In the race to enable software-defined vehicles, many automotive OEMs and Tier-1 suppliers initially pursue the strategy of building an in-house proprietary over-the-air (OTA) update solution, without exploring the possibilities of adopting a standardized approach. While developing proprietary OTA systems might initially seem appealing — offering complete control and customization — the hidden costs often outweigh the benefits in ways that aren’t immediately apparent. 

The temptation and reality of going it alone 

The allure of building in-house OTA capabilities is understandable. Engineering teams believe they can create systems perfectly tailored to their specific requirements. Executive teams see an opportunity to own a strategic technology asset. And on paper, the initial investment might seem comparable to standardized solutions. 

However, this perspective fails to account for the true total cost of ownership that emerges over time. What begins as a focused development project can inevitably transform into a permanent commitment of valuable engineering talent—resources that could otherwise be directed toward customer-facing innovations rather than maintaining fundamental infrastructure. 

Building robust OTA systems requires specialized knowledge across multiple domains —cybersecurity, reliable data transmission, rollback mechanisms, campaign management, and more. Experience and expertise in these specific areas doesn’t typically exist within most traditional automotive engineering organizations and can be expensive and time-consuming to develop or acquire. Without this expertise, organizations risk building solutions with critical vulnerabilities or limitations that only become apparent after deployment — when the costs of remediation are usually exponentially higher. 

The burden of proprietary systems 

Each proprietary OTA solution creates unique integration challenges. Modern vehicles incorporate components from a variety of different suppliers. With proprietary approaches to OTA, either these components must be specially adapted to work with the OTA system, or the OTA system must be adapted to work with the components in each vehicle configuration, creating additional engineering overheads throughout the supply chain. This complexity multiplies the testing burden, as each unique integration path requires validation across countless scenarios and edge cases. 

Security isn’t something you can solve once – it’s an ongoing process. In-house OTA systems require dedicated security teams to monitor for vulnerabilities, develop patches, and respond to emerging threats. Unlike standardized solutions that spread these costs across an ecosystem, proprietary systems place the entire burden on a single organization. Addressing security vulnerabilities demands significant resources—from discovery and analysis to development, testing, and deployment of fixes. Over the lifecycle of multiple vehicle platforms, the cumulative cost of maintaining security for a proprietary OTA system can represent a substantial financial burden.  

Perhaps the most overlooked expense is the opportunity cost to innovation. Every engineering hour spent maintaining basic OTA infrastructure is an hour not spent creating customer-facing features and experiences that differentiate your products in the marketplace. In today’s competitive landscape, can automotive companies really afford to divert their limited engineering resources toward reinventing capabilities that could be standardized across the industry? 

The standardized alternative 

The eSync Alliance offers a compelling alternative: a standardized, bi-directional OTA solution that’s already deployed in millions of vehicles worldwide. By adopting this approach, automotive companies can focus engineering resources on value-added innovation rather than maintaining basic infrastructure, leverage security expertise from across the alliance, reduce integration complexity through standardized interfaces, and ensure compatibility across the supply chain. 

When calculated over the full lifecycle of multiple vehicle platforms, the true cost of in-house OTA development can easily exceed standardized approaches by several times the initial investment. More importantly, it diverts focus from the innovations that truly matter to consumers. 

The question isn’t whether your organization can afford to build an in-house OTA solution. It’s whether you can afford the opportunity costs of doing so when standardized alternatives already exist.