We don’t just follow the headlines… we read between the lines to get to the bottom line of what’s really going on.
And what’s really going on inside the global auto industry is this: legacy automakers—the ones that built our highways, our muscle cars, and our economy—are struggling to keep up. Not because they can’t build great vehicles, but because they’ve turned their modern cars into “Frankensteins.”
That’s not our word—that comes from a recent Newsweek analysis titled “‘Frankensteins’ May Keep Legacy Automakers From Being Competitive.” The article lays out the uncomfortable truth: the world’s traditional automakers have been trying to rewire themselves for a new era of “software-defined vehicles.” But instead of evolving, many have been stitching together mismatched systems—engines from one supplier, sensors from another, software from five different vendors—until the car itself becomes an unwieldy patchwork of incompatible technologies.
Meanwhile, the next generation of automakers—many of them Chinese—are doing the exact opposite. They’re building from the ground up, designing integrated software and hardware ecosystems that move at lightning speed. They can go from concept to production in as little as 18 to 24 months, while legacy automakers often take twice as long.
And here’s the part few Americans realize: that gap in development speed may soon decide who dominates the global car market.
The Rise of the “Software-Defined” Car
In the past, a car’s soul was in its engine. Power, torque, and craftsmanship defined quality. But today, the modern vehicle—especially an electric one—is a rolling computer. Its most valuable components aren’t the pistons or axles but the lines of code running its systems: battery management, driver-assist, over-the-air updates, navigation, voice control, even the seat-belt tensioners.
Every automaker now calls their vehicles “software-defined,” but very few actually own that software. Instead, most rely on dozens of outside suppliers. Each has its own architecture, version control, and security layer. The result? An engineering nightmare. Every time a system needs to be updated, it has to be validated against every other subsystem. It’s slow, expensive, and fragile.
This is what Newsweek means by “Frankensteins.” The article quotes insiders who describe Western automakers as spending “the majority of their time trying to piece together all of these different vendors.” That’s not innovation—that’s survival mode.
The Chinese and Tesla Advantage
While legacy OEMs fight their internal software battles, Chinese manufacturers are racing ahead. Companies like BYD, NIO, and XPeng build everything in-house—from the chips to the operating system. Their vertical integration gives them agility that legacy firms simply don’t have.
In America, Tesla was the first to crack that code. Elon Musk didn’t build a car around suppliers—he built suppliers around his car. The result? A seamless digital ecosystem that updates itself overnight. That’s why Tesla, for all its controversies, continues to dominate EV margins and software satisfaction rankings worldwide.
Meanwhile, giants like General Motors and Ford are still trying to centralize their electronics and rewrite their codebase. They’ll get there, but every delay gives foreign competitors more ground.
The Labor Reality No One Wants to Admit
Here’s the other half of the story that few in the media touch: China’s labor costs are a fraction of those in the West.
Chinese EV companies can produce vehicles with a fraction of the overhead because their workers earn far less and operate within a state-controlled economy where the government absorbs many of the costs private industry carries elsewhere. In short, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) subsidizes production, keeps wages low, and directly funds strategic industries like EVs, batteries, and rare-earth mining—all while enforcing a level of labor compliance and cost control that no Western democracy could (or should) match.
That’s the cold economic truth: Western nations can’t compete on labor costs with a system that suppresses wages, limits worker rights, and manipulates global markets. The CCP treats industrial dominance as a national security mission. Meanwhile, Western automakers are trapped in a maze of legacy pension systems, environmental compliance costs, and supplier dependencies that make it almost impossible to compete on price without cutting corners or losing profitability.
This isn’t a “free market” competition—it’s state capitalism versus private capitalism, and the rules are nowhere near equal.
If we ignore that imbalance, we’re not competing—we’re surrendering.
The Danger of “Old-World Thinking”
This isn’t just about tech—it’s about mindset. Legacy automakers grew up in an era of craftsmanship, unions, and dealer networks. Their DNA is manufacturing, not software. So they’ve treated software like an accessory instead of the engine of the modern vehicle.
But in this new age, agility is everything. Consumers expect their car to behave like their phone—customizable, updatable, always connected. A vehicle that can’t push a quick software fix or roll out new features is already obsolete.
And that means the real fight isn’t about horsepower anymore—it’s about brainpower.
If Detroit, Stuttgart, or Tokyo can’t break free from their vendor-dependency model, the “Frankenstein effect” could hollow out their competitiveness. They’ll build great bodies—but with someone else’s brain inside.
What It Means for America
This should be a wake-up call. The future of the automotive industry—and the jobs, technology, and national security tied to it—depends on America’s ability to own its own software stack and to control its industrial base. That means developing domestic supply chains, investing in AI and software training, and ensuring that manufacturing jobs stay within democratic nations that protect workers, not exploit them.
We need policies that encourage vertical integration, domestic chip manufacturing, and software innovation. We need to train the next generation of American engineers to write code that moves wheels, not just apps. And we need to reward companies that invest in intellectual property here, not just assembly plants.
Otherwise, we risk repeating the same mistake we made in other industries—outsourcing the brains of the operation while keeping the bolts and brackets at home.
The irony is that the “Frankensteins” of the auto world were never built out of malice. They were built out of legacy. But if we want to compete in a world run by intelligent machines and subsidized factories, we have to evolve faster than the code—and faster than the CCP’s plan.
Closing Thoughts
The global car market is about to divide into two species: those who control their software—and those controlled by it.
Legacy automakers can survive this transformation, but they’ll have to shed their old skins. The real test isn’t whether they can build another EV. It’s whether they can build a system that learns, adapts, and innovates faster than the competition—and do it without sacrificing freedom, labor rights, or sovereignty.
If America gets this right, the next automotive revolution won’t be led by Frankensteins. It’ll be led by innovators. By builders. By Amer-I-Can’s!
Written by the Media Team at The Craig Bushon Show
“The Truth Is Not Hate Speech”
Disclaimer: This editorial is based on publicly available reporting, including Newsweek’s “‘Frankensteins’ May Keep Legacy Automakers From Being Competitive,” and includes independent analysis for educational and commentary purposes. It does not represent financial advice or official manufacturer statements.
