From TheDrive.com - Ford’s CEO Doesn’t Want You Fixing Your New Bronco. He Says It’s About Safety

[E90400K]

To quote (paraphrase?) Chris Barman at the launch event,

"We looked a what the industry was doing and did the opposite."

And let's hope it works! (for a long time)

 

[Johnologue]

Oh good Lord, this again? He's talking about the software based safety systems, not the frickin brakes or spark plugs. Lol.

This again?

First, you know what? People should be able to access their software systems. Shoutout to the new Chevy Bolt EUV with an EPA range of 262 and an Edmunds-tested real-world range of 15 miles; that's how far it got before the infotainment, and by extension, the gauge cluster, went blank. Needed a dealership-exclusive USB reset (after they found a dealership tech who actually knew EVs, of course)!
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2027-chevy-bolt-tech-issues.html

Second, The whole point is that the "software-based" systems are being connected to everything. They're putting everything on a single compute module in the new truck, as if to make that as unambiguous as possible.

Meanwhile, you keep citing the Bronco, which is an enthusiast/retro truck on a legacy (T6 is like 15 years old, at a glance) ICEV platform. It's the absolute best-case scenario for Ford, and one they seem eager to leave in the past.

"We only care about protecting the software-based safety systems! Coincidentally, we put them in the same RAM that handles your subscription billing, helpful assistant, streaming services, data collection, promotions that are relevant to your interests..."
This is a situation they chose to create.

Did you know the auto industry expects 51% of their revenue to be software-based in 2035?
https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/software-defined-vehicle

 

[E90400K]

This again?

First, you know what? People should be able to access their software systems. Shoutout to the new Chevy Bolt EUV with an EPA range of 262 and an Edmunds-tested real-world range of 15 miles; that's how far it got before the infotainment, and by extension, the gauge cluster, went blank. Needed a dealership-exclusive USB reset (after they found a dealership tech who actually knew EVs, of course)!
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2027-chevy-bolt-tech-issues.html

Second, The whole point is that the "software-based" systems are being connected to everything. They're putting everything on a single compute module in the new truck, as if to make that as unambiguous as possible.

Meanwhile, you keep citing the Bronco, which is an enthusiast/retro truck on a legacy (T6 is like 15 years old, at a glance) ICEV platform. It's the absolute best-case scenario for Ford, and one they seem eager to leave in the past.

"We only care about protecting the software-based safety systems! Coincidentally, we put them in the same RAM that handles your subscription billing, helpful assistant, streaming services, data collection, promotions that are relevant to your interests..."
This is a situation they chose to create.

Did you know the auto industry expects 51% of their revenue to be software-based in 2035?
https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/software-defined-vehicle

In 2035, is that replacement revenue from lost mechanical repair and maintenance revenue as the industry is mandated (CARB) to eliminate the transition away from ICE or is it additional revenue? Sounds like the future is bright for all the software engineers who are in college now.

I used my Bronco as an example because Farley did. Yup, it uses a T6 electrical architecture. It still has Sync 4 in it with a shitload of software in it I don't have access to.

The market is asking for the SDV. The market wants its car to drive them places just like their mommy did when they were little kids. The market wants its car to interface with its phone. Software has always been highly protected proprietary information regardless of what type a platform or product it resides in.

It's no difference to me as a consumer trying to repair my engine with a cracked engine block and bent crankshaft. I don't have access to the proprietary engine block design data nor do I possess the tools and capabilities to make my own engine block casting or machine a freshly forged crankshaft. I may know how to do it, but I don't personally have the access to the information nor the financial capital to own the machines, facilities and equipment to create the parts.

Just because you may be able to write software code, doesn't mean you get the right to a company's software code. It's always been that way. Ford locks me out of my archaic 2.3L EcoBoost ECU because I could get in the code and change the boost settings to make the engine produce 480 HP, which it might tolerate for a month before it blows up. I then reflash the ECU back to the factory code and go make a warranty claim my engine blew up.

If you don't like it, stay old school. Slate makes a car for you then, but it still won't give you access to the ADAS because most likely they buy the code from an "industry partner" like Bosch (just like Ford does).

This whole right-to-repair ruse Slate is spewing out is being confused with Farley's statements. You all are excited because you can buy different colored parts and replace the boring slate gray interior trim pieces. Or buy a $5,000 SUV kit and bolt it in yourself. Oooh, and Slate will give you the instructions to do it! BFD. Is Slate going to give you access to the proprietary software so you can trick your truck into not installing the roll bar with airbags in it, or not install the rear seat seatbelts? Nope.

 

[Auer]

So how much data harvesting etc does a Slate truck do in comparison to a Bronco?
How many cameras does it have?
How many microphones?

 

[E90400K]

So how much data harvesting etc does a Slate truck do in comparison to a Bronco?
How many cameras does it have?
How many microphones?

I'd say them same, especially when I use my phone in either one.

 

[Johnologue]

The market is asking for the SDV. The market wants its car to drive them places just like their mommy did when they were little kids. The market wants its car to interface with its phone.

"The market", perhaps, but that doesn't mean the customers. Economic decisions are being made by investors and executives with weird agendas...like, "the market" definitely wants to put generative AI in literally everything. I'm not sympathetic to what "the market" is asking for.

Also, "interfacing with the phone" is NOT what SDVs are. That's phone projection (Android Auto, Apple CarPlay), and that's what SDVs are getting rid of. They want the car to be the phone, with redundant capabilities. Why? Because it gives them control over the experience, it lets them directly interact with customers..."features on demand" and such.

If you don't like it, stay old school. Slate makes a car for you then, but it still won't give you access to the ADAS because most likely they buy the code from an "industry partner" like Bosch (just like Ford does).

This whole right-to-repair muse Slate is spewing out is being confused with Farley's statements. You all are excited because you can buy different colored parts and replace the boring slate gray interior trim pieces. Or buy a $5,000 SUV kit and bolt it in yourself. Oooh, and Slate will give you the instructions to do it! BFD. Is Slate going to give you access to the proprietary software so you can trick your truck into not installing the roll bar with airbags in it, or not install the rear seat seat belts? Nope.

Alright, ignore literally everything I'm talking about, then. I have not been talking about cosmetic trim or body kits, I've been talking about vehicle systems this entire time.

Those systems are compartmentalized, function-specific firmware things...
10 years after the cloud services on that new Ford shut down, Slates will be equipped with the latest user-facing technology, because it's not physically part of the vehicle systems. How's that for features on demand?

So how much data harvesting etc does a Slate truck do in comparison to a Bronco?
How many cameras does it have?
How many microphones?

At least one camera in front for automatic emergency braking/pedestrian detection (which I imagine will be connected, locally, to the AEB system), at least one in the back for a backup camera. Haven't heard anything about mics. I believe Slate has said your truck "won't spy on you".

I'd say them same, especially when I use my phone in either one.

You can run Android apps on Linux, or otherwise designed for privacy. Or get the app-related info through OBD. Not saying everyone will, but it's an option (especially if Android keeps getting worse).

 

[E90400K]

"The market", perhaps, but that doesn't mean the customers. Economic decisions are being made by investors and executives with weird agendas...like, "the market" definitely wants to put generative AI in literally everything. I'm not sympathetic to what "the market" is asking for.

Also, "interfacing with the phone" is NOT what SDVs are. That's phone projection (Android Auto, Apple CarPlay), and that's what SDVs are getting rid of. They want the car to be the phone, with redundant capabilities. Why? Because it gives them control over the experience, it lets them directly interact with customers..."features on demand" and such.


Alright, ignore literally everything I'm talking about, then. I have not been talking about cosmetic trim or body kits, I've been talking about vehicle systems this entire time.

Those systems are compartmentalized, function-specific firmware things...
10 years after the cloud services on that new Ford shut down, Slates will be equipped with the latest user-facing technology, because it's not physically part of the vehicle systems. How's that for features on demand?


At least one camera in front for automatic emergency braking/pedestrian detection (which I imagine will be connected, locally, to the AEB system), at least one in the back for a backup camera. Haven't heard anything about mics. I believe Slate has said your truck "won't spy on you".


You can run Android apps on Linux, or otherwise designed for privacy. Or get the app-related info through OBD. Not saying everyone will, but it's an option (especially if Android keeps getting worse).

Exactly. The market wanted to use its phone while driving. It started to crash into itself. The government didn't like the "crashing into" part so the industry responded with "make the car the phone", which drove the need for ADAS. And there's your SDV...

My phone constantly spies on me. It has two cameras and a microphone or two. I have a SDP. Same shit. I have no access to the core software my phone uses.

I could buy a 1972 Pinto and rebuild it with a 2.3L EcoBoost and Koni shocks as my daily driver. I can also use the landline phone over on the other side of the house that's plugged into the RJ11 jack on the wall.

And I'm not sure what your definition of "market" is. My definition means "a group of customers". Customers means "people who want to buy shit".

 

[Johnologue]

Exactly. The market wanted to use its phone while driving. It started to crash into itself. The government didn't like the "crashing into" part so the industry responded with "make the car the phone".

And I'm not sure what your definition of "market" is. My definition means "a group of customers".

From a safety perspective, there's no difference between phone projection and SDVs. If anything, integrating the technology more thoroughly throughout the vehicle makes distraction worse. Your car wants to talk to you, and vehicle system controls are on the touchscreen now - use your hand-eye coordination to adjust your wipers, that's safer. "Safety" is even more disingenuous here. Automakers will tell you the reasons for moving away from phone projection, and they are not about safety.

I saw the "group of customers" framing - I argued you were misrepresenting whose interest was driving these decisions. With what sounded like an infantilizing contempt for the intelligence and agency of consumers. Perhaps it's even correct, but I believe it's better to pursue a more thoughtful and informed public than to take advantage of people distracted by shiny things...

Slate's colorful panels aren't particularly substantial, but they're joyful (and quite optional). It's fun and expressive. In a simple way. There's no concerning cyberpunk nonsense that can come of it. It's fresh air.

 

[E90400K]

From a safety perspective, there's no difference between phone projection and SDVs. If anything, integrating the technology more thoroughly throughout the vehicle makes distraction worse. Your car wants to talk to you, and vehicle system controls are on the touchscreen now - use your hand-eye coordination to adjust your wipers, that's safer. "Safety" is even more disingenuous here. Automakers will tell you the reasons for moving away from phone projection, and they are not about safety.

I saw the "group of customers" framing - I argued you were misrepresenting whose interest was driving these decisions. With what sounded like an infantilizing contempt for the intelligence and agency of consumers. Perhaps it's even correct, but I believe it's better to pursue a more thoughtful and informed public than to take advantage of people distracted by shiny things...

Slate's colorful panels aren't particularly substantial, but they're joyful (and quite optional). It's fun and expressive. In a simple way. There's no concerning cyberpunk nonsense that can come of it. It's fresh air.

Good Lord, the Slate is the epitome of consumers distracted by shiny things. It's literally Slate's business case.

 

[Auer]

Good Lord, the Slate is the epitome of consumers distracted by shiny things. It's literally Slate's business case.

When everything else is where you want it you can focus on shiny things.
If you feel slate buyers are not paying attention you probably missed something.

Or maybe youre distracted.
But not everyone is.

 

[kotaKat]

Not gonna lie: FDRS and IDS are hot effing garbage.

Jim can beat his chest all he wants for his "$30k pickup" that will sell at $40k out of the box just like Pepperidge Farm remembers those $19,995 Mavericks with the PHEV drivetrain.

I shouldn't need to "fix" a new vehicle out of the box anyways - but hey, Ford's lacking build quality these past few years have been shining bright, a beacon of the failures of the slovenly UAW folks that can't understand that "quality is Job #1" anymore as I look at every single recall and breakdown across our ~2018-2024 Ford fleet internally.

Slate is going to be a refresher for so many reasons on our home fleet.

 

[E90400K]

When everything else is where you want it you can focus on shiny things.
If you feel slate buyers are not paying attention you probably missed something.

Or maybe youre distracted.
But not everyone is.

https://www.slateforums.com/forum/t...-distinctive-feature.13371/page-5#post-239257

Para. #2...

 

[Ruff]

The data collection/surveillance issue is a genie already out of the bottle, to avoid it requires some conscience effort and a major change in lifestyle. Not so much for the repair side of the discussion.

I don't want to see the software code nor do I need to see the software code. I just need to make the code do what is was designed to do without a $10,000 paywall.

Take something as simple as a Tire Pressure Monitoring system (TPMS). Right now if the light comes on and the local tire shop says your TPMS module is bad, you have 3 choices: take it to the dealership, take it to an independent shop that has paid for those expensive subscription services for their specific test/service equipment for your make of car IF the car manufacturer releases it, or live with the stupid horseshoe shaped light staying lit on your dash.

These large fees to the independent shops makes sense. The shop decides if their business model can support the costs based upon the services they provide and number of customers they service. That is IF the manufacture releases the information to the independent shop (I am looking at you TESLA). There is no business model for the average person who only wants to fix one vehicle to justify these expenses. You are then forced to the dealership. If you need to replace a ECU (any ECU), you may need to flash that new ECU to get it to recognize the VIN of your car. To flash an ECU, you need the $10,000 worth of equipment and subscriptions.

Sure with ICE vehicles giving way to EV, the dealership revenue stream will need to shift from expensive mechanical drive line repair/maintenance to expensive software equipment flashing and recalibration. Not every shop can justify an ADAS calibration system to preform simple service or repair work.

When the manufacture requires ADAS calibration as part of a replacement of the cruise control button on the steering wheel, a new headlight bulb, or a windshield replacement for safety and liability issues, the car owners choices are limited.

 

[kotaKat]

Forgot to mention something else here that's going on too that automakers are starting to crack down on with diagnostics.

Turns out Kia Boyz had it all wrong with the USB cable. Turns out you actually plug the USB cable into the car itself and tell the car to start its "all keys lost" procedure and program new universal keys to the vehicle and drive off with it. That's been the joys of automotive products like Autel's lovely little key programming tools getting into peoples hands for under $500.

FUN FACT: Did you know that the FCC thought Autel's drones were super evil Chinese drones and banned them, but allows all the sketchy vehicle diagnostic programmers and immobilizer/key tools right over the border for only like $300 on AliExpress? Now you know!

As a result... the 'security gateway' crackdowns have begun in the 2024s+. Automakers are starting to require "vehicle security professional" credentials to access diagnostics on anything new. The National Automotive Service Task Force has bullied themselves into being the credentialing source to authenticate technicians moving onwards. Scan tools are getting locked down.

Hyundai has become the absolute worst here. You must have the VSP credentials to do literally any vehicle diagnostics action from their software. Doesn't matter if you're just reading a code out with it, sorry, you have to basically be a licensed, bonded automotive professional.

Drop $2000 on the Hyundai passthru? Drop hundreds on the software? BZZT. Sorry. You're still not Worthy Enough To Touch It.

Effing gross.

 

[E90400K]

The data collection/surveillance issue is a genie already out of the bottle, to avoid it requires some conscience effort and a major change in lifestyle. Not so much for the repair side of the discussion.

I don't want to see the software code nor do I need to see the software code. I just need to make the code do what is was designed to do without a $10,000 paywall.

Take something as simple as a Tire Pressure Monitoring system (TPMS). Right now if the light comes on and the local tire shop says your TPMS module is bad, you have 3 choices: take it to the dealership, take it to an independent shop that has paid for those expensive subscription services for their specific test/service equipment for your make of car IF the car manufacturer releases it, or live with the stupid horseshoe shaped light staying lit on your dash.

These large fees to the independent shops makes sense. The shop decides if their business model can support the costs based upon the services they provide and number of customers they service. That is IF the manufacture releases the information to the independent shop (I am looking at you TESLA). There is no business model for the average person who only wants to fix one vehicle to justify these expenses. You are then forced to the dealership. If you need to replace a ECU (any ECU), you may need to flash that new ECU to get it to recognize the VIN of your car. To flash an ECU, you need the $10,000 worth of equipment and subscriptions.

Sure with ICE vehicles giving way to EV, the dealership revenue stream will need to shift from expensive mechanical drive line repair/maintenance to expensive software equipment flashing and recalibration. Not every shop can justify an ADAS calibration system to preform simple service or repair work.

When the manufacture requires ADAS calibration as part of a replacement of the cruise control button on the steering wheel, a new headlight bulb, or a windshield replacement for safety and liability issues, the car owners choices are limited.

And the consumer has the choice buy a manufacturer or 3rd-party extended warranty to cover such repairs. Yup, sort of like Mafia extortion for protection, but it's what the market has asked for to up-level its safety and security. Corporations trying to make a profit and boost their stock price. Get a 401K to profit from it...