Interview with Stefan Bratzel, CAM
“A new mobility system will emerge”
Before founding the Center of Automotive Management, Bratzel worked for Daimler, among others.
CAM
In connected-car innovation, Chinese OEMs are increasingly setting the pace – and the traditional automotive world has much to learn. CAM-Expert Stefan Bratzel explains why autonomous driving is becoming the decisive success factor.
Mr Bratzel, from your perspective, what has been the most
important development in the connected-vehicle space in recent years?
The central topic is undoubtedly the
software-defined vehicle, which has gained significant momentum thanks
to advances in artificial intelligence – also from the end-customer
perspective. Carmakers are making huge strides here. BMW recently presented the
Neue Klasse, whose E/E architecture clearly separates hardware and software. At
Mercedes-Benz, too, the further development of
software-defined architectures is a key focus. We should not forget that
this development was originally triggered by Tesla. And Chinese manufacturers
such as Nio and Xpeng are also relatively strong in this area, partly because
they were able to design these architectures from the ground up as newcomers. A
software-defined vehicle architecture is the prerequisite for quickly bringing
customer-centric value into the vehicle. This is reflected in numerous innovations in infotainment, connectivity
and, of course, in the central future topic of ADAS and autonomous driving.
In recent years, one trend has become very clear: Chinese
OEMs increasingly rank among the global leaders in connected-car innovation.
How do you assess this rise?
It is now widely recognised what we predicted years ago: China has become the new automotive powerhouse in connected-car innovation. Our innovation database
shows that Chinese OEMs have recently been attacking across the board in the
premium segment – the very area where innovation intensity is highest. In
addition, an entirely new automotive ecosystem is emerging with completely new
players. Xiaomi, for example – originally a smartphone manufacturer – now plays
an extremely strong role, including in terms of sales figures. The company
recently entered the Top Ten of NEV manufacturers in China, even though it has
only been selling cars for a year and a half. This illustrates the enormous
momentum that exists there. Chinese manufacturers are bringing their innovations
into series production at incredible speed and at very low cost. Of course, the
market is fiercely competitive, and many Chinese manufacturers are not yet
making money with what they do. But I would remind you: Tesla also went through
years of losses while revolutionising the industry in today’s key areas of
electromobility and software-defined driving.
What would you advise the “old automotive world”?
They should try to learn from the Chinese manufacturers. It
is important to understand how they manage to drive developments forward so
quickly. And we can already see that partnerships – including those entered
into by German manufacturers – are part of the answer. Volkswagen is the most
prominent example here, with collaborations such as those with Xpeng and
Horizon Robotics.
A key focus of the new Connected-Car Innovation Study is ADAS and autonomous driving. You examine both private
ownership and shared-mobility contexts. How far apart are the innovation
dynamics in these two areas?
Automated driving is, in my view,
the topic that will bring about the greatest changes in the entire mobility
system over the next ten years. Although the major breakthrough is still
pending, I believe we are now on the productivity path – meaning a phase in
which automated driving increasingly delivers genuine customer benefit and
becomes more widespread. The distinction between “ownership” and “sharing” is
indeed very important. In driver-assistance systems – that is, Levels 1, 2 and
2+, where the driver remains responsible despite partial automation – we see
enormous momentum. These systems have now become standard, a development we did
not observe to this extent among Chinese OEMs just a few years ago. That is
changing rapidly. Looking at Level 3, Germany is actually an innovation leader
in this segment. Mercedes-Benz was the first manufacturer worldwide to receive
series approval for a Level-3 motorway system up to 95 km/h – and on the German
market. In the sharing sector, however, the picture is entirely different. In
the United States, Waymo is the clear innovation and global market leader in
Level-4 systems, essentially the robotaxi segment. In China, Baidu with its
Apollo platform is very strong, along with several other Chinese robotaxi
providers. Germany, by contrast, lags significantly behind. And this must be
said with absolute seriousness: If it is true that automated and autonomous
driving – whether robotaxis or privately used vehicles with autonomous
functions – will be among the most important topics of the next ten to fifteen
years, then the German automotive industry must act and must be at the
forefront.
Will the two worlds continue to run in parallel, or will
they increasingly converge?
There are, of course, interdependencies between the two
worlds, but in the coming years we will still largely observe developments
separately. The exciting question will be whether privately used vehicles can
truly be developed towards Level 4 in the foreseeable future. This is also a
matter of brand perception. If, for example, you are travelling in a premium
vehicle with a Level-3 system in Silicon Valley, while Waymo shuttles drive
fully autonomously through the streets of San Francisco, some customers will
naturally wonder why their expensive premium car appears technologically
behind. This could present an image issue if the gap between premium
manufacturers and tech companies becomes too wide. At the same time, we are
seeing early indications of technological convergence. Waymo, for instance, is
exploring – in cooperation with Toyota – whether the “Waymo Driver” system
could in future be installed in privately owned vehicles. In other words,
technology from the sharing domain could be transferred directly into private
cars. And there is a third point that I consider important: If robotaxis become
widespread in urban areas, this could also have regulatory implications. It
would demonstrate that one can reliably travel from A to B at any time of day
or night without owning a car. Cities could respond by regulating private
vehicles more strongly, for example through congestion charges or driving
restrictions. The argument would be: customers can get everywhere anyway, so
they do not need to drive their own cars in the city. This means we will not
only see technological developments but also systemic changes. Especially in
European cities, robotaxis will be closely integrated with public transport. A new mobility system will emerge in which automated driving
and public transit interact. In the United States, the situation is
different: public transport is often far less developed, so robotaxis are
likely to play an even greater role there.
Do you see a risk that car manufacturers could become
mere hardware suppliers in tomorrow’s autonomous-mobility ecosystems?
Indeed, this is a significant risk. Carmakers must be
careful not to be reduced to pure hardware suppliers. Today, the expensive and
innovative elements lie in the software – and increasingly in AI components,
for example in ADAS or in the autonomous driving stack. These are the
value-creation areas of the future. This is why it is crucial for manufacturers
such as Mercedes, Volkswagen and BMW to evolve into genuine tech players. They
need to be capable of developing and offering fully autonomous driving systems
themselves – systems that provide real customer value and can also be used in
shuttles. At present, we see only a few serious initiatives in this direction
in Europe. It is clear that this development must be driven forward. If
manufacturers do not also see themselves as technology providers, we will lose
a major share of value creation in the long term. And we must recognise: there
will not be twenty providers of such digital-driver systems; the development
costs are simply too high. This raises the question of whether manufacturers in
Germany should cooperate more closely to advance this topic together. Only in
this way can the European – and particularly the German – automotive industry
secure a central role in the future autonomous-driving ecosystem, rather than
merely supplying the hardware.
Volkswagen aims to position itself as a white-label
provider together with Moia and Mobileye, with a complete package of vehicles,
sensors, ecosystem and know-how. Is that a smart strategic move?
I think it is indeed sensible for Volkswagen to seek to
position itself as a white-label provider. Strategically, it makes sense. But
it will be a true Herculean task to implement it successfully. Firstly, it must
be said clearly: unlike Waymo, European projects still have a safety driver on
board. This shows that we are still some distance away from technical maturity.
Secondly, Europe has a fundamentally different mobility system from the United
States, with public transport playing a central role. And ultimately the key
question is: who will pay for all this? If Volkswagen wants to appear as a
white-label provider, someone else must be willing to finance it –
municipalities, cities or other mobility providers who want to deploy robotaxis on a larger scale in Berlin, Hamburg
or other regions. And at present, that remains an open question. Will public
transport operators take on this role? It is unclear. Many of them receive
substantial public funding, but they are not necessarily the most flexible
actors when it comes to implementing new mobility concepts. And it must also be
said clearly: further developing robotaxis will require enormous investment. At
some point, Europe will need a common platform through which such systems can
be scaled widely. Only then will it be possible to earn money with these
solutions in the long term.
You have previously described autonomous driving as a
“game changer for mobility”. How close have we come to this vision over the
past year, and what remains to be done for it to become reality?
I believe that in some regions we are already very close to
this goal. We saw this two years ago in Waymo’s commercial operations in San
Francisco. Several hundred robotaxis now drive through the city – in a complex,
mixed-traffic environment. And it works very well. That means that
technologically, some players are already quite far advanced. We are observing
similar developments in China, where robotaxis are operating in many cities.
The next crucial step will be to actually generate revenue with commercial
operations – in other words, to achieve scale. Costs must come down, revenues
must go up. This means lower hardware costs, more efficient systems and lower
operating expenses. Operations centres also play a major role. The question is:
how many remote operators are required to monitor these robotaxis? This is a
key cost factor that determines the economic viability of the systems. Technologically,
we are already very far along in some regions. Now begins the phase of
productivity – the phase in which the technology must actually generate
revenue. And, in my view, this will be the decisive step of the next ten years.
