Teslas are also pieces if shit. Should fort switch to making unreliable, poorly built shitboxes with crappy interior materials and designs? I don't personally think so. Also, how much of Ford's production run was sold versus Tesla's?
IMO a good luxury car doesn't need a bunch of bullshit software either. Making a vehicle that works primarily as a vehicle and lastly as a gadget should really be the focus IMO. But these companies all thought there was easy money to be saved by eliminating buttons and replacing it with touch screens running software. Unfortunately, very few of them compared the reliability of a button with a 10 million cycle rating to software running on an ARM processor on a commodity LCD panel.
Younger consumers that are buying expensive vehicles for the first time also don't realize that luxury doesn't mean sparse plastic interior with a touch screen, but rather the quality of materials and components used in the vehicle. Perhaps that's the industry changing, or perhaps is naive people being ripped off, only time will tell.
It isn't the 1960s anymore and this isn't how people shop for cars. The advice my family has asked is about EVs because I own one. Nothing at all to do with sports car or not.
Tesla got where they are by screwing customers and relying on other companies not taking safety or financial risks that Elon is more than happy to. And if you look, you'll see that Tesla sales have slumped dramatically as real manufacturers started making cars. None of the Tesla models were sports cars until arguably the model 3, which sold because it was half the price of the model s. You don't seem to fully grasp the industry history here.
How are they intertwined? Telegram allows public posts and livestreaming, neither of which they moderate. That's nothing to do with encryption and everything to do with pushing the legal boundaries they knew existed.
I don't think you can say on one hand they are "losing money on every EV" and that they don't want to sell economical cars. But they are still a corporation and will take as much as customers will pay.
I'd argue that Rivian makes a vehicle that operates like a normal vehicle and the "tech" part (infotainment) basically gets out of your way. Not much difference between Ford's vertical screen and Rivian's horizontal one outside the software that runs on it. That's the mark of a good vehicle, IMO. That it's a vehicle, and anything else it can do comes at a distant second place.
GM and Ford, and every other automaker have adopted the infotainment craze. Some have done it better than others, some companies have tried to force it on users while the quality is far below what it should be (Tesla). But you're going to be hard pressed to find a new Ford or GM vehicle that doesn't come standard with a touch screen interface these days.
I suspect the fact that they killed it tells you exactly how many people had been looking forward to it. Nobody. The market for $100k behemoth SUVs is pretty well tapped out, and Ford almost certainly knew they weren't going to actually sell any. I don't know why it's a bad idea to scrap a vehicle that absolutely isn't going to sell in numbers worth manufacturing.
Looked at another way: People with no process control comprehension had difficulty understanding the requirements of safety critical software and are best building mobile apps rather than truly high reliability, critical software.
Just a thought as someone that's worked among Silicon Valley Types for decades.
The problem is almost certainly less about management style and more about development cycle differences. Ford's inability to understand software development strategies, and developers' inability to understand hard requirements and tight scoping.
Not everybody needs a sports car. Maybe we should focus on making sensible vehicles for what people actually need, and less on the ability to drive through a building before the operator knows what went wrong.
Notable performance was seen in the F-150 Lightning, with sales up 77% to 7,902 units, and the Mustang Mach-E, with sales increasing 46.5% to 12,645 units. The E-Transit van also saw a significant rise, with sales surging 95.5% to 3,410 units.
You're coming at this from a perspective that suggests people should have alternatives to cars, or maybe even that people deserve alternatives to cars. And that's fundamentally not how a shocking number of people think. Heaven help you if you suggest things like low cost fares for the poor or even free access to public transit.
Strong disagree, a recall is a notice of defect which broken software qualifies as a defect. Call it a recall, let Tesla twist in the wind with their dogshit software.
For compariso's sake, waymo claimed to be doing 50k rides per day back in July and Uber did 2.12 billion rides in 2023 or just under 40.8 million rides per day. Waymo is still a gadget, they still don't have a general application to solving fully autonomous driving, let alone doing so everywhere.
So this news is either very very late and only meant for sensationalism, or the previous note about 50k rides per day was a complete fabrication based on a one time peak rate. Either way, one of them is nonsense which means neither of them is really meaningful.
Teslas are also pieces if shit. Should fort switch to making unreliable, poorly built shitboxes with crappy interior materials and designs? I don't personally think so. Also, how much of Ford's production run was sold versus Tesla's?