Lots of wishful thinking in this article.
If car companies release cars with the idea of upgrading software later that will be hugely bad for us consumers.
One of the most impressive things in automotive technology is reliability of older quality vehicles. That reliability is testament to the rigorous testing that went on when the systems where originally implemented.
Look at how many over the air updates Tesla has had to release. Their systems where clearly shipped with less rigours testing and quality necessitating updates.
My 2011 car gets updates every now and then as components are common across still in production models or there is some issue that needs rectifying (emissions) Tesla has similar but much more frequent updates.
Car manufacturers also don’t like customers updating older vehicles to newer specs.
Mercedes models typically last 7 to 9 years with a refresh or 3 in between, the underlying systems will largely be the same, refresh models may introduce different tech but software locking a vehicle to its build spec ensures upgrades are either impossible or costly. Want to upgrade that infotainment to “command” then you’ll find a need to replace more than just the head unit plus code the car to the new components. If successful the new system may stop working at any point and those components needing re codeing to the car.
A simple case was a battery on a mini clubman, the manual stated a new battery would not work properly unless it was coded to the car by bmw.
My point is that the automotive industry already has a mature eco system using lots of FOSS that is stitched together using propriety software that effectively checks entitlement etc.
Automotive computing is a mature environment across all major players and uses stable solutions.
I’m not sure VMware branded hypervisers is needed in this market to sell Broadcom chips. The existing hypervisor solutions would save them $60bn+ They could use to actually buy share.