Source: Getty Images/BeeBright

Software-defined vehicles are transforming the automotive industry, enhancing comfort, safety and customization while posing cybersecurity challenges.

Software-defined vehicles (SDVs) govern operations, integrate new features and facilitate the addition of novel functionalities through software. This advancement in the automotive industry is paving the way for autonomous driving and vehicle connectivity technologies.

SDVs are evolving through the separation of software and hardware development, similar to smartphones. Original equipment manufacturers are creating "walled gardens" for applications, which involves continuous agile software development, increased computing requirements for data processing, a modular service-oriented architecture and enhanced security measures against cyber threats.

The automotive industry is swiftly moving toward SDVs, promising enhanced comfort, safety and customization. As collaborations between OEMs and tech companies thrive, SDVs pose additional challenges, including cybersecurity risks and complex design.

The shift from domain to centralized architecture is underway, transforming vehicles into mobile data centers. In this transformative journey, standards, collaborations and digital twin technology emerge as crucial elements, heralding a future where software shapes the driving experience.

To gain a deeper understanding of this transformation, S&P Global Mobility engaged in discussions with key players in the SDV in the Greater China market. First up is FGE. Huizhou Foryou General Electronics Co., Ltd, is a subsidiary of Foryou Corporation. This Greater China-based company supplier’s key business focus on Intelligent, products and services cover three areas smart cockpit, intelligent driving, and Connected Vehicle System, including in-vehicle infotainment, cockpit domain controller, digital cluster, display, climate control system, e-mirrors, acoustic system, connected vehicle services, around view monitoring, automatic parking and other Advanced Driving Assistance Systems. In recent years, the company has continued to improve software and hardware technology innovation around the development trends of domain integration and central computer platform.  The company's products have been sold to more than 80 countries and regions around the world.

We spoke to Zhang Hai Jun, marketing director, Huizhou Foryou General Electronics Co., Ltd.

Key takeaways:

The following is an edited transcript of the conversation.

S&P Global Mobility: Could you discuss the architectural transformations that SDVs are undergoing, specifically the shift from domain architectures to centralized ECUs, and the potential impact on vehicle operations?

Mr. Zhang Hai Jun: In Greater China, Intelligent vehicles are gaining popularity, driven by revolutionary changes in E/E architecture and SDVs. The market trend is shifting from domain to centralized computing. In this competitive landscape, we have developed a system focusing on cockpit domain and ADAS domain ECUs. These are key areas of competitiveness. Intelligent vehicles require higher bandwidth and a powerful yet affordable centralized computer, leading to a trend toward increasing software complexity in the industry.

Data is crucial in the new business model. For instance, data from ADAS and connected cars, collected from the vehicle to the cloud, provides valuable insights for software improvements. Analyzing consumer data in the cockpit domain is important, as it allows automakers and suppliers to understand user behavior, enhancing functionality and user experience.

From a tier 1 supplier's perspective, product quality is becoming increasingly important due to the shift toward hardware centralization, requiring higher standards for stability and quality. Consequently, maintenance costs for components have increased. The ADAS system uses data for algorithm improvements, while the cockpit domain requires frequent updates for function and user experience. The key challenge lies in maintaining product quality and hardware stability to avoid quality issues, even as maintenance costs increase.

We are interested in how SDVs are reshaping the in-vehicle experience. Could you elaborate on the opportunities and challenges this presents for customization, infotainment and user interaction?

In Greater China, the intelligent car market operates on the principle that while hardware forms the foundation, it is the software that drives intelligence. This leads to continuous improvements in user interaction experience through multiple software iterations. However, this presents challenges for tier 1 suppliers as hardware consolidation and increasing software complexity demand a high level of user experience in the cockpit domain. For instance, the infotainment system now requires a more personalized design, matching standards from the consumer electronics industry.

As hardware becomes consolidated, it enables the collection of information based on different scenarios. Information, such as navigation can be displayed on the digital cluster. Passengers can enjoy entertainment and share navigation points of interest from their side to the driver's side. They can also select different content for rear entertainment, especially for children.

The car industry is creating various scenarios. For example, if a driver monitoring system detects fatigue, the vehicle can adjust the climate control system to make the driver feel more alert. If the system detects smoking in the car, it can automatically open the windows to let in fresh air. With increasing connections between the car, home devices and smartphones, these scenarios are becoming more complex. This complexity poses a challenge to identify the most frequently used scenarios and eliminate unnecessary ones from the car's design.

To summarize, while the growth and improvement of intelligent vehicles present opportunities, they also pose challenges. These include the need for continuous software updates, complex infotainment features and the management of various vehicle scenarios. Suppliers must adapt to these changes, ensuring a high-quality user experience while identifying and focusing on the most relevant scenarios.

What challenges have you encountered in SDV design, including system architecture, security, safety and failure prevention? How are these challenges being tackled?

Tier 1 suppliers in the vehicle industry face three main challenges. First, software complexity has significantly increased. A project that required 10 to 20 people three to five years ago now requires up to 80 people due to the heavier workload, highlighting the growing complexity in software development.

Second, there is a shortage of software talent in the industry, particularly in the area of embedded systems design. This scarcity of skilled professionals presents a significant hurdle.

Third, the advent of connected cars and cloud technology has raised cybersecurity concerns. Protecting vehicle and personal information from potential cyberattacks on the cloud or various ECUs is a critical challenge.

In addition to these, we face four specific challenges. The first is defining clear roles in the development of SDVs. OEMs are taking charge of the application layers, while Tier 1 suppliers handle the middle and low layer software development. Lessons are being learned from other industries like consumer electronics and internet companies.

The second challenge is the decoupling of hardware and software. While hardware development takes one to two years, software iterations, akin to smartphone operating system (OS) releases, allow for the development and release of functionalities over time.

The third challenge is meeting cybersecurity requirements. Tier 1 suppliers can implement Hardware Security Modules (HSM) and build firewalls to protect vehicles and ECUs from cyberattacks, aligning with ISO 21434 certification.

The fourth challenge is online detection. If a defect is discovered, ECUs can log the issue for check, and an online platform can be used for remote diagnostics. This involves collecting faults, recording them in a log, uploading them online and analyzing the defects remotely.

How do you perceive the automotive industry's response to the increased risks of safety-related software crashes and remote cyber threats in SDVs?

In the realm of intelligent vehicles, the boundary between the interior and exterior of the vehicle is becoming less distinct due to the integration of vehicle computers, cloud technology, and virtualization. This integration, especially with third-party software modules, can lead to software bugs that need to be addressed.

For tier 1 suppliers, responding quickly to these threats and prioritizing consumer safety is crucial. This requires a strategy for lifetime software management and a commitment to working closely with OEMs to resolve issues promptly.

Protecting the safety of passengers and drivers is a top priority, necessitating the implementation of functional safety requirements. As part of this process, continuous learning and improvement are essential to respond to the increased risks and challenges in this evolving field.

Could you provide some insight into the division of software development between the OEM and suppliers?

The division of work between OEMs and tier 1 suppliers depends on the resources and competencies of different automakers. While some have leadership in research and development, others follow three general collaboration models.

The first model involves OEMs choosing to develop all software in-house. The second model sees OEMs selecting key software modules for in-house development. The third model involves purchasing components directly from tier 1 suppliers. For example, mainland Chinese OEMs, such as Geely, Great Wall and Changan have set up companies to develop software with key partners.

From the tier 1 perspective, it is advantageous for OEMs to provide clear requirements, enabling suppliers to deliver quality software on time. Some current collaborations involve OEMs developing application software and part of the middleware, while tier 1 suppliers build the rest of the middleware and basic software layers. This ensures timely delivery and quality assurance.

In summary, the strategy depends on the individual automaker. Some prefer in-house development, some focus on key software development and others purchase components from tier 1 suppliers. It is akin to a chef preparing dishes—they do not need to grow the vegetables themselves. The key advantage for development with tier 1 suppliers is that OEMs can share requirements and receive quality and timely delivery, with different layers of partnership depending on the focus of the OEM.

Contacts

Copyright © 2024 S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved.

These materials, including any software, data, processing technology, index data, ratings, credit-related analysis, research, model, software or other application or output described herein, or any part thereof (collectively the “Property”) constitute the proprietary and confidential information of S&P Global Inc its affiliates (each and together “S&P Global”) and/or its third party provider licensors. S&P Global on behalf of itself and its third-party licensors reserves all rights in and to the Property. These materials have been prepared solely for information purposes based upon information generally available to the public and from sources believed to be reliable.
Any copying, reproduction, reverse-engineering, modification, distribution, transmission or disclosure of the Property, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited without the prior written consent of S&P Global. The Property shall not be used for any unauthorized or unlawful purposes. S&P Global’s opinions, statements, estimates, projections, quotes and credit-related and other analyses are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security, and there is no obligation on S&P Global to update the foregoing or any other element of the Property. S&P Global may provide index data. Direct investment in an index is not possible. Exposure to an asset class represented by an index is available through investable instruments based on that index. The Property and its composition and content are subject to change without notice.

THE PROPERTY IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS. NEITHER S&P GLOBAL NOR ANY THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS (TOGETHER, “S&P GLOBAL PARTIES”) MAKE ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE PROPERTY’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE PROPERTY WILL OPERATE IN ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION, NOR ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO ITS ACCURACY, AVAILABILITY, COMPLETENESS OR TIMELINESS, OR TO THE RESULTS TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. S&P GLOBAL PARTIES SHALL NOT IN ANY WAY BE LIABLE TO ANY RECIPIENT FOR ANY INACCURACIES, ERRORS OR OMISSIONS REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE. Without limiting the foregoing, S&P Global Parties shall have no liability whatsoever to any recipient, whether in contract, in tort (including negligence), under warranty, under statute or otherwise, in respect of any loss or damage suffered by any recipient as a result of or in connection with the Property, or any course of action determined, by it or any third party, whether or not based on or relating to the Property. In no event shall S&P Global be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees or losses (including without limitation lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Property even if advised of the possibility of such damages. The Property should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions.

The S&P Global logo is a registered trademark of S&P Global, and the trademarks of S&P Global used within this document or materials are protected by international laws. Any other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

The inclusion of a link to an external website by S&P Global should not be understood to be an endorsement of that website or the website's owners (or their products/services). S&P Global is not responsible for either the content or output of external websites. S&P Global keeps certain activities of its divisions separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain divisions of S&P Global may have information that is not available to other S&P Global divisions. S&P Global has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P Global may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P Global reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P Global Ratings’ public ratings and analyses are made available on its sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge) and www.capitaliq.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P Global publications and third party redistributors.