Silicon Valley has changed the world, but it failed to change Detroit.

Recently, the traditional U.S. auto industry has suddenly started to collectively "fear Chinese cars."

On May 11th, Reuters reported that U.S. auto industry organizations, including Ford, General Motors, Toyota, and Stellantis, are joining forces with U.S. lawmakers to push for further restrictions on Chinese cars entering the U.S. market. The U.S. auto industry and unions have even directly warned the Trump administration: "Don't open the door to Chinese cars."

The reason isn't just about price.

Reuters mentioned in its report that the U.S. auto industry is increasingly worried that Chinese automakers have formed systematic advantages in electric vehicle technology, cost control, supply - chain scale, and intelligent experience. Once Chinese automakers truly enter the U.S. market, the U.S. auto industry may find it difficult to cope.

So, the question arises: The United States has globally leading software, AI, chip, and Internet companies. However, to this day, these technological capabilities still haven't been able to drive the upgrade of the auto industry on a large scale like in China.

Silicon Valley has changed the world. Why hasn't it changed Detroit?

Why hasn't Apple become the "iPhone of the automotive world"?

Apple's abandonment of car - making is a typical sign.

In February 2024, Reuters, citing a Bloomberg report, said that Apple terminated its decade - long electric vehicle project and redirected some employees to AI business. This project was once regarded by the outside world as an opportunity for Apple to "create another iPhone moment," but it ultimately stopped before mass production.

Why couldn't the strongest consumer electronics company in the United States cross the threshold of the auto industry?

The reason is that the core of competition in the mobile phone industry lies in chips, systems, and ecosystems, while the competition in the auto industry ultimately boils down to factories, supply chains, engineering manufacturing, and large - scale delivery. Software can be iterated quickly, but the vehicle manufacturing system is difficult to develop rapidly.

The problem in the United States lies precisely here: The technology companies are strong, and the auto industry has a century - long accumulation, but there isn't enough smooth industrial synergy between the two.

Traditional automakers are of course also trying to embrace Silicon Valley.

General Motors once regarded Cruise as a key chip in the era of autonomous driving, hoping to reshape the business model through Robotaxi and software subscriptions like an Internet company.

However, after the San Francisco accident in 2023, Cruise faced heavy regulatory pressure. Reuters reported that General Motors then stopped further investment in the Robotaxi business and refocused on the more realistic Super Cruise assisted driving.

Stellantis also had a high - profile cooperation with Amazon to create the "SmartCockpit" intelligent cockpit, hoping to deeply integrate cloud services, AI, and voice ecosystems into the vehicle system. But after several years, this cooperation hasn't had the expected industry influence. Reuters reported this year that the software cooperation between the two sides has significantly slowed down.

From Cruise to SmartCockpit, U.S. traditional automakers have almost all tried to introduce Silicon Valley - style software thinking and Internet ecosystems in recent years. But reality has proven that "Silicon Valleyization" isn't a "cure - all."

How did China form a closed - loop of "technology + auto"?

In May 2023, Reuters reported that Ford CEO Jim Farley publicly stated: "The main competitors we see are the Chinese, not General Motors or Toyota."

In 2024, Business Insider reported that Farley even shipped a Xiaomi SU7 from Shanghai to Chicago and said bluntly that he "didn't want to return it."

In June 2025, Farley further sighed that the Chinese electric vehicle industry is "the most humbling thing I've ever seen." He specifically mentioned that Chinese automakers' advantages in in - car technology, cost control, and vehicle quality are "far superior to what I've seen in the West."

This means that Farley has actually seen the core of the problem: The advantage of Chinese automakers isn't just the lead in a single technology, but the entire industrial system is operating simultaneously.

And this ability didn't appear suddenly.

In the past few years, China's technology companies, auto industry chain, and manufacturing system have actually been driving and growing together.

The auto industry has brought in technological chains such as chips, software, AI, sensors, operating systems, batteries, and intelligent driving; technology companies, in turn, have promoted the intelligentization, electrification, and upgrade of user experience of vehicles.

Xiaomi is the most obvious example. Reuters called Xiaomi's entry into the auto industry in March 2024 "the path Apple didn't take."

Xiaomi can quickly enter the auto industry not only because it understands mobile phones and user ecosystems, but also because China already has a mature battery, parts, engineering manufacturing, and supply - chain system that can support a technology company's ambition to build cars.

Huawei represents another path. It doesn't directly build cars but injects its intelligent driving, cockpit, communication, and computing platform capabilities into vehicle manufacturers.

Meanwhile, BYD represents the upgrade of the manufacturing system itself; NIO, Li Auto, and XPeng are more like a new generation of automakers combining Internet thinking with the auto industry.

What they jointly promote isn't just a single "intelligent function," but the coordinated evolution of the entire Chinese auto industry from software, supply chain to manufacturing system.

Silicon Valley isn't a cure - all

The competition in intelligent electric vehicles is no longer a single - point technology competition.

It's not about who has the strongest AI model, the most powerful chip, or the most beautiful in - car interface that can win the next - generation auto industry.

What really determines the outcome is whether technological capabilities can be absorbed by the manufacturing system, magnified by the supply chain, verified by user experience, and then drive the next round of product iteration.

For the U.S. auto industry, Silicon Valley is of course important, but it isn't a cure - all.

But without batteries, factories, supply chains, engineering systems, and industrial synergy efficiency, technological capabilities can only stay in PPTs, concept cars, and experimental projects.

Apple's abandonment of car - making, Cruise's contraction, and the slow progress of traditional automakers' cooperation with Silicon Valley essentially all illustrate the same problem: The United States has strong technology companies, but after technological capabilities enter the auto industry, they still haven't truly formed synergy with the manufacturing system and supply - chain system.

And this may be the real gap in the current auto - industry competition between China and the United States.

This article is from the WeChat official account "View on Mobility". Author: Sheng Ming, Editor: Gao Xin. Republished by 36Kr with authorization.