Why the Ford EV will suck

[Johnologue]

When I use a USB memory stick for a music source in my '22 Bronco, the infotainment system locks out numerous search function access to the music library while the vehicle is in motion. Seems kind of dumb to me since the Sync 4 phone integration pretty much sucks when the phone is out of cell service (which in my case is a majority of the time). But the point is the various systems of the vehicle are tied together to operate safely.

We all need to remember the level of liability companies such as Ford take on allowing some level of distracted driving to have phone integration. Lawyers are risk adverse.

When all of these systems are connected, first-party, and under the manufacturer's strict control, they're responsible for everything they "allow".

It's kind of like something I saw the other day. Google's trouble with being responsible for AI search "answers" was being compared with net neutrality.

If an ISP goes from passively offering a service to picking and choosing the content they favor, they start being liable for the content they don't block.

Obviously, there are legal arguments either way, but the dynamic shifts when they take more control. This only makes the point that this kind of technological control doesn't need to be malicious to cause problems.

 

[E90400K]

When all of these systems are connected, first-party, and under the manufacturer's strict control, they're responsible for everything they "allow".

It's kind of like something I saw the other day. Google's trouble with being responsible for AI search "answers" was being compared with net neutrality.

If an ISP goes from passively offering a service to picking and choosing the content they favor, they start being liable for the content they don't block.

Obviously, there are legal arguments either way, but the dynamic shifts when they take more control. This only makes the point that this kind of technological control doesn't need to be malicious to cause problems.

Exactly why the manfacturers want to get legislation to control access to software and control modules. Some hack changes code and the safety systems conflict each other and cause an accident. The plantifs' lawyer in a lawsuit is going after deep-pocket Ford for allowing access to the modules and code, better put as "not restricting access".

I can see Farley's point.

 

[Johnologue]

Exactly why the manfacturers want to get legislation to control access to software and control modules. Some hack changes code and the safety systems conflict each other and cause an accident. The plantifs' lawyer in a lawsuit is going after deep-pocket Ford for allowing access to the modules and code, better put as "not restricting access".

I can see Farley's point.

Farley's logic is probably internally-consistent. Not contradictory or explicitly "wrong".

I think that answers why people care about right-to-repair and such even if they don't already work on their car.

They recognize that the inevitable conclusion of those ideas isn't the world they want to see. We value different things than Farley, and we want to choose another path.

That's why I believe Slate is so important. It's perhaps our last chance to "vote" on that future, for a long time. At least in an automotive context.

 

[Luxrage]

Ford's EV lost me the moment I saw it was a four door pickup like all the rest. I hope it's cheap but it's no Ranchero.

 

[null98115]

Fords will almost certainly not go down the right to repair path.

So their entire EV platform is gonna suck because they are not embracing RTR? Dude, you're going to have to try harder than that to make your case.

 

[EV Trek]

https://www.freep.com/videos/money/...d-ceo-jim-farley-right-to-repair/90465881007/



Fords will almost certainly not go down the right to repair path.

Not quite the topic I thought it was going to be… 🤣

 

[slatefan53]

As a Mach-E owner, I have become very disillusioned by Ford. They are doubling down on their "Connected, Computer on Wheels, Telematics".

Get this. I can NOT schedule charging, precondition the car unless I now turn on share "Driving Data". Why do they need my "Driving Data", to allow my car to charge between 10pm and 10am? They also require the cars "Location" for scheduled charging. WTF.

The telematics modem died on ours for 2 months. Breaking cruise control, and blue cruise. A $54/mo subscription. When I asked to be refunded for the 2 months the car was 'down' telematically, they refused. I filed a charge back and cancelled ALL recurring subscriptions with Ford (their loss). It is now treated like a "Slate" all COMMS/DATA BS is turned off.

I am SO looking forward to SLATE, for the lack of scum-baggery, subscription, surveillance business model.

Oh, and Ford has a filed a patent for LIP READING for their alertness monitoring and future "Advertisement on the Infotainment" screen. I'M OUT.

 

[E90400K]

Farley's logic is probably internally-consistent. Not contradictory or explicitly "wrong".

I think that answers why people care about right-to-repair and such even if they don't already work on their car.

They recognize that the inevitable conclusion of those ideas isn't the world they want to see. We value different things than Farley, and we want to choose another path.

That's why I believe Slate is so important. It's perhaps our last chance to "vote" on that future, for a long time. At least in an automotive context.

Yet, I doubt Slate is going to let owners gain access to software code in the several computer modules that control the battery/motor drive and other safety sytems of the Truck. There is just too much liability.

At this point, I don't think Ford prevents you from removing a door card to replace a window drive, for example. As a Bronco owner and living in the Bronco ecosystem where Ford intended from the outset to have owners modify and upgrade their rigs, Ford publishes lots of DIY instructions for DIY installation of Bronco accessories.

Hell, Ford even sells engine tunes for both the 2.3L and 2.7L EcoBoost engines that the owner can install. They sell you the OBDII port dongle to plug in and install the tune software.

No different than Slate.

 

[LevelHeaded]

I think the ford truck will be great. Just like I think lots of vehicles will be great that I’m not interested in.

 

[Johnologue]

Yet, I doubt Slate is going to let owners gain access to software code in the several computer modules that control the battery/motor drive and other safety sytems of the Truck. There is just too much liability.

At this point, I don't think Ford prevents you from removing a door card to replace a window drive, for example. As a Bronco owner and living in the Bronco ecosystem where Ford intended from the outset to have owners modify and upgrade their rigs, Ford publishes lots of DIY instructions for DIY installation of Bronco accessories.

Hell, Ford even sells engine tunes for both the 2.3L and 2.7L EcoBoost engines that the owner can install. They sell you the OBDII port dongle to plug in and install the tune software.

No different than Slate.

First, while I definitely don't expect Slate to hand over some kind of convenient SDK for the motor controls and such, those systems are compartmentalized and, I imagine, fairly static. Worst-case scenario, you could probably put in different modules for the respective systems without the self-driving AI bricking the whole thing.

You'd be on your own, but you'd have that choice for whatever reason and the hardware would still run.

With Ford, and keep in mind I'm largely talking about near-future stuff with software-defined architecture they've talked about (stuff that will hit the market after Slate), it's part of a unified system that will be actively controlled/updated by a whole software company within Ford.
That will absolutely be significantly more restrictive, by necessity and by design. In ways that will matter outside of extreme hacks we're using as examples.

I'd be speculating to say anything specific, but I don't think it's a claim that needs defense; the difference is in whether you care.

Second, I cannot look past how infuriating "well, we need to keep people away from the safety-critical systems, no choice about that" is when Ford made a point of putting everything on the same compute.

Engines and OBDs and such, these are legacy hardware systems. This is the time when Ford can (and seems quite eager to) truly change the "rules".

Look, I think this thread's name is stupid too. I don't think the Ford EV will necessarily "suck". I think it'll be a very nice car, and a good-value deal that a lot of people will be happy with. If one materialized in my driveway with the sole condition that I couldn't resell it, I'd pay to be free of it.

But hey, I'm weird. Plenty of people are happy with Gmail or Outlook, but I pay for email. We can agree to disagree on whether that's a sensible choice, but let's not pretend there's no fundamental difference between them.

 

[E90400K]

First, while I definitely don't expect Slate to hand over some kind of convenient SDK for the motor controls and such, those systems are compartmentalized and, I imagine, fairly static. Worst-case scenario, you could probably put in different modules for the respective systems without the self-driving AI bricking the whole thing.

You'd be on your own, but you'd have that choice for whatever reason and the hardware would still run.

With Ford, and keep in mind I'm largely talking about near-future stuff with software-defined architecture they've talked about (stuff that will hit the market after Slate), it's part of a unified system that will be actively controlled/updated by a whole software company within Ford.
That will absolutely be significantly more restrictive, by necessity and by design. In ways that will matter outside of extreme hacks we're using as examples.

I'd be speculating to say anything specific, but I don't think it's a claim that needs defense; the difference is in whether you care.

Second, I cannot look past how infuriating "well, we need to keep people away from the safety-critical systems, no choice about that" is when Ford made a point of putting everything on the same compute.

Engines and OBDs and such, these are legacy hardware systems. This is the time when Ford can (and seems quite eager to) truly change the "rules".

Look, I think this thread's name is stupid too. I don't think the Ford EV will necessarily "suck". I think it'll be a very nice car, and a good-value deal that a lot of people will be happy with. If one materialized in my driveway with the sole condition that I couldn't resell it, I'd pay to be free of it.

But hey, I'm weird. Plenty of people are happy with Gmail or Outlook, but I pay for email. We can agree to disagree on whether that's a sensible choice, but let's not pretend there's no fundamental difference between them.

So, then the argument is over something that has yet to happen.

If the issue is "right to repair" I think we get back to @ScooterAsheville thread about what does everyone expect to repair on their Slate. I think the topic with respect to the forthcoming Ford universal EV is a blurring between what is accessible for owner DIY repair (mostly hardware) and what is proprietary technology that the average DIY'er should not have access to where he can alter the intended operation of the technology. Unfortunately, under our ever-expanding quest for safety and security in our automobiles we have let this situation arise and subrogated repairs of the technology to those that developed it. I think with the Slate most here are over amplifying Slate's DIY'ness with respect to other brands; I don't see it as that big of a gap, if any.

What I plan on repairing, or at least DIY upgrading, are the electric windows, brakes when needed, heck even the drive motor unit if it ever needs replacement, CV axles. Body panel replacements if necessary. I will install some type of audio system. All things I have done on other brands ICEV for the past 45 years. I don't expect to repair the HV battery if it needs cells replaced; no different than if I needed to replace internals on an ICE, where I'd pull the engine and have it rebuilt (I've never had to BTW).

 

[KevinRS]

As a Mach-E owner, I have become very disillusioned by Ford. They are doubling down on their "Connected, Computer on Wheels, Telematics".

Get this. I can NOT schedule charging, precondition the car unless I now turn on share "Driving Data". Why do they need my "Driving Data", to allow my car to charge between 10pm and 10am? They also require the cars "Location" for scheduled charging. WTF.

On that specific part, "location" I can think of a likely reason: Time zones. If you want it charged by 7 AM, they kind of need to make sure whether it's 7 am PST or 7 am EST and by default, they've got the clock for that auto setting, and likely no other way to set.

 

[phidauex]

On that specific part, "location" I can think of a likely reason: Time zones. If you want it charged by 7 AM, they kind of need to make sure whether it's 7 am PST or 7 am EST and by default, they've got the clock for that auto setting, and likely no other way to set.

You can get current local time from a $2 GPS module, no subscription or communication to a server required. In the MachE's case, the issue is that charge scheduling is tied to a location - this can theoretically be handy, like if I want to charge only after 9pm when on my home charger, but charge anytime if I'm plugged into a charger at the office.

The problem is that all the features are tied together, there is no "graceful failure" where if communication doesn't exist, you just get a single schedule that applies everywhere - the feature just stops working.

I don't think it is always nefarious, but often more a function of how software engineers are trained - so many are taught full-stack / API development so just naturally assume that all the decision making should be centralized where it can be quickly tweaked if needed, and then have the edge devices be as dumb as possible. There are a lot fewer skilled embedded systems developers that are capable of pushing the advanced logic to the edge device and keep the API communication as a feature adder only.

You can even see it in how phone apps work - turn off cellular and wifi and open up random apps - some will work fine, and simply not enable the features that require communication, and some will completely refuse to work, even for features that should be fully local.

 

[KevinRS]

You can get current local time from a $2 GPS module, no subscription or communication to a server required. In the MachE's case, the issue is that charge scheduling is tied to a location - this can theoretically be handy, like if I want to charge only after 9pm when on my home charger, but charge anytime if I'm plugged into a charger at the office.

The problem is that all the features are tied together, there is no "graceful failure" where if communication doesn't exist, you just get a single schedule that applies everywhere - the feature just stops working.

I don't think it is always nefarious, but often more a function of how software engineers are trained - so many are taught full-stack / API development so just naturally assume that all the decision making should be centralized where it can be quickly tweaked if needed, and then have the edge devices be as dumb as possible. There are a lot fewer skilled embedded systems developers that are capable of pushing the advanced logic to the edge device and keep the API communication as a feature adder only.

You can even see it in how phone apps work - turn off cellular and wifi and open up random apps - some will work fine, and simply not enable the features that require communication, and some will completely refuse to work, even for features that should be fully local.

Yes it would be possible to build it using a GPS module, but that would require them to have assumed that it would be necessary. It would also be possible to set the time manually on a screen. But it's a lot simpler for them to just have it update on the cell signal, and they don't have to design, build and program for alternate options. Go out of cell coverage, and you are still probably accurate enough on time for several weeks without correction, so they left it at that,

 

[slatefan53]

You can get current local time from a $2 GPS module, no subscription or communication to a server required. In the MachE's case, the issue is that charge scheduling is tied to a location - this can theoretically be handy, like if I want to charge only after 9pm when on my home charger, but charge anytime if I'm plugged into a charger at the office.

The problem is that all the features are tied together, there is no "graceful failure" where if communication doesn't exist, you just get a single schedule that applies everywhere - the feature just stops working.

I don't think it is always nefarious, but often more a function of how software engineers are trained - so many are taught full-stack / API development so just naturally assume that all the decision making should be centralized where it can be quickly tweaked if needed, and then have the edge devices be as dumb as possible. There are a lot fewer skilled embedded systems developers that are capable of pushing the advanced logic to the edge device and keep the API communication as a feature adder only.

You can even see it in how phone apps work - turn off cellular and wifi and open up random apps - some will work fine, and simply not enable the features that require communication, and some will completely refuse to work, even for features that should be fully local.

Very well said. That said, the car has a clock and any date/time setting can be considered the source of truth in this case. Have we reached the point where we can't be trusted to set our clocks? (Yes encryption requires accurate clocks, but again, why do I need an encrypted connection to the mother ship for a fairly analog task).

At the end of the day this "Logic" from a computer perspective could be accomplished with a simple single statement or linux style cron job.

IF [users desired time window to charge] = TRUE
THEN execute {allow charging}

While not nefarious per se' it is a potential Dark Pattern from a UI/UX perspective. A dark pattern in UI/UX is a design technique that intentionally tricks users into taking actions they did not intend to, such as making purchases or sharing personal information. These deceptive designs exploit user psychology to benefit the company at the user's expense.

In this case, Ford want's your data to monetize. Simply put, if you want to schedule charging on a Mach-E or precondition you must enable Driving Data & Location. Ford is never getting another penny from me.