Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Offers $100 Million Funding for New Car Technologies

By - Source: Intel | B 17 comments

Intel has reserved $100 million for investments in hardware, software and services companies that are focused on in-vehicle applications.

The company said that it plans on spending the money over the next four to five years to promote the "seamless connection between vehicles and any connected device, including mobile devices and sensors." Intel is the first IT company to offer an investment fund that is dedicated to automotive applications.

"Technology has become an integral component of everyday life, with consumers demanding uninterrupted access to the Internet and the constant flow of information, news, entertainment, and social media," said Arvind Sodhani, president of Intel Capital and Intel executive vice president, in a prepared statement. "Automobiles must be able to provide these same consistent and engaging computing experiences, but in a safe manner."

According to Intel, the funding for new technologies goes hand in hand with its efforts to work with automakers and in-vehicle infotainment companies to come up with sophisticated in-car applications. Needless to say, Intel isn't giving away welfare. The company has been trying to establish itself as a chip supplier for the automotive industry, but has not been able to dent the dominant position of chip companies such as Freescale so far. Intel's business plan expects increasing chip sales every year and if investments in startups can help open the door for Intel, those $100 million may be well invested money.

Check out Intel's vision for the connected car of the future.

Display 17 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -4 Hide
    Anonymous , March 5, 2012 12:21 PM
    "Intel's business plan expects increasing chip sales every year!"

    This is a problem..

    We all know that an insatiable appetite leads to self destruction!

    The constant growth syndrome is what causes many companies to over-expend, over -stretch, lose focus and eventually implode on the empty core it has produced. Now a company the size and breadth of Intel, with its budget, will have to grow to an enormous size before this happens (if it happens), but the resulting Implosion would be immense.

    The Donut theory, The bigger the Donut- the Bigger the Hole in the Middle!
  • 0 Hide
    mobrocket , March 5, 2012 1:03 PM
    Moricon

    I think Intel sees the future and the PC in its current form is not it...

    i think they are just trying to find some other revenue streams, just like MSFT
  • 8 Hide
    fuzzion , March 5, 2012 2:01 PM
    Dear Intel, I do not want my car's ECU to be connected to the web. I really can't afford another another anti virus. Thank you.
  • 2 Hide
    zachusaman , March 5, 2012 2:02 PM
    stupid of them, what they should do instead is invest that money into companies looking for better energy storage or generation solutions... because electric cars are being stalled by batteries being crap and no way to power devices for a long time.
  • 0 Hide
    jaber2 , March 5, 2012 2:03 PM
    That is very cheap, a car patten could last forever and generate hundreds of millions of dollars in lifetime.
  • 0 Hide
    victorious 3930k , March 5, 2012 3:01 PM
    fuzzionDear Intel, I do not want my car's ECU to be connected to the web. I really can't afford another another anti virus. Thank you.


    Cue Intel Security Essentials (Car version)
  • 1 Hide
    teddymines , March 5, 2012 3:19 PM
    I am concerned with privacy and being monitored by police and others. Not to mention the ability for your car to be hacked by a sensor placed near your car's path. The information flow, whether initiated by the driver or not, will leave a pretty clear breadcrumb trail.
  • 0 Hide
    capt_taco , March 5, 2012 3:19 PM
    To be perfectly clear - this does not sound like $100M that they are just giving away or spending on R&D. More like $100M that they're using to buy software startups in the automotive space, whose software they will inevitably package with Intel processors.

    I would also expect a good deal of this money to be spent buying up patents, which will work to no one's advantage except Intel's by giving it the ability to sue others for licensing fees with every new car sold.
  • -2 Hide
    maxinexus , March 5, 2012 3:24 PM
    cars with a small nuclear reactor would do the trick but don't sell them in the middle east
  • 1 Hide
    Partizan92 , March 5, 2012 4:38 PM
    fuzzionDear Intel, I do not want my car's ECU to be connected to the web. I really can't afford another another anti virus. Thank you.


    Imagine that you're going through a twisty road with your car pushing it to limits.. now add to that your car uses an electric steering system which is connected to the ECU.. and some a***ole through a Wifi hotspot using a Galaxy turns of the electric steering XD that would be fun
  • -1 Hide
    blazorthon , March 5, 2012 5:27 PM
    Cars with computers are well-known for being remarkably insecure and easy to hack. The only reason it isn't done regularly is because such "smart" cars aren't as prevalent as "dumb" cars. Think about it, these cars tend to have little to no security, so every moment spent even near one is a moment when a hacker could just activate it and do whatever they want to with it (limited by how integrated the computer is with the car), possibly even including driving it remotely...

    It's not worth the danger. We have yet to see a platform that isn't able to be hacked, exploited, etc, and probably never will. The only way I could even consider tolerating such a vehicle is if it has NO wireless networking at all (no blue tooth, no 3g/4g whatever g connection, no WiFi, etc) and no third party was even capable of making software for it. If no one can make viruses that are compatible with it and there is no way to get any on it anyway, well then it is a lot more secure just by being completely closed.

    At that point, well what is the point of having it? I just see these smart cars as a gimmick that may cost you your life, or the life(lives?) of someone else. Like I said, not worth the danger.
  • 1 Hide
    dalethepcman , March 5, 2012 5:38 PM
    The only tech I want in my car is a small localized signal jammer to prevent the a-holes around me from talking on their cellular phones while driving, and prevent my car from sending or receiving data transmissions of any kind, but the FCC sais f off to anyone that wants to do this.
  • 2 Hide
    danwat1234 , March 5, 2012 6:09 PM
    Intel, you should help fund research for stable, reliable, fuel efficient HCCI engines. They are gas engines that provides much more efficiency than OTTO (typical car) or Atkinson (i.e. Prius) gas engines and essentially behave part time like a diesel engine, but using gasoline. This is the natural progression. This requires tons of sensors, computing power, perhaps even a fully electric valve system (No cam!?), so Intel could really help here with funding for this technology, or have some engineers help the cause!
    After all, when I'm done getting my CpE degree, I am still debating whether to work at Intel with microprocessor design or a car company designing drivetrain improvements and AI driving tech. Maybe I could work at Intel and do both.
    Meh
  • 0 Hide
    dimar , March 5, 2012 10:57 PM
    You charge the car at first, the car would be driven by the back wheels, but the front wheels would have a generator that would charge the car's 2nd set of batteries. When the 2nd set of batteries are used-up, the front wheels would charge the 1st set of batteries. I call it the Unlimited Engine. Where's my $100 million, Intel?
  • 1 Hide
    blazorthon , March 7, 2012 12:39 AM
    dimarYou charge the car at first, the car would be driven by the back wheels, but the front wheels would have a generator that would charge the car's 2nd set of batteries. When the 2nd set of batteries are used-up, the front wheels would charge the 1st set of batteries. I call it the Unlimited Engine. Where's my $100 million, Intel?


    That wouldn't be "unlimited". It would be a decent idea, and could improve mileage (some cars do this or something similar if I'm not mistaken), but there will be energy simply lost that can't be made back by the front wheels and it could mean that the vehicle can't be all-wheel drive.

    Such lost energy is due to the engines not being 100% efficient (no such thing as 100% efficient in electronics, or really anything that comes to mind). A lot of the energy simply isn't made back, a lot of it would be dissipated as heat, etc, it would still need to be recharged.

    Good try, but it doesn't work in practice. An expert in this could explain in much further detail and accuracy why it wouldn't work than I can.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , March 18, 2012 2:36 PM
    Most people who are not directly working in the area of technology applications in transportation infrastructure and vehicles may be surprised by current applications, let alone R&D. Intel is only trying to get ahead of the competition by trying to encourage innovation. Those of you who have posted here whining about your sleepless nights worrying about Big Brother, might want to consider giving up your credit cards and stopping visits to any Malls. Cameras and sensors are/will be everywhere - and their purpose is to make us all safe and efficient. Only crooks and cheats have valid reasons to worry about the inevitable future. Fear mongers, Libertarians and political opportunists are profiting much from the dumb amongst us.
  • 0 Hide
    blazorthon , March 19, 2012 3:07 PM
    Chandra999Most people who are not directly working in the area of technology applications in transportation infrastructure and vehicles may be surprised by current applications, let alone R&D. Intel is only trying to get ahead of the competition by trying to encourage innovation. Those of you who have posted here whining about your sleepless nights worrying about Big Brother, might want to consider giving up your credit cards and stopping visits to any Malls. Cameras and sensors are/will be everywhere - and their purpose is to make us all safe and efficient. Only crooks and cheats have valid reasons to worry about the inevitable future. Fear mongers, Libertarians and political opportunists are profiting much from the dumb amongst us.


    Unless you can prove to me that you have seen the future, I'd prefer you not telling us how it is. We have no idea about what will happen. For all we know, our government could go all corrupt on us (snicker, already pretty far down that road) and use their privacy invasion to be the fear mongers on the general populace. Only everyone should be worried about the future, not just the crooks and cheats. Only a fool would think to not act on the assumption that big brother isn't really there to help you, but help themselves. Big brother is full of the same crooks and cheats that you claim should be worried about this.

    Besides all of that, I like my privacy. Is it a crime to not want to be constantly monitored? I'm not a thief or such criminal, but that doesn't mean that I don't want the crooks from the government breathing down my back. What really worries me is the many ways for all of this monitoring to be used for malevolent purposes. It's not like we haven't heard of many times where it was. Need I remind you of the many times that cameras have been used to spy on people? Going beyond worrying about what the government does, now we can contemplate what other people may do with this stuff. Our government isn't known for making critical things like this very secure. You don't really think that civilian criminals won't try to do things they really shouldn't with the monitoring equipment that is laid out in front of us by the government that is supposed to be there to help the people, do you?

    We have seen several occasions where such crimes have been successfully committed too.