Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer
theverge.com
theverge.com
All of this to say: You get what you pay for.
You get what you pay for.
This is what happens when HR drones are allowed to do naive "compensation range surveys" for regions. They do not understand the subtleties of the market and try to lump people with specialized skills, lots of experience, etc. in with people fresh off the boat from overseas, pumping out bug fixes for boring internal legacy J2EE systems at ancient insurance companies.
Companies like this will be in real trouble if remote work continues to be a thing. They better hope it doesn't.
Would be much healthier for humanity overall if these poorly managed companies, you know, just died from their poor management.
By giving companies money.
Reminds me of a back and forth I had with an NYT staff writer who claimed it was "inhumane" to expect people to totally relearn a set of skills every ten years.
People seem to forget that how they "feeeeeeeel" doesn't matter. The job market dictates what you do and don't have to do, and we live in a time when you must consistently learn new skills to be competitive.
It is inhumane to expect people to relearn their skillset every decade on their own dime and time.
It's rare enough that companies pay for small-scale training - a full retraining is pretty much unheard of.
The board & management may have that plan but until they can sell electric cars that a) exist and b) dont spontaneously combust they wont get significant subsidies.
IMO what will really light a fire under their ass at this point, even if you forget about saving the planet, is that an EV is a lot more fun to drive than an equivalently price ICE (post rebates). Whenever I go back to an ICE vehicle for a rental situation, I tend to curse often at how sluggish it feels. Feels like an iPhone/Android vs Nokia situation, manufacturers will get with the program or they will get pounced out of the game by competitors.
Companies don't seem to get that even though software devs tend to make more than most, the reality is that in the GTA or GVA it literally costs between $600k and $2m for a modest home. Even a renter would be stupid to not factor in the likelihood their rent will dramatically increase during the time they'll be employed.
Ya, great that I can afford a tiny studio basement suite while splitting rent, but I can't yet whether any significant emergencies or really think about eventually renting a place with a bedroom in it.
Everyone in lower income brackets is just really scraping by more than they'd care to admit.
In a way I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the boardroom when this is discussed.
Because really, it's sad. I would have taken a significant salary drop to go work on something like this because the Ford office was local to me and the work sounded interesting and potentially more impactful than what I was doing at the time.
Except it's so far below a reasonable rate... and you pretty much know the place would be a crappy workplace producing a substandard product...
I asked how they liked the software and how the office was working out. The response: "Oh, we don't do it for the software. We can hire 100 people out of Ohio State or Michigan and pay them midwest wages and get the same quality. The SV office is for the connections and investors we get."
It's entirely possible that they know exactly what they are doing ;)
No they can't... or they would.
Deeds. Not words.
They also tend to not be aware of the salary ranges out there and I think these traditional companies are exploiting them because most of the engineers really respect the companies and what they stand (or at least stood) for.
20 years ago I worked in the US branch of a Canadian company - we weren’t paid richly but they were paid much less. As a new grad I made 20% more than a 5 year SWE as a Unix SA.
Hiring managers should really read [1], posted previously here in HN. TL;DR: It is not where you or the candidate are located. It is whom you're competing against for hiring talent.
[1] https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-sala...
Ford is a us tech company.
Most people in Europe don’t want to leave.
> Most people in Europe don’t want to leave.
I believe they're saying if European tech companies want to compete in business with US tech companies they need to pay their engineers more money.
By what standard?
By their CEO's own admission, Ford sees itself as a "data company":
https://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/06/ceo-mark-fields-ford-dat...
Their software chops are certainly dubious, but there is no questioning their intent when it comes to entering the surveillance economy.
What a disaster. I wish they would focus on simply making good cars.
The linked article quotes the CEO, "Overall, when you look at our business, we're not only a car manufacturing company. We are a technology company. As our vehicles become part of the Internet of things and as consumers give permission to us to collect that data, we'll also become an information company."
That's marketing related to the IoT buzzword. Next week they might talk about using blockchain. The other part of the statement is that they are a "data company," because they can sell information about their customers.
The words from the CEO are the same words from a data analyst, but they each mean something entirely different.
What does this even mean? They don’t sell access to data. Oh! They use data to make business decisions? Well, welcome to 2004.
Have you heard of those small companies called Google and Facebook? Care to compare their market cap with Ford's lately? Do you really think they're worth that much because of their quick web search and easy friend-finding?
Anecdotal, but at least that’s my experience.
Sure, but most people aren't skilled white collar tech workers with in demand skills who could be earning 3x post-tax salary in the US.
Health insurance is essentially free or cheap at any good tech company. EU pensions are underfunded (just like US ones) and as a high paid tech worker you're better off with maxing your 401k anyways.
If you look at the nationalities in any top US MS/PhD/MBA program, you'll find it's about 40% European, far above what undergraduate programs look like. That shows quite a few skilled workers in Europe want to leave.
If you are an unskilled worker, Europe is better as long as they can continue to sustain their social programs by taxing high earners and having defense be subsidized by the US. If too many high earners leave or the US becomes unwilling to pay for bases all across Europe, the whole system collapses pretty quickly.
However, the thing I’d be worried about in their position, is, if the safety net is actually a sustainable project in a time of declining economic growth. They’re extrapolating on 30 or 40 years worth of data and if you’re retiring in 30 or 40 years a lot can change. Look what’s happened with the austerity crisis, something EU folks usually don’t want to talk about. Personally I’d want to manage my own retirement and risk tolerance.
The only problem american companies have is dealing with the workers rights around here.
Moreover, if EU tech companies are not willing to pay the best software/hardware engineers what they're worth, where do they all go? Not everyone wants to live in the US or work remotely.
What's more though, median disposable income per capita ALSO places the US at the very top in the world, which is super impressive.
All of this is to say that the US is actually a very wealthy place for the white collar worker demographic, so companies need to pay high salaries to attract employees.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...
US listings have plenty of houses for about 150k, which is unheard of in my low income area. And any blue collar american is making way more than me or my peers.
Services in most EU good, groceries are cheaper and better average quality for what everyone who's done shopping in both places, and some other stuff too. But in general I'd say that unless you go to Switzerland most euroa have lower disposable income and harder access to housing.
Even flats for 150k are old and in bad shape. You'd have to get very far from the city to get something nice for 150k and good luck with Internet and having services around.
Barcelona is absolutely a steal in comparison (and the food, transport, and weather are better, and the public healthcare is just as good).
So even if you manage to save money sharing a flat or living with your parents, good luck.
And plenty of houses for 600k around here by the way.
You can, but need to move elsewhere within the US. I know it's not great situation though.
The disposable income figure that boc quoted includes things like healthcare.
High value workers in the USA are the best compensated in the world by a wide margin. Other places are better for low value workers.
Their companies figured out a way to make Ford pay millions to be the first result for "Ford" when a user searches for "Ford" instead of users getting a result for "Chevy" (tiny ad disclaimer and recent court cases overseas notwithstanding). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/why-businesses-have-...
Other successful ones (often the same companies actually) charge (even after their expenses) a higher fee than federal taxes to be part of their store, compelled by a series of hidden ecosystem costs to the consumers, monopolization tactics, and network effects. That company in Europe with the low profit per employee is potentially paying out 30% of their gross (taxes are at least only on net) to one of these.
Basically many of these jobs are "bullshit jobs," working on problems the companies themselves create to rip people off.
I’ve been trying to compare an offer in the US and one in Montreal. The raw number for the US blows Canada out of the water, obviously, but adding in healthcare and childcare really starts to close the gap. That’s at least sort of calculable, especially if you ignore their option values, but it’s harder to price in other intangibles, like living somewhere walkable or with good public amenities (parks, schools, events). Basically no amount of money will buy you a walkable neighborhood in parts of the US: we looked—-hard—-in Houston!
The disposable income figure that boc quoted includes things like healthcare.
Even so, I’m not convinced that these numbers are actually that meaningful. They might tell you how many new Macbooks someone can afford, but do you think the median person’s quality of life is actually 50% worse outside the US? That seems implausible to me!
Infant mortality in the US is more common and indicative of problems that affect a lot of people. Namely, inequality in access to high-quality prenatal health care, and obesity. If you’re coming to work as a software engineer in the US, you are going to get good health insurance for yourself in your family. Obesity is potentially more relevant - lots of wealthy professionals in the US are obese. Not sure how much this tends to affect people who immigrate from healthier countries.
There are other, more serious topics which somebody from ie Europe who isn't desperate for money should consider. Overall workoholic culture and much less free paid days and vacations (no, 20 days per year isn't that great rather bare minimum, 30 begins to be interesting if you actually want to have great life before retirement, on top of plenty of public holidays). Overall crime rates are important though, and thats very high in US for an european. Your taxes are (well repeatedly were, and definitely will be again) used to kill some poor civilians half around the globe for no moral reason whatsoever, bravo for making the world a better place. Low food/produce quality, the amount of NOK chemistry and procedures for growing and raising cattle that is banned in EU is staggering. Most of the country apart from big cities is remarkably full of backwardish fanatical christians, I mean isn't teaching evolution still banned in most schools? Abortions topic?
Healthcare is a topic on its own. There were many posts here before that even with good insurance, you pay hefty sums and very well earning folks were desperate to save enough for high quality healthcare for retirement, especially once you know you have some long term issue for the rest of your life (which we all end up having unless dying way too early). What about when you are between jobs? Or if you retire, since obviously this is when you need good medical system the most? If you had big accident/serious long term illness and employer fires you?
Raising kids - TCO is ridiculously huge, mainly due to University fees that in Europe you often simply just don't have, or they are rather token sums. Public schools are often crap with heavily underpaid teachers (the salary part is probably true everywhere though).
So you end up with higher income but you can lose it very easily if you have bad luck / ignore your health, or simply have few smart kids. Not even going into the topic of being treated as sub-human by US government, since you are not US citizen and somehow doesn't deserve basic human rights when it suits them.
Of course there are many positives but that's another topic.
There’s two ways to look at this. The first way is the shallow way, the raw numbers. The other way is that Europeans have a better social ethics and don’t need the gaudy numbers. Americans do. We don’t have a real culture of social welfare. We value capitalism unlike any other country in the world.
My hope is the USA changes the law so doctors from Western Europe countries can freely emigrate to the USA and practice for significantly more money. There’s no reason the USA shouldn’t drain Europe of this talent by offering far more money to these workers.
We already have "socialized education" in public schools in most blue states if you make under 120k. The financial aid is generous enough that you aren't paying any tuition. The 70k sticker price is only paid by wealthy students, as a means of price discrimination.
Oh, those US nurses living the high life.
> relying on US defense subsidies
It's more like "keeping the US defense industry afloat by buying expensive gadgets we don't need".
More like oh, those UK nurses in the poorhouse. They deserve to make what their US counterparts are making.
> It's more like "keeping the US defense industry afloat by buying expensive gadgets we don't need"
Yes, because that's what's defending Europe against Russian invasion, right? Expensive gadgets you don't need? Or is Germany's broken down, dysfunctional army [1] going to do that?
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-biggest-enemy-thread...
yes, things like surgeries or dental dont bankrupt you in Europe, and doctors dont automatically become millionaires collecting vintage cars or buying private planes.
Yes, instead they make less than new grads working in literally any white collar field in the US, less than nurses in the US, and less than most blue collar trades in the US [1]. 91k GBP for the highest pay grade specialist doctor is just sad given how much training you need to become a specialist. That doctor could be making millions here in the US with their own practice.
GPs in the US (lowest paid specialty) get paid 2-3x what GPs get paid in the UK, according to the NHS payscales.
I think doctors working 80 hour residencies and grinding through med school deserve to get paid more, don't you think?
[1] https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/doctors/pay-d...
> making millions here in the US with their own practice
yes, fixing noses or fake tits
>Yes, instead they make less than new grads working in literally any white collar field in the US
like almost everyone else. Newsflash - US is really expensive.
Everyone you mentioned should (and does in the US) earn more than 90k GBP. Nurses in the US (at least in California where they make 50-60$/h) earn the same as top pay grade specialty doctors in the UK according to that NHS payscale.
> yes, fixing noses or fake tits
No, there are many specialties which don't involve plastic surgery but make millions. Cardiologist, dermatologist, dentist, etc. Or if you're a surgeon and work at a big hospital, you can also make 500k+. All of these involve mitigating pain and suffering and saving lives.
Sorry you think plastic surgery is the only way to earn a good living in medicine.
> like almost everyone else. Newsflash - US is really expensive.
Compared to what, London? Amsterdam? Paris? The US isn't more expensive than anywhere else, and for a doctor working in the suburbs, it's way cheaper than any major city in Europe. Don't forget, health insurance for white collar workers in the US is cheap compared to their salary, and taxes are lower. Energy costs as well. And a 401k is a lot cheaper than paying progressive social security taxes that redistribute earnings.
At least the US doctor can afford a house, whereas the UK one will never buy one within an hour's drive of London in their lifetime.
These high taxes are indeed used to run a lot of public services such as schooling, infrastructure, socialized healthcare etc. As such there's a high degree of wealth re-distribution since the people that don't/can't contribute as much still get the benefits of all of these public services.
As to the higher cost of living, I personally feel like we tend to have access to the staples at a similar level of purchasing power as Northern Americans, but our disposable income doesn't stretch remotely as far beyond that. Automobiles are far less accessible, a new iPhone would eat up a substantial amount of my monthly take home, etc.
Just my anecdotal and very top level two cents right here.
Euro managers however are generally thought to be of extremely low quality and unreliable as well as 20-30 years dated in terms of running an org. Except at the top, never rely on senior or middle management in Euro to be much more than followers. Never let them run an org unless you really know them as their management techniques do not apply to modern software companies. Managers from Europe are generally of poor quality.
You don't see outside the box thinking as much. Very vanilla approaches to things that are generally dated approaches. A culture that lacks innovation.
You see a bit of gaming the system to meet KPI goals. Things that are probably not useful to the company but help them hit a defined goal.
Just not very aggressive in their approach to the business. A very conservative business culture that doesn't really understand scale and is obsessed with throwing lots of bodies at a problem rather than finding novel and innovative approaches.
Insistence that "this won't work here" when that's just not generally true. It's that they don't understand why the approach works and are stuck in older approaches to things that are not relevant to todays business world.
Secretive and inward looking.
The engineers working there were great, but criminally underused, because you had only MBAs in product owner roles who spent their time dreaming up products or features with absolutely no idea of feasibility. Like the time one of them presented their idea that the company should "create something like Facebook" to make customers stay on the company website longer. Or the constant requests why the engineers wouldn't consider using "AI" in the company's React Native reporting app.
They were probably trying their best, but the problem was the company's culture of engineers being merely tools to execute the ideas of non-tech people. When we asked for POs or managers with an engineering background, the reply was always along the lines of "they don't know the business, so they don't understand our customer's needs".
Accordingly, it always took months even for very small features or changes to make it past the "agreeing on the requirements" phase, because there was no tech person high up enough in the hierarchy to tell the dreamers straight away that they're living in a phantasy world.
I wonder if car makers have similar problems, i.e. old school car industry guys trying to manage software engineers.
There's nothing inherently wrong with adding social media features to your customer portal, as long as you understand people will use it to vent their complaints, and you will have to spend money on moderation to keep it from turning into a cesspool.
I still remember when Netflix turned off all their social integration, especially the ability to leave movie reviews and get kudos via upvotes. I spent a non-trivial amount of time engaging with that feature. But I'm sure someone finally pointed out that this sort of engagement wasn't driving any revenue.
What our managers were seriously pondering was to create an actual competitor to Facebook that would draw their user base to our website, a company with around 10.000 b2b customers (if even) which had nothing to sell in the b2c channel.
From what I recall, Meta and Google have gross revenues on the order of one million in revenue per employee, while SAP AG has revenue per employee around 200k.
> They tried to lowball him badly. Like 1/2 the rate he asked for (contract) and probably 1/3rd or 1/4 what we made at Google
FAANG arrogance never ceases to amaze me. It's like these guys live in a different universe blissfully unaware of the world around them. Did it ever occur to him maybe Ford is paying normal average human salaries and not grossly inflated Google wages?
Remember Ford (and this analogy extends to most companies in traditional industries) still has to be able to sell cars to the average blue collar Joe at a price point he can afford, and still turn a profit. Outside SV most people don't drive $80k Teslas. Somebody's still gotta write software for the $16k econoboxes. I'm sorry but nobody deserves to get paid more than e.g. a specialist doctor to hack JavaScript code I don't care how smart you think you are, when there's a guy in India probably just or nearly as good at it who'll do the job for $40k/year. FAANG is swimming in money and can afford to piss away $$ in talent wars, artificially driving up salaries and the prices of everything else, which is why no average person can afford a house in SF anymore. Those that won the FAANG lottery and managed to cash in? God bless them. But don't let the reality distortion field make you think that's how the rest of the world works.
The unit price of the cars isn't really relevant to the cost of developing it's software. A low cost model that moves sells a lot of units, can likely afford to spend more on software compared to a high cost model that moves only a few units.
You didn't? Of course software costs are part of the unit costs for each car produced, just how those development costs are actually allocated is up to Finance (accounting and controlling) to decide. And of course those costs are relevant, as all the other costs of a car maker.
I once went for a job because of the money alone - it was the worst experience of my life and made me realize that money is not worth optimizing for beyond a certain point of comfort.
I've followed money in my job decisions in the past and it has worked out OK for me so far, but of course I have no clue how my life would look like with other choices. But living in cramped place like SF for double the salary (thats max) and double the costs... no thank you.
There's some misunderstandings here. For one thing, there are obviously skilled people working at every salary level. What you're missing is that this is largely irrelevant. Relative compensation (in software) is a shockingly good proxy for all the associated support and people investments to support them. Employees that cost less are less supported and thus less enabled to produce high quality work than their better-paid counterparts, as a very rough rule of thumb.
It's my experience that OEMs are significantly less invested in their developers and the quality of the software they produce than any FAANG. They don't consider software to be a core competence and they rarely invest in the technical expertise to understand quality or push it internally.
The scale of dev costs is also pretty minor for vehicles as a whole. Amortized labor costs are typically on the order of 10-20% per vehicle. Devs are a small portion (~100s-1000s) of the tens of thousands of engineers that work at major OEMs and their suppliers. An extreme 2-3x wage increase would end up as a few percent increase, but the truth is there are cheaper ways to do that than salary. "All" they have to do is care about the software components the way many do about the mechanical components. It's a cultural problem rather than a strictly monetary one.
Because it isn't for OEMs, theirbequipment is their core competency and aoftware, especially the entertainment side of things for automotive OEMs, is just part of that.
Modern vehicles are just distributed computers with tires, and self driving vehicles are worse. Virtually every feature is either massively supported or entirely enabled by software.
We must be using different FAANG software because the ones I use on a daily basis are slow and buggy as all hell. The last few versions of macOS/iOS have been atrocious. Every version of CarPlay I've used has bugs. Amazon apps are full of glitches. Compare that to developing engine ECU software which I think is a far more difficult engineering task that the average overpaid UI JavaScript slinger could not handle. You can't just update ECU software every week because you sloppily overlooked something. Unless you're Tesla of course.
I don't deny that there are many outstanding, technically excellent engineers at FAANG that deserve every penny they make. But the sad reality is many of them are just TC-chasing posers who got lucky and have subsequently deluded themselves into believing that whatever narrow expertise they now possess is worth far more than it is on the open market.
Conversely, if your ECU has minor glitches, will you notice? Unless it results in catastrophic failure, you will not even know if happens to result in the occasional 0.1 mpg increase in consumption.
And I’m sure VW and the other companies put a lot of resources into software engineering the exhaust emissions defeat workaround.
I think all this "ECU code is bad" stuff is just people who don't like the style of the produced code. Are you sure those edge cases aren't accounted for in other ways? Maybe they decided that everything should be "best case" code, and any error just resets the ECU which boots up before the next spark event needs to be triggered.
I just cannot square how much people complain about the code in ECUs with how utterly reliable they are. Consider the group that investigated VW cars cheating on emissions. The system was complex and obfuscated, but also powerful, reliable, and configurable by the manufacturer.
Things have improved significantly since the Toyota acceleration issue, in large part because all those details came out. Model-based design is now basically standard for most ECUs, which eliminates large amounts of buggy human-written code. Formal methods tools that don't entirely suck exist. However, most of the issues Koopman points out (especially memory safety) still exist in many places on modern vehicles and all of his points about the issues with relying on testing to surface quality problems remain relevant.
[1] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_...
It makes sense to invest in quality there.
I have made the point that ad revenue distorts FAANG practices elsewhere. I agree on this. You'll note that myself and my friend had no intention of seeking a FAANG salary elsewhere, it's unrealistic. However. There are limits. And sane practices.
The low compensation band reflects a lack of recognition of a) the importance of software and b) the economics of it. It isn't just that they pay bad, it's that they produce bad software because they don't get it.
Of course having high-powered SoCs won't guarantee you'll get performant displays either but I think have low-powered ones generally guarantees failure except for maybe some initial small team of experts.
We made responsive applications on 1980s era 16-bit and 8-bit computers. We did it by being conscious of what we were doing in each cycle.
There's a huge budget to burn on even an older super cheap SoC.
Often what is making the screen lag is accidental stupid pointless idle states (blocking on I/O etc.) inside tight animation loops.
Lag and jank aren't usually a throughput problem, but a latency problem.
Diagnosing and fixing this requires concern and effort and recognition that it's actually super important to the consumer experience.
You get what you pay for.
At least I can now get my iPhone to connect semi-reliably without restarting the truck :/
If I don't keep the various sensors clean (I live on a dirt road in Alaska) the collision mitigation system can get a bit... touchy.
All apart of the plan.
What does this thing have to do with software engineers payment and the rant that followed?
I’m unconvinced the problem can be fixed by “installing a quicker computer”. The functionality here isn’t materially different from what Tesla offered almost 10 years ago at this point. If nearly 10 years of hardware advancements couldn’t close the gap, a marginally faster computer next year won’t do it either.
But fact of the matter is here the following: if one reads The Verge article, his complains are mainly about the slow software and some unlabeled functionality here and there. Which can easily be fixed in a future iteration (ie MY23). He does not complain about the software being "that bad" or needing to offer fart apps or anything. Just slow.
Hardware problem, not software. And yes, the same applies for many car companies, even ones that sell premium products (BMW, etc). They need to offer faster processors.
Sure, for MY23 they can upgrade the hardware, but probably also they will add more functionality to their software. And if they're not careful (which it seems like currently they are not), those features will require more compute, causing the software to remain slow regardless of hardware upgrades.
It's the job of embedded developers to work with the constraints. This isn't end consumer hardware. The cost of the device is multiplied by the number of cars shipped. So you keep it as low as you can.
You have a budget of cycles between display refreshes. Often the perception of slowness is not that the throughput of the software is too much for the hardware, it's that the work is done in the wrong place or wrong time. It's that the budget was poorly allocated -- work was done in the wrong thread or on the wrong core or in the wrong loop or at the wrong time.
All of this to say the perception of bad performance on these type of devices can honestly just come down to sloppy programming, not the power of the device.
Because in the end, what are they actually doing? Mostly just moving stuff around on the screen. The thing isn't computing a giant spreadsheet or blockchain crap. It's telling the MCU in the climate system to turn on.
So you learn how your display controller works, and you optimize optimize optimize.
I never said the functionality was better. My post says "The functionality here isn’t materially different from what Tesla offered." 5 year old Teslas, today, do not have laggy interfaces.
Your claim that it will be "easily" fixed will remain to be seen. Ford isn't new to touch screen interfaces. Every consumer has been opining for Android Auto/Carplay because they know stock interfaces will be laggy, unresponsive and unintuitive. This has been an issue for years, before EVs, and it takes a very healthy amount of optimism to believe it will just be fixed next year.
The iPhone was able to have smooth, responsive interfaces on a battery powered device in 2008. That was 14 years ago. How much more powerful of a device do you need than the iPhone 3GS to open a touch screen menu at 30fps? Only a handful of auto manufacturers care about software, and it's been that way for years. This isn't new.
Have you profiled the code ? Understood the bottlenecks? I have not, not convinced the writer has either.
The old "throw more hardware at it approach", doesn't fix poorly written algorithms.
I am tempted to take a joke at your expense here, but that won't further the conversation.
Even product teams at tech first companies tend to represent this dogma. There are exceptions but the programmers are workers dogma is prevalent in this world. This is the main reason for suppressed pay for programmers and software engineers in all other industries except tech. Because of this, these other industries will never be able to catch up on the areas of hardware/software interfaces, let alone pure software craftsmanship. On the contrary, the software craftsmen are now learning the tropes of the non-software world and turning craftsmen in those areas as well.
So yeah, Ford might make a fast car, they will almost never be able to build a software driven car, which is the car of the future.
Software can make a lot of things better, but for whatever reason most cars end up with closed software solutions with a limited amount of updates, problems with how responsive/inefficient they are and a plethora of other complications. At that point, slapping an Android tablet on the dash for navigation might be a better idea, since at least that can be changed out or customized with relatively few issues, versus being stuck with a flawed built in system that's a black box as far as you're concerned.
Alas, why even pay for that? Why not have a car with a simple dash, less electronics and simply mounts for you to bring your own. Of course, that's not the direction in which the industry seems to be headed.
Now, this might be a silly comparison, but I can't help but to think of comparing a simple soviet tractor (say, a T-25 https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/T-25?_x_tr_sl... ) which is simple to use and repair, to something like a modern John Deere. Perhaps that's one of the better examples, where the more complex design ends up rather expensive, even if you don't need all of the features. But the former, simpler design? Well, somehow ones like that aren't manufactured much nowadays.
Surely in regards to cars it should also be possible to pick the essentials (e.g. in regards to safety and security) and then offer plenty of different models, with varying different levels of technology embedded. Then again, it's easier to pump up the price if you cram more features in even in the basic models. Of course, it's not like that would be okay if those closed systems were to be replaced with open source either - since that might be a serious safety liability.
It's like selling a new iPhone with just a few changes to some superficial apps such as I donno, Numbers.
Agree with you on a modular car where you just let people customise and build whatever the heck they want. I even think you should be able to customize a 2 seater v/s a 4/5 seater with plenty of options.
For tractors, the reason they gain features is to improve uptime, thus driving costs down. And they do.
It would seem Ford is aware they lack in this area and have decided to outsource to the experienced craftsmen.
I would kill for a "low-tech" EV - think Toyota Corolla[1], but with an electric power train. No touch screen, no "self driving" beyond lane assistance & adaptive cruise. Unfortunately, manufacturers are unwilling to start off with a low-margin products, but I believe that is the car of the future, and will sell like hot cakes.
1. An electric Ford Maverick would fit the bill too, if they don't ape Tesla's cockpit design. The Nissan Leaf is close to my ideal, but the lack of active cooling on the battery is a non-starter.
7-8K in about 30K of manufacturing costs. https://electrek.co/2018/05/31/tesla-model-3-teardow-materia...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2021/12/01/ar...
So am not sure a low margin approach would fly right now, simply because of supply constraints for volume production. Probably at a 10M/year run rate, the economies of scale would tip in the low margin high volume favour.
How would you solve this conundrum. Can you just stick to a low margin approach from day 1 ? Focus relentlessly on cost reduction in all parts of the cars except the powertrain and the battery since those are the key reliability aspects.
OR
May be a conventional 5 seater car is an overkill for most usage and can you instead build a version with a 35KWh battery pack but a 2 seater like a Miata. No frills, fast and safe car at nearly half the cost but am not sure if you can maintain the same range.
So... a base model Nissan Leaf?
Mazda is apparently taking the right approach here -- increasing the tactile buttons on the dash and console, and ditching touchscreens.
Really, cars should just have a built-in phone mount and connectors, and just let the phone do pretty much everything. If Ford wants to have a map of charging stations, partner with Apple or Google (or Waze) or build their own OSM-based maps app. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are okay-ish, but frankly I find the experience of just having the phone on a mount and using that as the display to be far superior in almost every way.
I agree the phone should do everything. The equivalent of an old aux cord (maybe via BT) would be enough.
My Kia does have CarPlay, which is very nice for maps and audio, but that’s all I really use. It still has all kinds of issues. My wife plugs in her phone (cable) and it takes over, then suddenly mine wins it back, she flicks some stuff on her screen to get it back again. Pretty messy in all cars I’ve used.
If both of you are wiring into CarPlay, I do not see why Kia would allow two wired connections to CarPlay.
I generally find CarPlay to be annoying -- it is too limiting a version of what is offered on the phone itself. Notably the last time I tried to use it, it did not have Google Play Music support (now that product is dead, and I suppose by now they probably do support Youtube Music), and it refused to let me use maps in a "north-up" orientation, which is just a non-starter for me.
And there are a lot more apps that work with CarPlay nowadays. I think it just took a few years for all of them to roll out.
I can't speak to CarPlay but Android Auto has changed a ton in that time frame. I think both options are just reaching an actual maturity recently as there is both decent support in a number of vehicles and a notable user base that actually uses the technology. You were certainly an early adopter, code for beta tester.
Plug it in and fix your phone to the supplied mount, open nav.
Your phone is a throttling, OLED dimming, overheating fireball from all the processing it has to do with the summer sun beaming onto it, broiling and killing it in the process.
I don't recommend this.
The car has a terrific iPod interface built into it though. One of the best working ones.
Ford Sync, on the other hand, once it decides that it is trying to connect to bluetooth, will often completely lock up the system for minutes while it tries unsuccessfully to make things work, and then you have to navigate through their UI to get back to a good state, which means that if it decides to glitch while you're driving, you're just out of luck. If you have a little bit of luck your phone will just play the driving directions out of its internal speaker.
I'm pretty sure every single one of these just outsource to Aptiv (fka Delphi Automotive) for electronics.
It is all I use, the native stuff in the car does something.. I am not sure what :)
AC being controlled through touch screen is just nuts. I will never buy a car that does not physical dial for that
Compared to my 2017 Chrysler which can't really turn off the radio, only mute it, which doesn't hold across start cycles, and refused to work with my wife's phone for 6 months (probably a Nokia Android firmware issue, because it stopped working with a phone update and started working again with a phone update, but it worked on the Ford the whole time), and the head unit has crashed while in motion a handful of times, the Ford isn't so bad.
But everything is terrible, and I look forward to a future where the phone does most of the work. Although, my (couple of years ago) experience with Android Auto is I'd rather use Android directly, and not let it know it's in a car.
One of the innumerable bugs was in the voice recognition system. No matter what song I requested, about half the time it played "Tiny Dancer" by Elton John.
I was demonstrating this bug to a friend who asked "What happens when you request Tiny Dancer?" Sure enough, it played something else.
I finally ripped the thing out and replaced it with a cheap Chinese CarPlay head unit that I got on clearance because it shipped with defective software (there was a firmware update available to fix it). I could not be happier with it.
There is a bug in my version though, sometimes it resets to Aux, which is funny, because if you have a USB stick in it, you cannot switch to aux without unplugging it - yet if it bugs out to aux, you can just switch back to usb by saying "USB".
I'm just glad i don't have a touchscreen. I'm not looking forward to a future car purchase where i don't have a choice.
I don't mind the touch screen for CarPlay since all the important controls (volume, mute, skip, Siri) have physical buttons, all the unimportant controls are very large and hard to miss, and CarPlay has very few menus requiring more than 1-2 taps; though I had to be careful to pick out a CarPlay unit with an actual knob for volume, since a lot of them just have buttons that you have to mash repeatedly to change the volume. But not having the physical buttons at all would really suck, especially for things like climate control.
Ford Fusion 2012 BTW
And during a brief period, I also had a windows phone, where you could say "Call Cortana". Cortana was registered as a fake contact behind the scenes, and all it would do is trigger the Cortana assistant through that phone call. You'd then tell Cortana what you wanted, and it had much better voice recognition and capabilities than Sync, so it did what you wanted 99% of the time. It was pretty cool.
Of course it was annoying and a waste of time as you had to always make that call first, but I'm glad the engineers on Cortana remembered that "all problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection"!
Huh? After using both Ford's (2022 Explorer) and Mazda's (2022 CX-7) infotainment systems recently for several weeks, I couldn't disagree more.
Android Auto and CarPlay interfaces were designed for touchscreen control. Mazda forcing the use of a wheel, like a joystick is a safety hazard. Turing the wheel unpredictably selects objects on the screen, forcing you to keep your eyes off the road while you keep turning the wheel until the item you need is selected. In Ford's system, a quick glace us all that's required.
What good is tactile feedback when you have no idea what you're adjusting without staring at the screen?
You shouldn't need to do anything requiring the wheel while you're driving though. All the controls that you would want to have accessible while you're driving are physical (climate control, basic media/phone controls.) For everything else you should be setting that up while you're parked.
And then there is Siri which makes all the things that you might want to do while driving, and probably shouldn't (touchscreen or not) far easier and safer.
How is a touchscreen safer?
I'm specifically replying to "anything else you should do at the parking lot", which we know people don't do. I'm ONLY saying that UIs should be designed for how they will be used. If people never pull over and do things on the go - either disable them completely when the car is moving or make sure the user is done as quickly as possible and with the minimum amount of looking inside the car. If that's a touchscreen, buttons, buttons next to a screen, I don't really know - that should be done with proper UI/UX research.
The car industry isn’t in the business of building great UIs, they’re in the business of selling cars off of the dealer lot, unfortunately.
I consider putting in a destination on the GPS, or setting up my music playlist to be 'park the car' types of things if simply doing it via voice control doesn't work.
The driver should have limited controls, all physical, and all ergonomicly designed to be easy to find. Even programming your phone GPS while moving should require the navigator to hit accept.
Screens for the driver should be carefully designed to not be something you look at while moving.
I haven't actually driven a Mazda, I just heard that they were getting rid of touchscreens and it honestly didn't occur to me that they'd try to shoehorn full Android Auto or CarPlay into that. I just assumed that they would have a minimal interface and let your phone do the work, and then have "next track" and "previous track" buttons and a volume knob, plus climate control and stuff, and the screen would just have various car information; tire pressure and fuel efficiency and various camera systems for parking.
It might still work for me (I'm definitely going to test drive a Mazda when my current car needs replacing), but this is me; I disable CarPlay because I can't stand it; I prefer to just put my phone on a mount and use it directly; I just need the car systems as a speaker for the phone.
It's a massive difference in compasion to some brands that require you to use touchscreen to switch to next track or adjust AC temp.
There was also a BMW Series 1, that requred selecting a media page in dashboard screen and then selecting a next track button. (No support for Auto on that one tho.)
Climate control is a great feature. But it's not perfect, and there are instances where you need to manually override. Just because you don't run into them doesn't mean they don't exist.
EDIT: BTW on cars with physical controls all of these things are either button press or dial turn away. I've never had to look at the controls to do these things.
Setting my car to 70F inside instead of it's current 72F won't make it cool any faster. Even setting it to it's "LO" setting won't make it cool any faster. The AC compressor is either on or off. The car will set the fan speed to it's best possible speed to cool the car as fast as it can regardless of it being 72 or 70 or 68. Me adjusting things manually won't make the compressor work harder or make the car cool faster.
There's zero benefit for me to touch the AC controls. The car knows it's hot. The car knows how I want it. It will do what it can to get it to that target temp. Me doing anything will just result in more distraction away from actually driving the car.
But more practically, if I start catching a lot of sun from the window I might want to go from 72 to 70 to compensate, even if the cabin temperature is more or less the same.
I live in Texas. I assure you I live in an area with high heat and intense sun. My cars have glass roofs. My cars seem to handle it fine.
That blazing sun shining on you via radiation directly feels different than if the sky is overcast.
I want to easily tweak the temp to account for my personal comfort. I don't care about the temp of the air except as an input to helping me be comfortable.
I don't want to have to start and then sit in my car idling to wait until it gets to temp only to find out I want a little more or less.
On top of that, my cars also know how intense the sun is. It wouldn't surprise me if that's also an input to the climate control.
I have three giant knobs inches away from my gear lever to control the climate. Climate control status is on a screen just below line of sight to the road.
I'm moving my hand a few inches and generally not even needing to look at anything to get feedback (I can set the fan speed by ear...), and if I do I can do it without taking my eyes off of the road.
I'm controlling the climate control for my comfort, not to hit arbitrary numbers. If I make a quick stop and spend a few minutes out in 110 degree heat, I wanna get in and have ice cold air blasting in my face until I'm comfortable. I don't care if the car is already a chilly 66f inside. If it's -40 outside, I want it to blow heat directly on my feet when I get in until my toes warm up even if the car is already warm. Hell, sometimes if it's too warm in there and my toes are frozen I'll drive around with the heat blasting and a window cracked to keep it comfortable.
I shouldn't need to sacrifice my comfort so the manufacturers can continue building shitty and dangerous UIs for basic vehicle functions.
So we should probably focus on making things people need to do in their car as quick and intuitive as possible to limit the distraction.
We put radio controls on the steering wheel to make it easier and safer to do things like adjust the volume. We don't just tell people "set your volume before you get moving and let the speed dependent volume control take over from there".
Steering wheel has next-prev track buttons also the volume wheel can be gently slid left/right to do the same thing.
I love the button approach Mazda takes. Stuff like AC etc is all button controlled. It's a 90s car approach with a bolted on screen your phone can connect to. Stupid simple, tactile, nearly perfect.
This is what people don't understand about touchscreen vs dial-based UIs. One is not safer than the other if they both require you to take your eyes off the road and look at a screen!
If car makers want to have a button control a feature, then they should simply make a button that controls that feature. Cars worked that way for many years. Buttons, dials, or trackpads that move a cursor or select items on a screen are slower than touch-based UIs, require at least as much driver attention, and are less ergonomic than just putting your finger on the exact item you want.
With a touchscreen, in contrast, you have to hover over approximately the location you think you want to press, and either hope you don't hit a bump before you have a chance to look down and make sure it's the right spot or look down immediately.
I put a touchscreen head unit in my car in 2016. If I drove more often I'd dump the touchscreen in a heartbeat.
You're not supposed to be using the screen to adjust your media while driving, there's steering wheel and voice controls.
You're not supposed to be adjusting the climate controls while moving, auto climate should just handle it. Why would I want to be distracted by needing to change the climate controls? I shouldn't have to adjust them while the vehicle is in motion.
Other than volume and next track/station, just about any other media control is going to have my hand off the wheel for a bit and probably require me to look at what its doing even if its all just a bunch of buttons and knobs. Like what, change which folder I'm in? Change to a different playlist? Choose a different app entirely? None of that is going to be done by just feeling around the dashboard.
And as mentioned, I'd probably return any car that I have to adjust the climate more than once a quarter. Every car I've owned for over 20 years has been able to keep its climate consistent and comfortable without the need for me to make adjustments for months on end. Why would I want to be distracted making minute adjustments to the climate settings while I drive? Why would I want to have to change the mode or turn it to more heat or more cool or turn the AC compressor on or off while I drive? Shouldn't it just be able to figure out if the car is cold turn up the heat and if the car is hot turn on the AC compressor? Wouldn't it know the optimal way to cool itself? Shouldn't it be able to figure out the best fan speed to keep the climate as programmed ahead of time?
Honestly, why should I even have to tell my car to turn on the heated seats? I don't need to on one of my cars, it turns it on automatically when its cold outside.
This doesn’t work when sometimes the sun is shining and sometimes it isn’t.
Sometimes you need to adjust the vent to blow in your face more directly, or set the climate control to cool the air further to offset the inconvenience.
I wouldn't get a car that doesn't have some kind of low emissivity tinting on it. Also, all my cars with screens could detect how intense the sun is overall. It can easily adjust.
For me, this is exactly why I do have to change the "climate control" target.
Last Sunday I spent 9 hours driving through on/off rain and sunshine.
The sun shining in adds significant radiative heat directly to my body. Climate control can keep the air temp constant(convection) but there is more to my personal comfort.
The only people who shouldn't be driving are the people not aware of that fact.
As the other commenter said, people who don't even notice when their attention changes probably shouldn't be driving.
The job of technology is to be extremely predictable and, ideally, multi-sensory.
That auto climate thing does not work well for me. I end up messing with it so much because it can't keep me comfortable. The old style where I set it at some level between hot and cold and some fan level from 1 to 5 or whatever and it just does what I tell it works perfectly. Plus I can adjust it if I have to without looking at it.
But you mostly have to have pre-setup entertainment options, for example. Not that this is really a new thing. People fiddled with radio stations while driving more than they probably should have back in the day.
And, yes, I do need to adjust climate controls now and then while driving although my vehicle does have fairly reasonable physical controls for that so it's not appreciably distracting.
Navigation systems themselves are something of a distraction although I'd guess that overall less so than glancing down at a map or directions on your lap.
Mercedes does this really well. I was surprised.
You can use the screen as a touchscreen, or there's a dial thingy on the armrest that lets you scroll around the UI by flicking your fingers. Similar to keyboard navigation on computers.
The end result is a touchscreen you can use effectively when stationary and an easy-to-use control for when you're moving and need to deal with your arm moving relative to the car. And the sequence of UI selections are intuitive enough that after 20min you can do it almost without looking.
My understanding is they've been working on this combo for 10+ years. Newer models (since ~2018) have a full on touchpad instead of the wheel.
https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/tech/mercedes-mbux-in...
It could be worse: Lexus infotainment screens of certain years would refuse to display the radio's RDS song info when you pressed the "Message" button (which enlarges the window to see it) while you were moving. Meanwhile, the RDS data happily continued to scroll by, one word every 3 seconds, in the tiny marquee at the top.
What? How is it a safety hazard? I'm far more distracted trying to touch the button on display or scroll in my Wrangler, than using a wheel in my Miata. Selection is extremely predictable and always the same order, it's a basic accessibility feature of android.
I enjoy using the knob with android auto far more than touch screen, specifically because I don't have to move eyes of the road or have a hand in an uncomfortable position trying to touch something on the screen.
Plus, switching between navigation and media is a press of a button that is always in the same space - next to the knob. Compared to touchscreen... And on top of everything, it remembers which navigation/media I'm using, so switching between radio and android auto navigation is a single button press.
It's like one of the important features why my last two cars were mazdas.
My point is not that we should do nothing because everything is dangerous, but that we should minimize the risk by avoiding things that are unnecessary.
Adjusting the radio is almost certainly unnecessary to drive.
In my view Mazda's modern interface is almost as safe as you can get while still having modern features that require a touchscreen. I only wish there was a button to physically turn the entire screen off when driving at night (you can do this but it's buried in a menu).
In my 2020 CX5, the screen is actually a touchscreen as well, but it only works at low speeds which may be safer but is not very convenient when a passenger wants to control it at speed.
If it works well it seems like a great solution. Talking on the phone is distracting, but feels less so than trying to find touchscreen areas.
well it certainly is reassuring to know that not much has changed at all since my boomer-generation older relatives warned me away from ever buying a north american made car, instead recommending honda/toyota/mazda/nissan sedans, 30 years ago.
what is old is new again.
it's one of the dozen or so reasons i rarely drive my spouse's car.
That's super confusing to me. How is that superior to the larger presentation of (e.g.) CarPlay that has (a) bigger touch targets and (b) an automatically filtered presentation of apps relevant to driving?
I find CarPlay to be so good that I will not consider an automobile that lacks it. I've never used the Android equivalent, but I just assume it's on par.
CarPlay is so good (and far safer) because it doesn't just mirror your phone's landscape view, but presents a driving-specific experience.
Not-mirroring has another advantage in that your phone can still be used (by a passenger, of course) to do whatever while CarPlay continues to do its thing.
If you externalise the smarts, all you need is external input and output support which all exists. Then any car can have better GPS.
This way, I need a car that specifically has this extra cruft and probably can’t get upgrades easily. It’s the car equivalent to a smart TV.
Ford and older GM products both has severe issues with lag, the Audi I rented seemed okay, but was maximally unintuitive, the Volvo I rented took me 15 min to figure out how to turn the radio off, the Mazda was pretty good, but again, jog-dial-bad.
The only one I found that I actually liked was the Chrysler/Mopar UConnect, it was intuitive, easy to use, and performed about as well as one would expect any infotainment system to - its the only one I found easy to use too. It was one of the driving factors when I bought a new car, I bought a Chrysler 300S with it for that reason.
I even like the inbuilt nav, even if I only use it on long trips for city to city driving because frankly, entering address data is hard.
(Perhaps my biggest gripe is that the USB plug has a bit of wiggle which can cause occasional disconnects when I move the cable (but no issue on the USB-C plug)
The funny thing is that I've been thinking of upgrading to a bigger vehicle, and for a similar infotainment system on the other cars. But no: the Edge (and heaven forbid the monster Expedition) went for a all-touchscreen infotainment system, which is the stupidest UX design.
It might also be safer to be in a higher up car in the event of a collision.
Pretty much all the families I know with young kids and toddlers has a full size SUV. Every time I ask why they did not get a minivan such as Odyssey or Sienna, every response is they like SUVs and do not want to sit lower in the minivan. Even though the minivan has better fuel economy, seats more people with more legroom, and has more cargo space, the answer is still SUV is cooler than minivans.
I even see families who live with elderly parents prefer to drive two SUVs (or 1 SUV and 1 pickup truck) somewhere with 3 to 4 people in each, rather than have one minivan to be able to transport all 7 or 8 at the same time. And these same families growing up went everywhere in minivans because it was the most economic way, but now that they can afford SUVs, that is what they choose to use.
Car manufacturers are not shaping people’s desires, they are simply delivering them what they want.
A Corolla/civic continues to be available for purchase. Yet people want to sit higher up, so you see the vast increase in sales for RAV4/CRV.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-...
That planning horizon differential alone is enough to explain why car manufacturers would be greater incentivized to iterate on SUVs faster than sedans and include more features. Iteration and feature differentials will contribute as much to sales choices as "sit higher up" will, acting as a reinforcement in the cycle/spiral towards larger vehicles.
Car manufacturers aren't incentivized enough to lengthen their own planning horizons or otherwise better accommodate "sensible" sedan drivers, and it becomes very easy to pretend they don't exist and chase the short-term profits of the faster cycle time (especially when pushed by quarterly-earnings focused shareholders).
Granted I'm not able to go grocery shopping at the same time..
On road trips, my wife and I would fold down the rear seats and sleep in the back. I'm 183cm (6ft) and there is plenty of space. You can fit 2.4m lengths of wood if you need trips to the hardware store. I guess full plywood sheets would need the hatch open, but there wouldn't be much overhang.
A year or so ago I tried a RAV4 and it felt much smaller inside. In the rear seats I felt much more squashed.
It started out as a joke back in 2010, partially inspired by "A Nice Morning Drive" (http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/transcripts/19731100roadand...) from the 1972s. It is no longer very funny -- Ford killing its sedans a couple years back was a sad wakeupcall.
Most of my driving is on country roads in a mountainous area, with some very tight turns.
I'm going to rent out an SUV soon and see what it's like taking sharp turns with a high vehicle. I suspect it sucks but who knows.
Here in NZ we have the Camary, Mazda 6, Lexus IS etc but none of them are available in AWD. Only crossovers, SUVs and Utes (small pick up trucks).
I've actually been toying with the idea of getting a Subaru WRX. I'm not a a boyracer or anything, but it's about the only japanese, AWD sedan available here. Feels like a weirdly practical choice (good cornering, better handling in ice/heavy rain/gravel).
EDIT: wow even modern Rav4s fail the moose test - a car which I'd call pretty mild for an SUV, even wagon like.
The Sienna is great for kids and I've managed to fit 4x8 sheets in it.
As with any blind spot, one just has to move their head...
- https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-s...
I won't engage with "what people actually want" except to point to sales figures, I guess. Everyone likes different stuff. But the point is that Tesla is winning in this space because they're handing people an outside-the-box solution. Asking for "lots of buttons and knobs" is just demanding the older solution. That doesn't say the older solution is wrong, but it does argue that maybe you're failing to understand the new paradigm.
Meh. I'm sure stuff doesn't work somewhere for someone. But... come on. Voice recognition is a long solved problem. Tesla's works as wells as Amazon's or Apple's or whoever's, which is to say sure, it makes an occasional mistake, but it basically isn't a problem except in arguments like this one on the internet. Mine works great. I love it and use it every day. I'm sorry yours doesn't, but at least you can sell your car for a profit and get one with buttons, so that's something.
If I have to pish a button to activate it, then it is strictly more work than pushing a button. If it filters out all but the driver using stereo location, then the passenger can't futz with it for the driver on long trips.
I did however fall in love with the simple interior of mine, as well as the instant power. I don't use the public charging network at all.
I'd say that a person's first purchase of a Tesla only signals what they think they want. If they buy another one after the first then I'd agree it is actually what they want, or at least they like the other benefits of the Tesla enough to outweigh anything they don't like.
I believe I fully understand the new paradigm. I had a 2018 Volvo XC90 and it's sort of a hybrid between the new and old paradigm. They have a fairly large screen (not as large as Tesla) and then a handful of buttons for functions that are fairly important if something is wrong with the screen (front window defrost, rear window defog, etc). I sold it after a year because I did not like it.
It also supported voice control for all of these features, as did my BMW before that, as does my current vehicle. Voice control sucks to varying degrees on all of these vehicles, and if someone in the car is talking or you're on a phone call, you can't adjust things with your voice. I'd rather just have buttons and knobs with tactile feedback that are always available.
But it's true, maybe other people don't want tactile controls. I mean, UX in general tends to disagree with this notion, but the iPhone beat the blackberry so it's possible that my in vehicle preferences are not what everyone wants.
Either way, the automakers win with lower costs.
Tesla is, I believe (and I'm too lazy[2] to try to look up where I read this) the most repurchased brand on the market today. The used market for these cars is literally priced above new vehicles[1]! Were you really not aware? Does that maybe change your opinion?
[1] Which is to say, on balance Tesla owners won't sell their cars even if they could make a profit doing so.
[2] Found this one, which is probably coverage of the same Experian survey: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhenry/2021/12/31/tesla-no-1-...
This study just came out: https://www.vibilagare.se/nyheter/physical-buttons-outperfor...
The study adds another variable to the discussion -- even if users prefer touchscreens, touchscreens are less safe than real buttons.
FWIW: You don't need to go to Sweden to find that stuff anyway, Car & Driver and Motor Trend both hate Tesla too (and for the same reason: Tesla doesn't advertise).
If there are safety effects measurable with Teslas, we'd be measuring safety effects. There are millions of these cars on the road. They are safe. I know it, you know it, the time for hand-wavy hypotheticals is long past.
You need something more. Even Ralph Nader started with real accident statistics on the Corvair.
[1] Tesla
They're probably far more envious of the ability to put the air conditioner behind a monthly subscription vja remote software update, or render the entire vehicle useless with a 'security' update that makes 10yo cars too unresponsive to use
Costs.
Buttons are expensive, and additional points of failure. Cheaper to just cram everything into a touchscreen.
Tesla on the other hand has buttons for many things, horn, turn signals, activate the windshield wipers for a moment (I use auto that handles most needs), engage cruise control, set following distance when using cruise control, high beams, pause music, music volume, etc.
Sure seat heaters, interior temp, ac, defrosting etc require touch screen use (or leaving them on auto), but those are emergencies and not much different than having to hit one of 8 buttons/dials on a center console. Especially since most are single touch, not touch -> select menu -> hit button.
While I find the above not annoying I really love the 15" screen that devotes the majority of the screen to things around the car (lane markers, cars, motorcycles, traffic cones, trucks, pedestrians, etc) and the map (with traffic). If the car sees a problem it blinks that object red, which I find helpful. Sure if I want I can get an inch for the current song. But generally I feel more situationally aware with a nice big nav screen up. On more than one occasion I've seen motorcycles splitting lanes behind me because of motion on the screen before I notice the noise or see them in the mirrors. I also really miss the current speed limit on the screen when I switch cars.
I also really like being able to say "play pink floyd", or "navigate to ...".
Of course if you're going to have a massive screen and powerful computer anyways (because people want that), yes, you can save in not having buttons in addition to the massive screen.
But the massive screen is not cheaper than old school cars.
It used to be that vehicle radio units were entirely replaceable. There was a relatively healthy aftermarket, and quite a few shops that would actually do the installations for you. There used to be a lot more competition here, but I think with the general increase in quality of speaker systems combined with smart phones and the much higher level of system integration through the head unit effectively killed it.
Hence.. you get what you buy. In a sense, the manufacturer has a monopoly on your dash that they didn't traditionally have.
Funnily enough, given the… mixed results Apple's UI team has been putting out recently, it remains to be seen how "ergonomic and reliable" the UI actually ends up being.
What could possibly go wrong...
When the demographic that currently commits most reckless driving eventually adopts electric cars, it's going to be a blood bath.
My compact SUV is 3,000 lbs. The sedan I used before that was less than 2,500 lbs.
And it's not like Teslas are exceptionally large vehicles. The Cybertruck is probably going to clock in at 7,000 lbs or so.
I've personally encountered a decent number of Tesla/e-bike drivers who have... nonstandard views on what a stop sign means, and the fact that the vehicles are silent is always a bit disconcerting.
Maybe that's changing with the latest round of vehicles, but I don't recall hearing about any regulation passed.
Do you mean while driving? How does that work? Even with my windows open I can't hear vehicles until they're at least next to me. I don't have a loud vehicle and hearing tests show I have good hearing.
Edit: Also I feel like, from your last reply, that you might have taken one or both of my replies in a way that wasn't intended. It's also possible that I didn't word my replies in a good manner. I'm not always good at that. I am genuinely curious about how it is that others can hear loud vehicles behind them when driving while I can't. Your mention of echoes off buildings got me thinking of driving through a big city surrounded by big buildings, and that's an environment I am not familiar with except in pictures and videos. If that's the reason then it answers the question I've had for a couple years now when I first saw someone mention that they hear loud vehicles behind them.
The fact that the artificial sounds some of them have are not all that different from the sound of the wind doesn't help either.
And actually being electric, the 0-30 is where it shines. No ICE vehicle will beat me off the start unless it's a serious performance car.
The F-150 is actually not a terribly unreasonable vehicle. It's about 6,000 pounds and accelerates a bit slower than the Hummer. It's shaped like a battering ram, but isn't a whole lot heavier than a Model S, which are more in the 4,500 to 5,000 range. (I think Tesla kind of gets a free pass for building scary fast/heavy vehicles simply because they don't look like trucks and so it's easy to not realize how heavy they really are.)
Unfortunately it's hard to build EVs that are light, due to battery requirements. Maybe horsepower/weight ratio limits on public roads are actually a good idea though.
Let's not continue regulating things that are fun and/or useful just because some people might misuse them.
It probably wouldn't really make much difference in the real world. How many crashes that resulted in serious injury actually happened only because the car could do 3 seconds 0-60, and if the car was only able to do 0-60 in 7 seconds, the crash wouldn't have occurred?
I know there's lots of videos of people driving Lambos for the first time and immediately crashing after spinning or something. But even in those cases, it's almost always low speed crashes with nobody getting hurt.
Why??? Climate controls should not be on a touchscreen. Display is fine, but control is not. Just leave space for some knobs and a mode switch.
"HOTAS, an acronym of hands on throttle-and-stick"
Opposite for me. I can set and forget the old style. This auto crap requires constant adjustment to keep me comfortable.
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/ford-f150-lightning-elect... -- "the towing range of the electric F-150 is dismal." (~100 miles)
https://www.theverge.com/23307298/ford-f-150-lightning-revie... -- "Happily, the F-150 Lightning is a terrific F-150 — and a terrific truck. If you can find one to buy for a reasonable price and you’ve got a handle on charging for how you’ll use it, it’s clearly a better choice than a gas-powered truck."
So... what exactly does The Verge think that a pickup truck is used for? Spoiler alert: if they think it's for running the kids to soccer practice, occasionally moving some plants or lawn furniture, showing off your bling around town, or coping with thinning hair and loss of libido at midlife, there are far better EV options. And for those who are going to argue that the 100-mile range isn't an issue, even if your time is worth nothing, try getting a truck towing a camper into a typical service station parking lot some time. Once every 5+ hours is plenty, thanks.
I'm all for EVs, and I'm certain they're the future of the automotive industry. I'm also certain that Ford has a long way to go before I'll even consider swapping my 35-year-old diesel F-250 HD for an electric hauling rig(1). Finally, based on the article, I'm fairly certain that the last thing the good editors at The Verge towed was a Radio Flyer.
(Note 1: for those breaking out in a rash, I use the F-250 about once a month and it runs WVO. The daily driver is something with a much smaller carbon footprint.)
It's not as if they're unaware of it. Their CEO even said that for some users, an electric truck won't work. From https://archive.ph/6Deq6:
> Farley emphasized that Ford plans to continue investing in gasoline-powered vehicles, noting that the Super Duty pickup trucks generate huge revenue for the company and battery technology isn't yet advanced enough to pivot.
> "If you're a Super Duty customer towing 10,000 pounds in Montana or on the north slope of Alaska," he said. "An electric vehicle is an awful solution, the batteries are too heavy."
To be fair, that (vanity vehicle) is probably at least half of the F-150 market today anyway. I don't have a problem with Ford putting on a show to make money. But if The Verge is going to work in a Ford showroom, they should at least be up front about it.
Maybe I'm missing something but say a landscaper or a carpenter, wouldn't it work for them? What kind of scenarios would involve towing heavy loads?
I'd say you'd probably get the same range for those guys who haul a lot of mowers, weedeaters, gas, etc. They have shorter ranges though so they may be fine.
Union jobs that go distances to factories carrying welders would struggle too. No one wants to think about range in the winter while you've got a crew of 5 people and a trailer.
I'm sure there are plenty of jobs that'll be fine, but I think the line is drawn if you have a crew + a trailer. It's just too risky.
I wish someone would just build an EV pickup truck. There have been DIY instructions since the lead acid days, since the frames already have ample space and load bearing capacity for the batteries.
I think that The Verge has a better idea of what most F-150s are used for than you do. There are a whole lot of trucks out there that are never going to tow anything.
But that doesn't mean they are always wrong about everything.
They look comical to me; like a monster truck, so freaking tall the proportions just look insane.
And most of the ones in Denver (which has a lot more people who actually go outdoors) don't look like they are used for anything except commuting.
I started driving again to get into the mountains more, and got an old tacoma.
The new ones are too big AND the dealer only had 4 doors with a mini bed!!! Just get an SUV....
And even my 2010 one looks big next to the generation before it. The old ones tow stuff just fine and it fills what I need: a ton of storage for climbing gear.
Searched around for electric tacoma info last night.
Looks like one might be coming 2024 (which i guess is sold 23?).
But it looks huge. One youtube reviewer of the render image said it looks more like a Tundra which are just insanely big.
I looked into the e f150. it would barely fit into my parking spot - not enough room to get bags in and out of door. Not even considering how to get an electric charger in there... In the near term I think I would have to use the whole foods.
I really really want an electric pickup, full bed, 2 doors - at a small size, light weight.
Sadly the range looks like a problem too.
Which would be better if they weren't so giant and heavy.
Hybrid sounds like only option unless they start to offer 400/450+ mile batteries.
At least until we build a ton of rapid chargers pretty far out.
Maybe someone can invent a jerry can of electricity!
On a road trip I'd also keep the truck between 10-80% state of charge for optimal charge speeds, so I'd only get 70% of the range, or 183 miles. So I'd plan to stop every 150 miles or so.
This is actually similar to my real world results driving a Tesla Model 3 and Y. For the most optimal total trip time you're usually stopping every 150-200 miles or so.
Also from tesla to rivian all I hear are horror stories about the service, and tesla's build quality is nowhere near any of the traditional automakers(fit and finish). I just want to buy a reliable electric truck or suv that has a decent finish and don't want to wait 2-3 years, someone please take my money!
[1] - https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/rivian-r1t-cv-axl...
Ignoring all of the supply-chain issues from the pandemic lockdowns (shipping, chip shortages, labor shortages, etc.) you're still purchasing new technology that will take years to iron out the quality problems. I've friends who work in the automotive industry in various engineering roles and none of them are driving brand-new platforms because they know better. Just like the software world, manufacturers will take all of the maintenance data from dealerships and use it to improve the design and production. If you're OK with being the beta tester filing bug reports in this relationship, by all means, buy an electric truck.
People complain about Tesla service but actively want MORE faceless corps not held accountable to sell them things. It makes no sense.
What's the fix? VW's MIB2/MIB2.5 was pretty much the pinnacle of automotive head unit innovation, IMHO, and it wasn't due to the technology - it's QNX and J9 Java like so many head units before it. It just... worked, which seems a bridge too far for modern infotainment.
I think C+D and other outlets need to start scoring cars based on their head units, or at least considering them. Much like tires, it's clear that these venues have enough power to bend the industry to some extent.
There will come a day where we will prove I dont know what I want cause I cant buy it anymore.
WHY THE FUCK ARE THERE GAMES ON A CAR?!?
This doesn’t seem like a good idea because there are Android people and iOS people. Alienating a large swath of customers is not a good idea.
That and I don’t want Google monitoring all my car data. One of the big reasons I don’t have a Tesla is their data policy. But I’d rather Tesla have my data than Google because at least it won’t be linked to everything else about me.
Also, I want to drive cars for 10 or 20 years. Google has never maintained Android for that long.
I’d rather just have an embedded os written and maintained by ford (that doesn’t suck).
updates do happen, but there are no guarantees, no transparency, and essentially no aftermarket options for most modern cars.
Android Automotive (the "base OS" that's not even really "Android" in the way that you think of it from phones; the impression I have gathered is that it is a separate embedded Linux sharing only a few parts and iterating in a different pace) that Ford is moving to still supports Apple CarPlay as well as it supports Android Auto (the Apple CarPlay competitor). It's another fun place where Google's branding strategy confuses way more than it helps by having very similar names for very different products, in this case Android Automotive !== Android Auto.
But yeah, the other complaints are valid: Android Automotive is still so new we have no idea if Google is truly in it for the long haul or if that's another badly named brand eventually likely to end up in the graveyard. I don't think we know how much data Google will be monitoring from it either.
Do you blame Dell when Microsoft screws up the start menu?
Additionally, do you blame Debian when Ubuntu isn't updated? According to your flawed logic, you do.
We don't know yet how much Ford plans to/is working to customize Android Automotive, just that they said they are customizing it. It may be pretty likely that they only plan to customize it about as far as Dell or Samsung do as the two above examples: change some logos, some default wallpaper, auto-install some different apps. None of those require recompiling Windows or Android from source (respectively) today, and there's reasonable assumptions that Google would intend Android Automotive to be similarly customizable by car vendors in ways that cellphone vendors customize Android today, so the analogy to Samsung may be very directly comparable.
> Additionally, do you blame Debian when Ubuntu isn't updated?
I have in the past. At one point when I was regularly using Ubuntu there were several apps that I couldn't easily install because the chain of blame was directly: the right library version for a dependency is not in Ubuntu's distribution; it's not in Ubuntu's distribution because it's not yet in Debian Unstable because it was causing problems in Debian Canary though that may have been because of other things Debian was trying to integrate around it. In such a case, that's definitely Debian's fault that Ubuntu wasn't updated in the way that I wanted it to be at that time. That's not flawed logic at all. Since then Ubuntu has done a lot more to isolate itself from Debian integration issues and the PPAs and Snap communities have done even more to expand what's possible without needing a full distro upgrade, but that doesn't mean there haven't been times when it was directly useful to point a finger at Debian rather than Ubuntu for an update problem.
I remember during a crash investigation, Tesla released data on a customer before they gave it to the family and the NHTSA. I perceive that as a bad thing.
Not true.
I have a Ford Fusion. The software has remained essentially untouched since I bought it. They rely almost entirely on Android Auto, which has it's own host of bugs and incompatibilities.
There's a primary learning from Tesla to be made here: infotainment is a core part of the business. Build it in house.
Non tesla fast charging is an absolute disaster, likewise most/all of these companies havent figured out how to update software without plugging in a usb stick at a dealership.
Maybe electric cars will be more like Apple/Samsung in terms of market share then the current range of car companies.
Doesn't seem to be. Tesla's chargers have been behind the curve versus others with lower speeds, still only 400 volts, and only supporting one brand of car. Tesla is at least slowly starting to support other brands:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y33AArvMUQ
But Circle K, Gridserve, Ionity, etc. are better charging stops with faster chargers:
- Circle K: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TVohXHjLro
- Gridserve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoN4WCpuxHY
For comparison, Tesla superchargers are 150kW or 250kW.
That metric shouldn't be interpreted linearly. You only really saturate a charger for the first few minutes of a charge when fairly depleted. Above 15% to 40% of your battery capacity the charging rate slows down (depending on what sort of battery you have).
As an example, a 2022 Lucid Air Dream Edition can use 350kW chargers. Going 20% to 80% on a 350kW is 31 minutes, and on a 150kW is 32 minutes. That's negligible. If you start lower than 20% then there is a bigger difference, but I picked 20-80 because it might match a person that exclusively uses non-home chargers. Data from chart in: https://insideevs.com/news/567714/lucid-air-fast-charging-co... (Also, I suspect a real 20-80 test might show a bigger difference. The 0-20 part of that charge probably heated the battery up more on the 350kW.)
Use cases matter a lot. The only time I use a supercharger is when I'm driving more than the range of my car in one trip, 900km is typical of a driving day for me. I'll stop 3 or 4 times at super chargers. Other than that I just charge off the regular old wall outlet in my garage.
But if you live in a place without garages you will use chargers a lot and care about where they are located. I have to say a lot of the US superchargers are in odd places, like no bathroom available at night. Most of the rest are in the far corner of some enormous parking lot of an enormous grocery store. By the time you hike to the store, find a bathroom, buy a snack, and hike back to the car you are mostly done charging.
Which brings me back to the parent post… "Location!" I absolutely prefer a Circle K with a supercharger. Short walk, open 24 hours, grab a snack, and back to the car with time to check email and maybe HN before heading back to the road.
No, Gridserve has 350 kW and 90 kW chargers in their new forecourts (see the videos). The 60 kW chargers you're seeing are from Gridserve's acquisition of Ecotricity:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/gridserve-a...
Ionity's chargers are all 350 kW:
https://ionity.eu/en/network/network-status
> As an example, a 2022 Lucid Air Dream Edition can use 350kW chargers. Going 20% to 80% on a 350kW is 31 minutes
And that's a big battery with a conservative charge curve for its size. A Hyundai Ioniq 5 can do 10 to 80% in 18 minutes on a 350 kW charger. A Porsche Taycan and an Audi e-tron GT (same platform) can do 10 to 80% in 19 minutes:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gxcukAhIAU
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BhDiwHxa94
And in a few years with newer battery chemistries more cars will be able to take more advantage of 350 kW chargers.
And why does any vehicle need to accelerate that quickly? It's irresponsible on public roads. I would really love to see acceleration and speed limiters on vehicles.
at 40 mph there is a 90 percent chance they will be killed.
at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed.
at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed.
at 20 mph there is a 2.5 percent chance they will be killed.
Also, fast acceleration from a stop eats tires. Some EV owners report 10-20k miles per (premium) set.
The Google Pixel 5a, which came out a year ago, will only get Android updates through August, 2024. That's THREE years, on a Google phone. They're basically telling you that they want you to landfill your phone so they can make more money.
Android is a shitty ecosystem for anything long term.
I think the place we know most about this, is the Aircraft space. I am interested because I used to live in 'press it go click' world and now live half-blessed by a car with some controls which are real and a lot of controls which are soft, and I have to say I don't entirely like the experience.
When you look at a Concorde control deck, its a 3 man (4 man?) crew, and its unbelievably complex. The replacement in a current spec Boeing or Airbus is simpler, but it's hardly one touch screen.
Tesla has gone off the deep end.
Current-generation Boeing aircraft have what's called a "moonlit" configuration, which are switches with lights in them. When the lights are white, everything is okay. When they're yellow or red, something is wrong. When the lights are off, that system is off. Very easy UX.
EDIT: Photo of the 787 Dreamliner overhead panel showing almost everything in yellow. https://media.wired.com/photos/5b33588d9a7504731f8815f5/mast...
Given how many aircraft are fly-by-wire the physical tactile component of a lot of these must be notional, except for the ones which have fuses next to them and are literal cut-outs. You have a switch with a bump, which goes click. The valve 20m away quietly gets turned on by an actuator. The valve completes a circuit to a sensor, which sends a databus signal and the light in your tactile switch comes on.
Like a new F-450, is it driven by a shitty android tablet too?
What they should have done is deliver kick-ass hardware in-tandem with CarPlay and Android Auto, and make THAT software first-class citizens.
Every manufacturer is investing as little as they can on in-house (or off-shore) software teams to write crappy UIs on pretty crappy hardware, and meanwhile we're sitting in our cars with computers in our pockets with enough calculating power to send a rocket to the moon.
I find car companies overstretch with trying to make fancy touchscreens etc.
Plus in car computers go out of date much quicker than motors and batteries.
Just give me some robust physical switches for the important stuff, and an empty space to put my phone / tablet.
That also has the benefit of being able to keep looking out the windscreen while driving, if I need to turn the air on on, rather than opening a ‘climate control’ menu on some creatively designed touch screen.
All the systems and components are sitting on a CAN bus anyway, in the base configuration you can just control the CAN master with analog switches like in the old days.. You can make a paid mobile app for the same controls but digital (and allow more fine-tuning). This eliminates the display from the car though, so I guess a parking camera is a no-go.
All you need hardware-wise on the car at that point would be a CAN Master device with bluetooth, which is a stupid ESP32.
So... if you manage to buy one for much less than they sell for, and if the downsides of electric are not a problem for you, it's a better choice than paying market price for a gas truck?
My PoR: I use ford sync 3.x daily and recently used several popular models of Subaru, Hyundai, Dodge, and Porsche.
Shitty UX for the infotainment console doesn't stop people buying something that starts and drives from A to B (so long as it has bluetooth audio reception).
The screen people use while driving is the one that lets them scroll Instagram.
It's not much Ford, it's ANY OEMs I know of...
I suspect CarPlay and Android Auto come with strings attached from Apple (must fall in line with the Apple walled garden rules) and Google (must track users on behalf of Google) so, no big loss.
Apple always pushes service upgrades? I can't remember the last time it pushed any advertising like that at me. If it does happen, it's an offer as part of a major OS upgrade that includes the new feature.
> I suspect CarPlay and Android Auto come with strings attached from Apple
Doubtful. Adoption by manufacturers is what Apple and Google want, so you'll stay in their respective ecosystems. They're not doing any more walled garden or tracking than they do when you use your phone normally, so I don't see the problem. Tesla tracks you with their system, too, but as a corporation they have a much sketchier history with their customer relationship. There's no way 99% of cars would come with support for CarPlay and AA if there were strings attached.
I couldn't get Spotify on my tesla to even see my playlists, much less connect to my Apple Music account (which I would have preferred). The text message handling was abysmal, and the audio reading failed after two weeks and no amount of rebooting or resetting would get my Tesla to talk to my phone again.
My phone supports multiple map apps, podcasts, etc. Lots more choices than Tesla. About the only thing the Tesla has different is Supercharger integration and remaining range integration with the nav. Except the range estimate dropped on the freeway about 1.2 miles for every 1 mile driven, so it was pretty useless for that.
They may give you help over text, or push a software update for you, or if warranted even send out a mobile tech or have you bring the car in to be looked at.
There are some short sellers spreading misinformation about Tesla service being bad, but that hasn’t been my experience at all. I hope it gets better for you.
Also Rivian only seems interested in manufacturing luxury vehicles.
FWIW I own some Rivian stock.
They make a really cool love child of a VW bus, Jeep and El Camino instead.
Seriously, Verge's reviews are some of the lowest quality content from any so called "Major" tech site.
I don’t know if there’s any API access for non-critical functionality like climate control.
https://jalopnik.com/ford-ceo-wants-to-abolish-the-dealershi...
This seems far less confusing than the Autopilot and FSD bifurcation that Tesla has.
It beeps at you to get your hands on the wheel when you're trying to autosteer in places it's not allowed. Sounds reasonable, no?
Tesla has the worst cockpit experience because it's a single large screen.
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T040187...
I don't see what meaningful way it differs.
Is it even going to get updates for a longer period than Android phones? Maybe against security threats. Or it's just been 3 years, upgrade your car.
I suppose it doesn't make phonecalls, that's a difference.
And yes, what I want is a bluetooth speaker that has a radio. My point is I don't want an ecosystem for my car. Saying "Ford Sync system then a superior solution with an actual ecosystem" as an argument to upgrade gets everything backwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNTisbC9-8Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqjRO1d0iQM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ravJtxu3N04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyfGRNe-FtU
https://carbuzz.com/news/google-will-transform-bmws-dashboar...
You seem to have very select demanding opinions about what is and isnt ok to allow in, and to reject being over well served. From what I can see, neither QNX nor Android nor any carmaker of note (aside from exotics) has your selective anti-needs in their concern. At this point I dont disagree with your desire, but trying to insist on un-soft computing, on only a couple hardset paths is an elite & narrow concern intolerant to broad usability. We should both understand & respect your narrow, peculiar desires, because they tell an important tale, but have deference to more general answers.
And alas, we just see shitty implementations. Slow ones like this article, where Ford seemingly must be running on a 8 bit toaster controller. And just as bad, the very very very little reporting/available information on what data gets sent to whom. Which I feel is probably not so very bad as many jump to assume... but we dont know & there's no benefit of a doubts left remaining, especially given how impossible finding answers is.
I'm not sure why a company Ford's size couldn't handle "it's a screen" in QNX, but it can handle how many I want in a car - no pixel matrix screens at all. The article makes it clear that a major annoyance with the slow computer is the replacement of physical buttons with slow swiping. Well, we could just have buttons.
Okay, but I recognize that for some reason I've lost this fight. Fragile, quickly obsoleted and hard to replace computers are going to try to make cars have a short lifespan. The fact that they're harder to use while driving will also continue to perplex me but there will be no other option.
But then they want to install software on my car that helps Google spy on my real-world locations? Or where the only way to sync my phone to the audio is to let Google listen in to the connection. You're right that we have no clue if Ford is spying on us now, but surely that data collection is going to continue. We're just adding Google to the list of companies.
All this makes me sad because an E-F150 was the EV I was hoping to get once supply exists.
The only thing I may dislike is not having physical buttons/dials for climate.
There’s a quick action button to navigate back home on the map widget, but it just opens the map app full-screen, defeating the purpose of the widget entirely. I’d love to have CarPlay open to handle my phone and messaging alongside the radio, but that’s not possible, even though the display is clearly big enough to show both at once.
All of that is made worse by how slow everything is. Switching between the radio and the map or the map and CarPlay is… slow. Swiping along the cards is pretty slow. The display can be responsive, and the games are certainly playable, but in most instances, it’s just slow.
This is the point in any car review where many people are already drafting emails to me about just using CarPlay or Android Auto instead of the stock software, but friends, CarPlay and Android Auto are not good at helping EV owners navigate charging. If you want to plot out a route with accurate range estimates and an effective charging strategy, you have to use the built-in nav — especially since Ford has taken the time to organize charging stations by speed, and seeking out 150kW fast chargers is an important part of the Lightning experience because the battery is so big. Apple and Google are a long way behind on this front.I saw that phrase in the story and came here to comment and saw this thread.
I think we should be honest with ourselves about recent history: Apple and Google will be quicker to roll out functionality for EV specific navigation (i.e. chargers) in their apps then car manufacturers will be to fix their UI problems.
Edit: I also dont want to spend $xxx a year on map updates from manufacturers when Apple Maps are free (I understand I’m not the customer with Google even if their mapping product is great) and better
I visibly jerked in my chair reading that from remembering all the GPS devices I relied on for years that happily bricked themselves after the company stopped supporting them and their internal maps "expired".
I think you are missing the point of what the actual problem here is. Apple and Google already show EV charging stations on their maps just fine, you can even filter by type of charging (CCS, CHADeMO, etc.). That's not the issue.
The issue is the navigation system using information about your vehicle in real time (current outside temperature[0], battery charge remaining, speed, AC usage, calculated estimate of distance of range remaining using all the info above, etc.) to automatically create a route to your final destination that includes charging station stops on the way. To calculate the frequency of those stops, locations, how long you will need to spend charging there in the most optimal way (e.g., it is actually much faster to make 2 stops to charge from 15% to 50% than to stop 1 time to charge from 15% to to 85%), you need real time data about your own vehicle specifically.
Unless Google and Apple somehow get access to that live data from the vehicle itself in real time, that functionality is impossible to implement. And, naturally, the only entity that would have that info is the car nav system itself. Plus, I don't think many users would be enthusiastic about sharing such sensitive information with Apple or Google.
0. In case anyone is curious why outside temperature is relevant, EVs take outside temperature into their calculation of estimated range, because lower temperatures reduce range available.
Still, late 2023 as of now seems a bit far out. But I don't think that majority of car manufacturers will manage to get to the CarPlay level of quality for their own in-house infotainment systems even by 2033.
I wonder if Android Auto would be able to get this data with the current structure of Android Auto, or if existing cars would never be able to support it.
> 0. In case anyone is curious why outside temperature is relevant, EVs take outside temperature into their calculation of estimated range, because lower temperatures reduce range available.
That's actually not important at all. Simply noting the current rate of discharge/speed is enough. I use ABRP with a bluetooth ADB dongle to get live data to my maps for long road trips and it works wonderfully. It doesn't have to be perfect since hardly any EV driver is going to want to be under 20% battery when they arrive at a charger.
> Unless Google and Apple somehow get access to that live data from the vehicle itself in real time
Apple is working on it. Google will likely follow suite. Neither are likely to be implemented in a vehicle I own before it's irrelevant though.
We all know BEVs are fast - even a 1960's UK electric milkfloat is amazingly speedy from standstill - but I'd say Ford are years away from their BEVs being viable and reliable, not least due to lack of charging network. The lousy towing performances on BEV trucks rings alarm bells too. https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/ford-f150-lightning-elect...
A little off topic but it appears Anne Heche's vehicle was a hybrid or BEV and caused a huge fire, one of my biggest BEV concerns - It took nearly 60 firefighters more than an hour to douse the flames.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/202...
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...
It's true that there need to be more fast chargers, but it's also true that this notion of "no charging network for CCS cars" is making less sense every month.
You can get across America and Canada on CCS chargers. For example on Petro-Canada or Electrify America (and there are more charging networks than just these two):
- https://www.electrifyamerica.com/locate-charger/
- https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/personal/fuel/canadas-electri...
A Better Route Planner is a good tool to try out routes in various models of EV to see how easy or hard a given trip will be:
- https://abetterrouteplanner.com/
Europe sensibly standardized on CCS type 2 Combo so any brand of car can charge on any brand of charger. Even Tesla is finally opening their chargers to all brands in Europe:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y33AArvMUQ
Eventually Tesla will do the same in North America and that will make more CCS chargers available.