they reveled the cars with some YouTube/website media outlets, where the Porsche officials called it J1.2 - also the official press powerpoint that got leaked, naming it J1.2 everywhere. I think it stuck around in the community, and it's definitely easier to remember.

 

[Murph7355]

....
The uncomfortable truth is there is very little to be gained by the manufacturer by adding new features to already sold cars. It adds potential support burden/cost, and it actually gives people less reasons to upgrade to the latest model, which of course drives new car sales and therefore manufacturer bottom line.

The hardware platform on the PCM is no different. So that's irrelevant.

And without following good practice, my point is that the sort of bugs you noted on Homelink are likely to occur, even intra-model type.

I accept that there's cost involved in anything. But good practice on the software front is not a cost option for them and never should ha e been. And if they do it we'll, there is little reason not to allow updates on models with the same hardware. Other than the mindset that people will drop 6 big ones on a new one of you don't.

With residuals on their arse and uptake on the J1.2 looking slow, all at a time when Porsche *need* to sell more EVs or risk getting kicked in the chalfonts with big fines on ICE models, they need to sort their shit out.

They cannot afford not to IMO.

VAG are behind on software. It will hurt them. I think it already is.

 

[whitex]

So in the 150.000 extra over other similarly equipped EVs, the PCM update and maitenance is not accounted for? Those 150.000 extra go to CEO yacht directly?

Why should the customer give a f**k? They charge extra for luxury, then they need to provide the luxury. Otherwise they should build their next car in cooperation with Dacia - which by the way, has a better and faster runing central computer in their 15.000 EV.

It doesn't matter how much they charge. They already got your money. They never promised you indefinite updates. Vote with you wallet, buy a Dacia next if that suits you better (i.e. net benefit of Dacia is greater to you than of a Porsche). That is what I always do.

As a side note, the cheap, high volume cars actually way get more software engineering budget than the high end cars. A $25K Toyota may have a tiny profit compared to a $2.6M Rimac, but the volume means the Toyota software engineering budget is orders of magnitude larger than Rimac. Hence a Corolla software will likely be better than a Nevera. Hopefully Porsche can benefit from VW software development, because Porsche volumes are 1/10th of VW, but they don't make 10x the money on each car.

 

[chun]

Hopefully Porsche can benefit from VW software development, because Porsche volumes are 1/10th of VW, but they don't make 10x the money on each car.

This is what got them into shit in the first place.
And they have already announced that for future cars they will not follow VW anymore. Proof of that is that for the new Macan EV, they ported the PCM to Android Automotive OS.

Also, this is how Porsche will lose customers . They got my money once. They should strive to get it a 2nd time also, there's only so many people that can afford Porsche. But if they keep going like this, they will not, and I probably am not the only one thinking like that.

 

[whitex]

This is what got them into shit in the first place.
And they have already announced that for future cars they will not follow VW anymore. Proof of that is that for the new Macan EV, they ported the PCM to Android Automotive OS.

Also, this is how Porsche will lose customers . They got my money once. They should strive to get it a 2nd time also, there's only so many people that can afford Porsche. But if they keep going like this, they will not, and I probably am not the only one thinking like that.

Perhaps Google software will work better for Porsche than VW software. Only time will tell. The theory is that if Google gets more manufacturers onboard, they all share in cost of development, so even better economies of scale than just VW. This is the same argument why Samsung uses Android, rather than write their own operating system.

 

[whitex]

The hardware platform on the PCM is no different. So that's irrelevant.

And without following good practice, my point is that the sort of bugs you noted on Homelink are likely to occur, even intra-model type.

I accept that there's cost involved in anything. But good practice on the software front is not a cost option for them and never should ha e been. And if they do it we'll, there is little reason not to allow updates on models with the same hardware. Other than the mindset that people will drop 6 big ones on a new one of you don't.

With residuals on their arse and uptake on the J1.2 looking slow, all at a time when Porsche *need* to sell more EVs or risk getting kicked in the chalfonts with big fines on ICE models, they need to sort their shit out.

They cannot afford not to IMO.

VAG are behind on software. It will hurt them. I think it already is.

PCM may not be different but the rest of the car it talks to (like homelink) does, so software needs to be aware and work differently for j1 vs. J1.2, and it would need to be test on j1 and J1.2 (and all their possible options combinations, which is a lot, so cost money to validate).

All that said, I am not arguing what would be better for Porsche, only that upgrading old cars is not negligible cost. Tesla took that on, though I gotta tell you, while they kept it going for a decade, they are slowly dropping out of this as well - older cars don't get new options which could technically be available to them, but Tesla no longer sees the reason to port the features to older hardware, for example the parking visualizations which are available on AMD infotainment, but not on Intel. Both use x86 architecture and the same operating system. I suspect AMD has some graphics offload which Intel does not, and the new visualization was written using that offload. Tesla could have recoded the visualization in pure software, or taken advantage of Intel graphics acceleration functions, but it's extra effort they decided to punt on.

 

[Murph7355]

Perhaps Google software will work better for Porsche than VW software. Only time will tell. The theory is that if Google gets more manufacturers onboard, they all share in cost of development, so even better economies of scale than just VW. This is the same argument why Samsung uses Android, rather than write their own operating system.

Looking at AAOS on our Volvo, I'm not sure that's the path to something better.

Though again, I believe it's Volvo making choices on what to actually implement. So the in-house team still needs to be good.

 

[Murph7355]

PCM may not be different but the rest of the car it talks to (like homelink) does, so software needs to be aware and work differently for j1 vs. J1.2, and it would need to be test on j1 and J1.2 (and all their possible options combinations, which is a lot, so cost money to validate).

All that said, I am not arguing what would be better for Porsche, only that upgrading old cars is not negligible cost. Tesla took that on, though I gotta tell you, while they kept it going for a decade,.... .

The h/w disparity in non-PCM items can and does happen intra-model though. It's another choice Porsche make - they very clearly see it as a way of reaming money out of the customer (nice puddle lights? Sure, £200 for a £25 part?)....what they are not doing is sucking up the full cost of this reaming option they are taking. Ie software regression testing.

Again, they should not be considering this an optional cost. It's a cost of doing good business. And the prices they charge, it should be readily coverable. Some of the stuff we're talking here is basic... IF they are well organised.

Ref Tesla...a decade across different architectures!

We're talking 40% of that tops here, on a computer hardware platform that is exactly the same, and will be for another 4yrs at least in all likelihood.

It's very poor, and that's before you consider the price tag. Traditional manufacturers are asleep at the wheel on these very basic things. It will cost them dear.

 

[whitex]

Traditional manufacturers are asleep at the wheel on these very basic things. It will cost them dear.

They are absolutely behind. The question is, will they wake up in time and rally if/when they start losing business. Only time will tell. You're going to have to convince a lot of Porsche customers to start buying Teslas instead of Porsches before Porsche takes notice. As a matter of fact, Taycan happened in response to Tesla, as Tesla started taking away their market share. So if the same will happen again due to Tesla software, they will respond. As long as customers complain but continue to buy the product, no need to spend any money of the response. Welcome to business reality.

Sponsored