5 ms·

Detroit being the first to market here is possibly one of the worst things that can happen. The last thing that this area of tech needs is Detroit ruining its r

Detroit being the first to market here is possibly one of the worst things that can happen. The last thing that this area of tech needs is Detroit ruining its reputation before it even really kicks off. US auto manufacturers are worse than laggards when it comes to the electronic systems they embed in their vehicles -- things like Ford MyTouch are borderline hostile to the user, and Jeep has definitely demonstrated a dangerous level of malfeasance when it comes to such things. US manufacturers also arguably lag behind when it comes to core automotive technologies as well.

milkytron 11y ago
I'm very skeptical of anyone who develops AVs. Obviously GM, Chrysler, and Ford wouldn't be the best to develop such software. But even Google causes me to get a little scared. After using Google services and products for so long, I've noticed they tend to go with an innovate now, refine later method. Which can be good for some industries that are very light-hearted so to speak, but for cars, this scares me. Maybe Google can pull off a very well designed autonomous driving system, and I don't doubt that they have the talent to do it. But nevertheless, I remain a skeptic.
- sithadmin 11y ago
  I'd also be worried about what kind of support organization Google would through behind an AV platform. Historically, they seem to be pretty bad at this. I've never had a positive experience with Google support, whether it was for an 'Enterprise' product, or for consumer products. In my experience, they've always got amazingly friendly support staff, but their technical knowledge and ability to resolve issues has always been a major shortcoming.
imglorp 11y ago
It's an industry thing; even the Honda nav software I just got loaded on a brand new vehicle is user hostile. It's firmly 2005 tech and not a moment later. Their whole development process is glacial and hardware focused. A ten year feature cycle, between conception and release, seems normal. Tesla using actual software people is going to wipe their floor in this regard.
- dandare 11y ago
  This is one think I don't understand. Dear automakers, it's 2015, please just leave a big hole in the middle of the front panel with USB-C connector and don't force your obsolete technology on me. Any half decent tablet with Android is vastly superior to whatever "computer" you designed into the car in 2007.
  - mdorazio 11y ago
    It's complicated by two factors: 1) The head unit controls far more than maps and entertainment; it's also wired into climate controls, seat positioning, etc. that require direct access to other vehicle hardware. 2) Head units and associated services are a profit center for OEMs. Switching to a "bring your own tablet" model would cost them a fair amount of profit.

milkytron 11y ago

I'm very skeptical of anyone who develops AVs. Obviously GM, Chrysler, and Ford wouldn't be the best to develop such software. But even Google causes me to get a little scared. After using Google services and products for so long, I've noticed they tend to go with an innovate now, refine later method. Which can be good for some industries that are very light-hearted so to speak, but for cars, this scares me. Maybe Google can pull off a very well designed autonomous driving system, and I don't doubt that they have the talent to do it. But nevertheless, I remain a skeptic.

sithadmin 11y ago
I'd also be worried about what kind of support organization Google would through behind an AV platform. Historically, they seem to be pretty bad at this. I've never had a positive experience with Google support, whether it was for an 'Enterprise' product, or for consumer products. In my experience, they've always got amazingly friendly support staff, but their technical knowledge and ability to resolve issues has always been a major shortcoming.

imglorp 11y ago

It's an industry thing; even the Honda nav software I just got loaded on a brand new vehicle is user hostile. It's firmly 2005 tech and not a moment later. Their whole development process is glacial and hardware focused. A ten year feature cycle, between conception and release, seems normal. Tesla using actual software people is going to wipe their floor in this regard.

dandare 11y ago
This is one think I don't understand. Dear automakers, it's 2015, please just leave a big hole in the middle of the front panel with USB-C connector and don't force your obsolete technology on me. Any half decent tablet with Android is vastly superior to whatever "computer" you designed into the car in 2007.
- mdorazio 11y ago
  It's complicated by two factors: 1) The head unit controls far more than maps and entertainment; it's also wired into climate controls, seat positioning, etc. that require direct access to other vehicle hardware. 2) Head units and associated services are a profit center for OEMs. Switching to a "bring your own tablet" model would cost them a fair amount of profit.