The Promise Was Longevity. The Invoice Is Just Arriving.
15 Feb 2026 | 2 Views | By Parul Pradhan Sharma
Software-defined vehicles (SDVs) were meant to extend vehicle life through upgradable software. At least, that was the promise. Instead, software may be shortening perceived relevance—and someone will eventually pay for that gap.
The automotive industry is enthusiastic about software-driven longevity: vehicles that stay updated, relevant, and competitive for ...
This is an Autocar Pro Plus article. Subscribe to continue reading.
Software-defined vehicles (SDVs) were meant to extend vehicle life through upgradable software. At least, that was the promise. Instead, software may be shortening perceived relevance—and someone will eventually pay for that gap.
The automotive industry is enthusiastic about software-driven longevity: vehicles that stay updated, relevant, and competitive for longer. What is far less understood—or conveniently ignored—is the long tail of cost, liability, and operational burden that follows this promise.
This article is not a rant about OTA failures. It is not a software-versus-hardware debate. And it is certainly not another explanation of why “technology is hard.”
It is about lifecycle economics, operational reality, and consequences the industry prefers to defer.
At its core, this discussion challenges two widely accepted tenets of SDVs:
first, that software updates alone can keep vehicles fresh for their full lifespan; and second, that decoupling software from hardware is always the right direction for SDV evolution.
At the heart of the issue lies a quiet mismatch: vehicles are expected to last like infrastructure, while software is designed to evolve like fashion.
1. Decoding the Software–Hardware Age Gap
Consumer electronics offer a telling reference. Smartphones were once supported for barely two years; today, leading models promise seven or more. Even then, few users mistake updates for timeless relevance.
In theory, SDVs can receive software updates across their entire 10–15 year lifecycle. In reality, not all updates are equal. A more honest SDV software lifecycle looks like this:
In practical terms, an SDV remains meaningfully contemporary for its first 5-7 years. Beyond that, software updates often shift from enhancing relevance to merely sustaining existence. This has a direct impact on perceived longevity and real-world value.
In comparison, a car—pre SDV—has traditionally been designed for roughly 22 years of serviceability before being regarded as a classic. Ownership may change multiple times during this period, but the viability of the vehicle remains intact. The expectation has never been continuous reinvention, but dependable relevance over time.
The uncomfortable truth is that the oldest vehicles carrying credible “software upgradability” promises are barely a decade old. The industry has not yet experienced a full SDV lifecycle at scale. And when it does, the limiting factor will not be software ambition—it will be hardware reality.
2. The Cost of Believing the Myth of Infinite Updates
If the current approach to decoupling hardware and software continues unchanged, OEMs risk shipping vehicles that age digitally faster than they age mechanically—a new form of obsolescence the industry is not prepared to manage.
Many strategic decisions today carry quiet downstream consequences:
This raises an unavoidable question: who pays for the gap?
The cost does not fall on technology partners whose responsibility often ends at delivery. Instead, it lands on:
If SDV lifecycles are not prioritised now, vehicles risk running mechanically sound but digitally outdated software, with growing security gaps and limited repairability. The industry is already grappling with electronic waste from short-lived consumer devices. With SDVs, the scale—and the consequences—will be far greater.
3. Beyond Wishful Thinking: Designing for Planned Evolution
This is where the SDV conversation needs a reset.
The next direction is not endless abstraction or complete hardware–software separation. It is planned hardware evolution, deliberately embedded within the SDV framework.
If software is expected to grow smarter over time, the physical systems it depends on—sensors, cameras, radar, and compute platforms—must be designed to evolve as well.
Imagine instead:
This is not about turning cars into Lego kits. It is about accepting a basic truth: software cannot outgrow the senses through which it perceives the world.
Done thoughtfully, selective hardware upgradability:
Hardware stops being the bottleneck—and becomes the enabler. This also reframes the HW–SW relationship. The question is no longer how much we can decouple, but where coupling must remain intentional. That shift demands new thinking—and deeper collaboration between OEMs and technology providers, not just on software standards, but on sensing and compute foundations.
Closing Thought: The Cost of Denial Is Higher Than the Cost of Design
The promise of software-defined vehicles was never about endless updates. It was about relevance, longevity, and trust.
Software will age faster than cars. That is not a failure—it is a fact.
The real failure is designing vehicles as if this fact does not exist.
Because if we don’t plan for software ageing, we don’t eliminate the bill—we merely defer it. And deferred bills, as the industry knows well, always arrive with interest.
The only question is whether we choose to design for it—or keep pretending it won’t.
Parul Pradhan Sharma is a Design-driven strategic leader with over 23 years of experience in the automotive and product innovation space. Views expressed are the authors’ personal.