3 ms·

and they probably will (in my opinion). The thing is that Ford, or GM, or whoever can buy a mostly competent company and then roll out vehicle after vehicle. Pl

and they probably will (in my opinion). The thing is that Ford, or GM, or whoever can buy a mostly competent company and then roll out vehicle after vehicle. Plus, the automakers understand how to build, design, and fix vehicles. Does Uber? Does Waymo? I think that is why both Google and Apple dropped their actual vehicle building. It's too hard.

thephyber 9y ago
> Ford, or GM, or whoever can buy a mostly competent company and then roll out vehicle after vehicle Those manufacturers have perverse incentives in this game. GM, especially, was a forerunner in "planned obsolescence"[1], which was how they grew by taking advantage of perverse incentives in the early days of car manufacturing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
- ams6110 9y ago
  What are they? Planned obsolescence, in the face of worldwide competition and better than ever reliability data, is no longer a workable strategy.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  > planned obsolescence Sounds like my smartphone.
- ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
  Planned obsolescence is the opposite of a perverse incentive, by definition. A perverse incentive is an incentive that has an unintended and undesirable result which is contrary to the interests of the incentive makers. Planned obsolescence is intended and has a desirable result for the incentive maker. An example of a perverse incentive at GM would be attempting to make a few extra cents per car by squeezing suppliers and cutting corners on internal design decisions, while awarding bonuses for doing so. The end result being GM's use of a cheap ignition switch that ends up costing the company billions
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
> Plus, the automakers understand how to build, design, and fix vehicles. I think this will be less of an advantage going forward as more cars go electric. Electric vehicles are much, much simpler in design and ICE vehicles and easier to maintain and repair (beyond the battery). Silicon Valley does have an advantage in one area, as Tesla owners have seen...rolling out product updates. The only updates that traditional automakers do are safety recalls. This, along with their more closed, less transparent nature, is going to be a huge problem going forward, especially when security vulnerabilities in software are discovered. Automakers have been hostile towards white hats pointing out exploits. Ford still has not implemented a bug bounty program, while Chrylster and GM did so only after multiple media outlets like Vice had white hats publicly showing how to take over vehicles while in operation on the road. Even with these programs, many independent security researchers who discover vulnerabilities,don't disclose them because they don't want a lawsuit. Vulnerabilities can be in software, hardware, and/or services provided largely by suppliers, most of whom don't have vulnerability management processes in place. This complex dependency chain severely limits their ability topatch exploits quickly.

thephyber 9y ago

> Ford, or GM, or whoever can buy a mostly competent company and then roll out vehicle after vehicle Those manufacturers have perverse incentives in this game. GM, especially, was a forerunner in "planned obsolescence"[1], which was how they grew by taking advantage of perverse incentives in the early days of car manufacturing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

ams6110 9y ago
What are they? Planned obsolescence, in the face of worldwide competition and better than ever reliability data, is no longer a workable strategy.
paulddraper 9y ago
> planned obsolescence Sounds like my smartphone.
ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
Planned obsolescence is the opposite of a perverse incentive, by definition. A perverse incentive is an incentive that has an unintended and undesirable result which is contrary to the interests of the incentive makers. Planned obsolescence is intended and has a desirable result for the incentive maker. An example of a perverse incentive at GM would be attempting to make a few extra cents per car by squeezing suppliers and cutting corners on internal design decisions, while awarding bonuses for doing so. The end result being GM's use of a cheap ignition switch that ends up costing the company billions

FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago

> Plus, the automakers understand how to build, design, and fix vehicles. I think this will be less of an advantage going forward as more cars go electric. Electric vehicles are much, much simpler in design and ICE vehicles and easier to maintain and repair (beyond the battery). Silicon Valley does have an advantage in one area, as Tesla owners have seen...rolling out product updates. The only updates that traditional automakers do are safety recalls. This, along with their more closed, less transparent nature, is going to be a huge problem going forward, especially when security vulnerabilities in software are discovered. Automakers have been hostile towards white hats pointing out exploits. Ford still has not implemented a bug bounty program, while Chrylster and GM did so only after multiple media outlets like Vice had white hats publicly showing how to take over vehicles while in operation on the road. Even with these programs, many independent security researchers who discover vulnerabilities,don't disclose them because they don't want a lawsuit. Vulnerabilities can be in software, hardware, and/or services provided largely by suppliers, most of whom don't have vulnerability management processes in place. This complex dependency chain severely limits their ability topatch exploits quickly.