Topic: A Decentralized Roadmap To Compete With Elon Musk/Tesla: The Open Source Car (Read 287 times)

To offer a different perspective. Years ago, it was claimed open source code contains fewer bugs and security vulnerabilities per lines of code. In contrast to proprietary closed source code. Open source mozilla firefox was claimed to be more stable and secure than proprietary microsoft explorer. These claims were partly attributable to greater peer review and scrutiny of open source code.

Linux(open source) versus windows(proprietary) is another facet of the debate. Bitcoin itself is considered open source software, if I'm remembering correctly.

I suppose the worst that could happen if tesla ever open sourced its software. Is if Roger Ver forked the project and named it tesla cash. Tesla software specially designed to buy coffee at starbucks.




A good chunk of open source relies on volunteer based man hours. Its more like volunteers developing counter strike as a mod. Than simply hiring more workers.

If tesla software were open sourced. Volunteers would develop mods and hacks for the software. Which would be scrutinized and tested before ever being released to the general public. Its a win/win scenario for everyone. Volunteers gain experience and credibility for their contributions. Tesla consumers get free stuff. Done correctly everyone benefits.

That's another thing, I mean given the source code to someone else for free is acceptable, even though it is financially an idiotic move it is still acceptable, that way you can learn from that and build something of your own.

However the idea here is that tesla should open source their car and get help from all around the world and build something from all the help they get, that is the weird part, why would Tesla "hire" thousands of people all around the world to make their car better? Why do they have that kind of responsibility? That is crazy and I do not want my car to be done by some freelancer on some other nation putting few more lines to "make it better" with his coding, maybe he did something horrible? Maybe that's actually a bad thing? I wouldn't feel safe in a car like that. I want tesla to continue the way it does, and if someone else wants to copy it, they might do that, I won't buy it but I wouldn't mind it.

I do not know if I want my car to be developed, based on a Open sourced decentralized network. A car can be a weapon if it is not done by a well-trained certified specialist. (You can cause a accident or you can be in a accident, if this is not done correctly)

Let the car be developed by a centralized automotive industry, but give the backyard mechanic the option to tweak some parameters that are developed by these specialists. (They can play around with that, based on your driving style) 

Most backyard mechanics cannot work on new cars today, because it is all electronic these days and everything is done by the onboard computer. (These guys do not have the tools and software to work on these cars) 

Decentralization for the sake of decentralization will just make creation, and development inefficient. Is there truly a need to make the production of cars to be more inefficient, not even sure to be as superior as its centrally developed counterparts?

It’s the same as the blockchain bandwagon, everyone wanted to use one, but what they truly needed was a ledger/database.

Automobile corporations can do this,but they will lose a portion of their revenue,so what's the point for them to do this?Corporations want more revenue and more profits.They don't want to give away technology and "know how" for free.
If I buy a "hackable and moddable" car,that has cheap parts,that can be easily replaced,I would never pay to use the maintenance services provided by the corporation,which produced that car.

IMO, this might work but only at the idea stage.
Even though there's a lot of people who are capable of developing vehicles, it doesn’t mean this will actually work.

In my point of view, the decentralization of vehicle development doesn’t really make that much difference.  Building a vehicle does require a lot of processes to be made, a lot of principles that have to be followed, and a lot of things to be considered.

Let’s say we have a lot of ideas, but only .01% will make it to manufacturing.
And that is something you had to consider.  Do you think .01% is profitable to the community?

I doubt whether it being decentralized will be a better option or just remaining centralized. But, I do think that in a situation where there is a warranty for that car, it’s best that there are just some set of professionals that are left to handle it in cases where there breakdowns and things like that, cause that way the company will be sure that no one is really tampering with it in any other way that it would result to an extra costs for them and stuff’s like that.

But in a situation where there is now warranty of such, then anyone can be free to work on the vehicle. This is what I think, there are always two sides to a coin, we should always consider the two sides before making a decision that we think is the best.

While that is mostly true I can give you at least one example - Rolls Royce who when selling a car place a covenant on that car concerning service and resale.  They even tried to force John Lennon to repaint his psychedelic Rolls back to it's previous colour scheme.

I don't think everything should be decentralized.

Companies make innovations because they are centralized. Because inventors become rich. Centralization is what makes companies efficient.

Decentralization of money is interesting, but decentralization of companies? That looks like socialism to me, which ultimately will fail.

Tesla is much more than a car.  Tesla is developing batteries  technology, allowing people around the world to create more and different projects (like more efficient electric bikes and electric scooters) based in the technology tesla help to develop.
This is not decentralization, this is the free market. This is what works, imo.

Let Tesla create, let them make money, let they innovate. There is nothing "wrong" when a guy create products and innovations, and he owns and control the company that he created.

decentralizing Tesla's development right at its infancy may look good on theory, but in reality I see it as something they are actively avoiding to ensure that their vehicles are top of the line, pristine, and bonafide. If the same treatment gas cars receive is given to electric cars, quality is something they can control anymore, since every shop can basically say they know how to fix your e-car until they mess it up. In the future, when electric vehicles become more mainstream, and more people got the hang out of fixing and operating these types of vehicles, this may be viable, but I don't see why they should rush it now.

I don't think that its SpaceX that has their info public. Tesla has open-sourced some of its patents in Battery and Battery management systems. Elon has always insisted that Tesla's main motive was to prove that electric vehicles can actually replace ICE cars. He also wanted to kickstart a technological race amongst the traditional car manufacturers as they had the resources to do all the research. The initial bootstrapping with costlier models served that purpose.

Its another story that Tesla has emerged as the most valuable car manufacturer within a very short time.

I believe for real that Tesla should keep every single thing in hiding. However if I am not wrong SpaceX has all their info public so that others could take a look at it and improve on it if they want to, just like the idea here, just for spacex and not for tesla and that is the difference.

I know for sure that tesla would have been able to do that as well if other car manufacturers wouldn't steal it, but that is the difference, if spacex info is stolen and it was given to people, the outcome would be having a lot better ships that can go to mars and that is acceptable, but the reality is that if we have car manufacturers stealing from tesla that is not going to be fine, that is not going to be ok, and that is what Tesla and Elon would be worried about, stealing the info and making profit from it is not going to be something that anyone would be fine with.

Quite an interesting topic to discuss, especially considering that some years ago, Elon Musk seemed to announce the transfer of Tesla's patents for public use and his commitment to the ideas of open source. It would be interesting to learn from informed forumchan how this issue is now, because then I seem to have no information on this issue did not meet. As for this particular topic, I would like to express the idea that, unlike the world of software in the hardware sphere, the ideas of open source are difficult to break through and offhand I remember the situation with RISC V, where there was some revival in the light of concerns about the potential sale of ARM. Specifically, in the automotive industry, the ball is ruled by huge monopolist companies that are not yet burning with love for such ideas and the conversation is still at most about joining forces to develop an automotive platform for several companies and not at all on the ideas of open source.

Interesting points.
From my experience, if you are not that connected and try to do things your own way(even if your own way is good) , you will run into alot of problems. And alot of times when you consider what you have to go through to succeed, you just prefer not to continue with the development of your ideas.
I think crypto space makes things abit better for independent creators. It just needs to have the right tools that protect all kinds of developers, as long as the ideas are good. Your adversary will be busy working hard to stop you from breaking free completely. You just need the backing of the ONE who is greater than the adversary in order to succeed.

Tesla have service center in a lot of countries so if you’ve bought Tesla car and broken it or want to make some modifications you can request them for help. Tesla really provided interesting system so that only the person who bought the car can use all the possibilities of the car or some functions are being blocked. This is the polity of their company and you must be informed about them while buying Tesla car. What do you mean when you talk about car with open sourcing automobile technology? As far as I know when you buy any other car (not Tesla) you can make any modifications you want using your money. A lot of my friends that bought cars completely disassembled them and changed a lot of details.

The problem just about anyone wanting to make a similar vehicle (be it petrol, diesel or electric) is the developers will have to be able to demonstrate their research and development from first pencil/CAD sketch to final product.  Otherwise the companies of today will claim the product has been "reverse engineered" and the company in question will face financial ruin or many years in court attempting to prove the already on the market product wasn't copied.

Decentralization might not work out much for a private profit-oriented company selling something as tangible as a car. It will probably be a chaotic setup. In lieu of a decentralized setup which allows just anybody to tinker on the design, it might be enough to just widen the gathering of feedbacks, reviews, suggestions, comments, criticisms, and so on from auto experts, end users, engineers, and so forth.

Let those "people who have money, manpower, ideas and talent" modify their own cars or come up with an original one. They are free to do so. As a matter of fact, let them present their ideas to Tesla itself or other companies or the general public and see if there is enough interest in them.

observations of decentralised practices:
"wait for someone to do the hard work. look at it and if its good copy it"

yep. this method is seen in many places
-miners do hard work. nodes just validate and copy
-bitcoin creator does hard work piecing code together. altcoiners just copy and fork
-wall street apply for ETFs. when one is finally accepted every wallstretter will copy the template and get theirs accepted by default
....
its a form of precedent. once something is set as default. everything after can just use that reference
..
big automotive businesses are smart. they dont have to rush to EV for a decade. so why waste time/money on their own R&D when they can wait around for others to develop the tech and work out the bugs and do the hard R&D .. and then later big automotive can just open a factory and start at step 50. which took elon a decade of R&D to get to

innovate does not mean invent..
it means make changes in something established

so why go through the expense of invention and then R&D when you can let elon do that. and then you wait until all the bugs are worked out and then just copy from his template

why invent the battery. when they can just let elon pay panasonic to invent the battery. and other manufacturers just buy the end product. much cheaper

While I do not see this happening, the idea itself is quite inspiring. If we take example from Linus, you could potentially use an existing car and start tweaking around with it. The major difference here is that software is not in itself subject to patents (there are some cases in which patents have been granted in some countries), just to intellectual property. An electric car, particularly the batteries and control systems do contain plenty of proprietary stuff.

Another major moat that defends the carmakers are the factories that require immense investments. I can picture a 3D printed car assembled in your local workshop, but I cannot imagine it being competitive or having realistic mass adoption.

Lastly, safety and approvals would be a major hurdle. If it ever has any success, be sure the carmakers will bring the legal artillery on it.

Crowdsourcing, crowdfunding and similar trends. Are successful due to them being decentralization movements.

I would be interested to hear anyone try to disagree with that.

I almost posted concerning modularization after  my second comment yesterday.

 I think modular car can also be built in decentralized manner. Anyone can build his/her own part as long as he meets the right/good standards required for building a safe, fast and efficient car.    Customers will just have to buy the modular Parts from different sources and assemble them together.    This would work better in decentralized and open source fashion.

That's not decentralization, that's idea crowdsourcing.
No matter what the crowd says, in the end, it's one guy or a group that takes the decisions, the people who come with a different project will simply look at their drawing boards and sigh, they will not be able to make their own car.
You could have got a better example from the new forum software that is in testing, everyone can come with ideas, can run the test, can post their feedback, does it make it a decentralized software or will the forum be decentralized? No!

Tell me what part of this is true for your examples:

I realized for the past years that you're sometimes over-enthusiastic about changes that can be done with the model bitcoin runs on but you have to understand that not everything in this world needs decentralization, a blockchain or a token and that some things are far better of without one.

I love that simpsons reference.  

Fate being what it is, I can give you at least 2 real examples of decentralized engineering significantly improving tesla's development process and products.  

There's an engineering channel on youtube called munro live that tore down different tesla cars offering commentary, analysis and advice for improvements tesla could make on their vehicles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQSQYQ44Qco

They removed the worst videos they had posted 1-2 years ago that showed the worst design choices tesla made in their cars. Long story short there was a long list of suggestions they made which were very embarrassing to Elon Musk and tesla. Instead of burying the criticism or resorting to lawsuits, tesla used the feedback to make better cars.

One of their suggestions for improvement was that tesla utilize a 48 volt based system, rather than the traditional 12 volt. This would allow tesla to use wires that were half as thick. Using only 50% of the copper, which could significantly decrease production costs. Another of their suggestions that improved tesla vehicles was a recommendation that tesla not use 3-5 different metal types to build their rear fenders.

Anyways if anyone wants a clear cut example of the advantages a decentralized approach to engineering can offer. Watch some of the videos posted in the munro live channel on youtube. They tear down vehicles and comment on the production and development process utilized to build cars/trucks. Its very surprising how much potential for improvement there is, in the production and manufacturing process with independent & decentralized review.

This makes zero sense to me at all. Tesla building something is both a secret before they do it because if they open source it that would mean that it would be stolen. However let's assume they do not share anything, and just let people do whatever they want to do, in that case people will not have the same amount of tech anyway, you have to be there and have the tech in order to perfect it.

There are tens of millions of business' all around USA and none of them open source their business to millions of people, they hire certain amount and that's it. A regular shop could open source their cafe to millions of marketing people and they would be so full that one shop can turn into 10000 shops in a year with that kind of marketing, but they are not, why? Because it costs them money, what gives Tesla the chance and right to use people that way and why would Tesla want to give their blueprints anyway? I think this would be a very very very bad idea.

Elon can claim that most of what they are releasing are open-source, especially the software and all that good stuff but I'm pretty certain they are keeping us out of the loop on some of the most important factors in building the cars and making it a successful one. Decentralization can take us a long way, no doubt about that, though some things work better centralized and I think electric vehicles is one of those few things. The idea of decentralized car-building might be viable on paper and produce genuine solutions on a more cost-effective way, but would the end-result be worthy enough to compete against Tesla? If huge car companies that have established their name in the industry for decades are struggling to get the perfect mix to compete against Elon's EVs, how can a decentralized army of manpower, ideas, and whatnot do it even better? Not that I'm underestimating the power of decentralization but on this instance, it'll really be a daunting task to everyone involved.

On the brighter note, decentralization can lead to some cool new ideas, though sticking up the pieces together is something a centralized organization can do better IMO.

First of all, most people would like an end product that would work well without having to do all those extra work of modding and such which of course probably would cost people alot more money then the standard product. Some younger generation would definitely love this because that means you are purchasing a mass produced product but you can mod it easily so the end product will differ with each another

There's definitely pros and cons though but somewhere in the future, we probably would have this kind of thing. Starting from smaller product such as mobile phone probably

The only thing is that people really don't care about how decentralized something is. As long as they can be more comfortable with it or earn a profit from it, it's fine. A decentralized car would not help in any kind of way.. perhaps a modular one would, but we're far off from it and cars themselves are quite customizable AFAIK.

Something people might be interested in is decentralized governance. I think if someone comes up with an idea to successfully create a decentralized government, it'd succeed tremendously.

On the contrary, I do not see any shortcomings in your point of view, I completely agree with you that decentralization of work will lead to more development and innovation, centralization leads to monopoly and stereotyping in ideas and impedes work, decentralization at work allows everyone to use their ideas and talents to develop the product, whether it is cars or others. There are millions of talented people who have distinct ideas for development and decentralization that allow all of them to share their ideas for product development.

Wondering if that problem can be solved by allowing everyone or every team to build part of the car they are specialized in, according to specifications... Customers could then buy the car parts and get them assembled into a car.

You could have multiple Teams building different parts of the car they are specialized in. One or few members of each team could have all the materials for building their own car part in one physical location while the rest of his/their team can observe and collaborate through live video.

One of the ways to fund such thing could be  through ICO, staking etc

And the new Tesla will look like this probably:


I wonder how much people will push this decentralization madness, I can't wait to hear when the army will be decentralized.


Costs and efficiency.
History has thought us that simple solutions are the best, people look for the best choice at the money value, if you want custom stuff you go to companies that build custom cars and pay the extra $, for mass producers this would be impossible while keeping a low price.
Having a product come in three hundred versions will put an enormous strain on the logistical chain to supply 1000 different optional packages for each car, making some of them a money pit, that's why all car manufacturers offer just a few options for the same element, not five hundred colors and not 10 types of seats or 20 headlights designs for the same model.
And those decisions on what to offer need to be taken in a centralized mode or there will be chaos, manufacturing a car is not the same as creating firefox add-ons.

For all product development, it is generally one brilliant mind and a team of people with designated responsibilities. That manpower issue is easily solved in a decentralized setup. That is why Open source manages to work so well.

Yet, when it comes to actually putting things like Engines, batteries, metal, motor windings, permanent magnets and all the other exotic/ expensive material needed for research and development, it is nearly impossible to recreate the allocation of capital and make all kind of tooling and experimental/ testing setup available at one place using only voluntary resources. I believe these things inevitably needs concentration of such resources all under one roof, Skunk works style.

First, a main part of modern car software is based on open source. Almost all, including Tesla, using Linux as base system. Also they use a ton of other open source libraries. It is always good to have an open source alternative, also to be able to shape the development to a certain degree. You can take the development of operating systems as an analogy. There are still Windows and MacOS, although there is Linux.

I think it's possible, and could be better than the centralized development if the right things are done, like applying the Bitcoin Ideals/principles in the decentralized development.
I think quality control shouldn't be ignored in decentralized developments... The development should be based on strong/good rules, and should be Merit-based too.
And ofcourse, you'll need to have very talented/skillful builders building working models together and getting rewarded for solving very useful problems.

This will be a short post on the power of decentralization in business as well as in cryptocurrencies.

Elon Musk and tesla have enjoyed considerable success and fame in their pursuit of crafting the perfect EV.

Automakers around the world are scrambling to keep pace, roll out new products and not fall behind. The problem they face is a business culture of top end complacency. Executives of large automotive companies are opposed to innovation and change. They only adopt new technology as Elon Musk and tesla force them to.

Which isn't to say tesla's approach is 100% perfect. While tesla's team is talented and innovative, there is one perhaps one critical component they're failing to harness due to their centralized nature.

In a nation like the USA there are 300+ million people who have money, manpower, ideas and talent. This perhaps vital resource may largely be unharnessed by tesla.

Technology and products are increasingly becoming more proprietary. To work on a modern car or truck often requires special diagnostic equipment. Only tesla certified personnel are allowed to work on tesla's with warranties and support sometimes being voided if tesla owners perform maintenance, repairs or mods on their own.

Question: could automobile corporations more effectively harness the collective resource of a population by decentralizing their development, maintenance and production models away from centralized monolithic models. To be more inclusive of local communities. Producing products designed to be open source hackable and moddable.

For analogies sake, if tesla has 1 thousand engineers in a centralized format. Could gains be made by decentralizing and opening select portions of their development process to millions of engineers, tinkerers and hackers around the world.

Is there anyone who would like to own a car or truck designed from the ground up to be open sourced. To make it as easy as possible to mod, hack, modify, repair without needing a certified professional. Don't forget movie franchises like the Fast and Furious arose out of the modding car scene. I don't know if there is a market for it today. But there definitely is a long history of hot rodding and modding with cars/vehicles which could be relevent.

Or are there perhaps significant flaws or shortcomings to open sourcing automobile technology which I am failing to acknowledge?