4 ms·

If different users want different features, should the product include them all and charge each user for all the features? That also doesn't sound like user-fir

If different users want different features, should the product include them all and charge each user for all the features? That also doesn't sound like user-first development. I've not used AM in a car in decades. I'd guess Ford has looked at their customers and reached this decision based on evidence. So it may be likely that their users prefer spending money on feature X instead of AM.

JohnFen 4y ago
What's wrong with offering an AM radio as an option, though?
- bcrl 4y ago
  It's the exponential SKU proliferation problem. There's good reason why manufacturers like VW bundle most feature choices into a small number of trim tiers.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  If the cost to get them working properly in EV is more costly, then it's not worth it. I suspect Ford doesn't want to throw money away, but to optimize sales and profit. Unlikely they'd do this without some pretty good reasons.
pempem 4y ago
If there's a world in which emergency information is shared with the populous using AM radio, then it should be considered a bare minimum because human beings, buying the cars and selling the cars, require access to this information. Its literally information that can lead to connection + survival as indicated by the comments below and so I'm gonna say MVP worthy until the body we say governs all of us provides a reliable alternative.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  There is a reliable alternative, it's already where such items are broadcast, and more people use it than AM by orders of magnitude. Next you'll tell me we need HAM radio and Morse code.
lr1970 4y ago
Having AM radio is a safety feature not unlike seat-belts. In case of sever weather, thunderstorms, etc cell-phone service can be disrupted and UHF coverage is not great in rural areas. AM radio is the only way to get information in these cases. Not having AM radio by default is like making seat-belts optional.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  Since 1975, seatbelts are credited with saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Try as I might, I can find zero deaths attributed to lacking AM radio in a car. These two things are no where near alike. No one will take this line of argument seriously.
  - lr1970 4y ago
    > Since 1975, seatbelts are credited with saving hundreds of thousands of lives. It is much easier to attribute outcome of a car accident to presence or absence of seat-belts. It is much harder to determine why a certain car ended up in the path of an active hurricane or twister. So yes, comparing seat-belts to AM radios is somewhat of a stretch, indeed. But if you heed FIMA recommendations and warnings they always tell you to have AM radio handy to receive important and potentially life-saving information. You are encouraged to have battery powered AM radio at home. And if you are in the car it is no-brainier to have AM radio, preferably already built-in.
    - SideQuark 4y ago
      >It is much harder to determine why a certain car ended up in the path of an active hurricane or twister Around 100 people in the US die in a twister per year, including those with AM radios, and these are extremely rarely in cars. So quite reasonably there are less than 3 people killed in cars by twisters per year, and likely zero would have been changed by AM radio or not in the car. Around 40k people are killed in cars per year, including some with seatbelts. Around 15k lives are estimated saved by seatbelts per year. So, you're really trying to compare on order of 0 lives saved per year in a car for AM versus 15,000? And then to invoke yet more ridiculous fear you're now throwing in twisters, which adds around, let's see, 0 deaths to the equation? Again, making such outlandish comparisons as if they're at all equivalent will make people ignore your argument. As I now will since you seem hell bent on claiming somehow AM radio is a safety issue yet have twice made honestly innumerate arguemtns for it.

JohnFen 4y ago

What's wrong with offering an AM radio as an option, though?

bcrl 4y ago
It's the exponential SKU proliferation problem. There's good reason why manufacturers like VW bundle most feature choices into a small number of trim tiers.
SideQuark 4y ago
If the cost to get them working properly in EV is more costly, then it's not worth it. I suspect Ford doesn't want to throw money away, but to optimize sales and profit. Unlikely they'd do this without some pretty good reasons.

pempem 4y ago

If there's a world in which emergency information is shared with the populous using AM radio, then it should be considered a bare minimum because human beings, buying the cars and selling the cars, require access to this information. Its literally information that can lead to connection + survival as indicated by the comments below and so I'm gonna say MVP worthy until the body we say governs all of us provides a reliable alternative.

SideQuark 4y ago
There is a reliable alternative, it's already where such items are broadcast, and more people use it than AM by orders of magnitude. Next you'll tell me we need HAM radio and Morse code.

lr1970 4y ago

Having AM radio is a safety feature not unlike seat-belts. In case of sever weather, thunderstorms, etc cell-phone service can be disrupted and UHF coverage is not great in rural areas. AM radio is the only way to get information in these cases. Not having AM radio by default is like making seat-belts optional.

SideQuark 4y ago
Since 1975, seatbelts are credited with saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Try as I might, I can find zero deaths attributed to lacking AM radio in a car. These two things are no where near alike. No one will take this line of argument seriously.
- lr1970 4y ago
  > Since 1975, seatbelts are credited with saving hundreds of thousands of lives. It is much easier to attribute outcome of a car accident to presence or absence of seat-belts. It is much harder to determine why a certain car ended up in the path of an active hurricane or twister. So yes, comparing seat-belts to AM radios is somewhat of a stretch, indeed. But if you heed FIMA recommendations and warnings they always tell you to have AM radio handy to receive important and potentially life-saving information. You are encouraged to have battery powered AM radio at home. And if you are in the car it is no-brainier to have AM radio, preferably already built-in.
  - SideQuark 4y ago
    >It is much harder to determine why a certain car ended up in the path of an active hurricane or twister Around 100 people in the US die in a twister per year, including those with AM radios, and these are extremely rarely in cars. So quite reasonably there are less than 3 people killed in cars by twisters per year, and likely zero would have been changed by AM radio or not in the car. Around 40k people are killed in cars per year, including some with seatbelts. Around 15k lives are estimated saved by seatbelts per year. So, you're really trying to compare on order of 0 lives saved per year in a car for AM versus 15,000? And then to invoke yet more ridiculous fear you're now throwing in twisters, which adds around, let's see, 0 deaths to the equation? Again, making such outlandish comparisons as if they're at all equivalent will make people ignore your argument. As I now will since you seem hell bent on claiming somehow AM radio is a safety issue yet have twice made honestly innumerate arguemtns for it.