4 ms·

Ford CEO on why it's so difficult for legacy car companies to get software right

24 points by rmason 2y ago

gdjskslsuhkso 2y ago
It's a good time to be an embedded software engineer. Ford will need plenty for this effort, and AI still has a ways to go before it can replace SWEs that touch real hardware.
rmason 2y ago
This is why Ford is on a hiring spree for software developers and why they restored the old train station in Detroit to give them a cool place to work. Farley believes that it is a strategic advantage for the only other car company writing all their own software and that's Tesla.
- nunez 2y ago
  Sure, but if they pay their devs below market and constrain them to traditional corporate tomfoolery (Macs, but locked down; week-long waits to install software; Gantt chart project management; no engineering-driven career tracks; etc), then I doubt they'll go far. This is what GM did when they absorbed Cruise, and people, correctly, left in droves
  - Kon-Peki 2y ago
    Ford has a suite of connected software services for commercial vehicles called Ford Pro. It has been generating billions in profit for years. They know how to develop software.
    - nunez 2y ago
      Perhaps they do for B2B scenarios where competition is thinner and they are fewer options, but their B2C showings (FordPass, myFordMobile before that for EVs, SYNC) is lacking. From this outsider's perspective, part of this is due to having a diverse, international catalog of vehicles; part of this is due to lacking vertical integration; and part of this still is due to software engineering being treated largely as a cost center (though I think this is changing)
      - Kon-Peki 2y ago
        B2C is probably treated as a cost center because it is a cost center. Nobody wants to pay subscription fees for heated seats or navigation or audio or whatever. B2B is pulling in money hand over fist because fleet owners see value in the recurring monthly subscription. Wall Street analysts seem to think that many fleets buy Ford commercial vehicles for their SAAS offerings.
yourself12 2y ago
Absolutely agree with Farley’s take. Legacy automakers are drowning in a sea of fragmented software, making it nearly impossible to innovate quickly. Tesla’s vertically integrated model clearly shows the benefits of having all systems under one roof—faster updates, better integration, and more control. Ford stepping up to insource their electric architecture is a bold move, but it’s exactly what’s needed to stay competitive. It’s a tough transition, but if they pull it off, it could set a new standard in the industry. Here’s to hoping other traditional car companies follow suit and prioritize software like Tesla has!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
SoftTalker 2y ago
> just remember car companies have never written software like this, ever, so we're literally writing how the vehicle operates the software to operate the vehicle for the first time ever. Note to self: avoid Ford for the next decade.
- m-p-3 2y ago
  You mean every legacy car makers out there.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  you should have avoided it all along, along with pretty much every other car - the whole industry (minus Tesla) is exactly the same
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - gibbitz 2y ago
    Yeah, but they can design door handles, turn signals and windshield wipers that work. Tesla may be good at writing software, but their car designs and UI suck.
- SushiHippie 2y ago
  Funfact: There is a German saying: "Ford kaufen, Ford fahren, Ford schmeißen" which translates to "Buy a Ford, drive a Ford (or "drive away"), throw away [a Ford]." As Ford sounds the same as "fort" and "fortfahren" -> "drive away", "fortschmeißen" -> "throw away"
  - chatmasta 2y ago
    The American version of this is “FORD - Fix or Repair Daily.”
    - yial 2y ago
      Also: Found On Road, Dead (I actually like Ford. I have owned a few Mustangs and an F150 which have all been excellent vehicles. (Mechanically, reliability. ) Though I have bought only Infiniti's since 2015 ish.
hindsightbias 2y ago
The best code is no code. Give me manual seat adjustment, rolling window, temp knob and wiper stalk over yer damn rolling iphone.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Hard to comply with ecall, automatic braking, etc with no code.
  - marssaxman 2y ago
    Sounds like a win to me.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
      Not being able to drive on a public road sounds good to you?
- aeonik 2y ago
  But give me headers to connect after market control, or tinker with Arduino control.
wumeow 2y ago
Ford barely even makes cars anymore. All trucks and SUVs besides the Mustang.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Focus? Taurus?
  - quantified 2y ago
    Forgive the parent poster. The Taurus was discontinued in 2018, and the rebadged Mondeo isn't available in the US. A Focus does exist, and won't be sold after 2025. So, pretty insignificant.
dzonga 2y ago
the integrated take tesla takes is the same approach spacex takes and was able to beat competitors. everything in house.
datax2 2y ago
This is so often missed by people in the auto industry, I am glad he is saying something. But this is not just limited to vehicle components within hardware of cars; this also will also often apply to the companies entire tech stack. By this I mean vehicle ordering systems, parts management systems, dealer systems... etc. The auto industry for years has had a "Vendor Solution" problem which has created insurmountable software and hardware tech debt or dependencies. Some manufactures are using systems dating back to the 90's in production. Companies will deploy newer better DB's and never migrate off the old solutions and this leap frog happens multiple times so you have 3 or 4 "Generations" old infra. Most of this is the result of farming out or contracting vendors to build a system, deploy a system, and it just stays. After which all of the knowledge vanishes about how it was built, then business owners want updates and no one know how to, so its farmed out to figure out how to fix it... this cost $$$ and time, there is scope creep, and the cycle repeats. This is starting to change, but Farley's right in describing this is a HUGE problem the public doesn't really see beyond just the vehicle systems. If you are unsure if this is true, this is why the CDK Global hack essentially froze all vehicle sales and dealer pay, CDK is a huge DMS (Dealer Management Systems) provider that dealers pay to do their parts and sales systems. It was profitable to do this in the 90's, 2000's, and 2010's due to globalization and smaller digital foot printing, but that has all changed with IOT, Smarter sensors and controllers, and consumer & CEO expectations of product advancements.
nunez 2y ago
Honestly, I can't believe it took so long for Farley to come out and say it. Lacking in-vehicle software integration due to a "software is a cost center" mindset has been a problem for a long, long time and Tesla, correctly, spent a lot of money and effort owning as much of the stack as possible to avoid these problems.
- maxerickson 2y ago
  Most components on a vehicle have a reasonably constrained set of functions. You don't need to be writing the firmware for the seat to have the vehicle controller adjusting the position to each driver. You need good support for controlling the seat in the vehicle controller of course, but you don't need to be writing the firmware on both sides to get that (and that is clearly what he is talking about).
figassis 2y ago
I think the winner here is whoever builds “Android for cars”. An vehicle OS that car makers can safely adopt and that exposes an api and module/app system to change or replace functionality.

24 points by rmason 2y ago

It's a good time to be an embedded software engineer. Ford will need plenty for this effort, and AI still has a ways to go before it can replace SWEs that touch real hardware.

rmason 2y ago

This is why Ford is on a hiring spree for software developers and why they restored the old train station in Detroit to give them a cool place to work. Farley believes that it is a strategic advantage for the only other car company writing all their own software and that's Tesla.

nunez 2y ago
Sure, but if they pay their devs below market and constrain them to traditional corporate tomfoolery (Macs, but locked down; week-long waits to install software; Gantt chart project management; no engineering-driven career tracks; etc), then I doubt they'll go far. This is what GM did when they absorbed Cruise, and people, correctly, left in droves
- Kon-Peki 2y ago
  Ford has a suite of connected software services for commercial vehicles called Ford Pro. It has been generating billions in profit for years. They know how to develop software.
  - nunez 2y ago
    Perhaps they do for B2B scenarios where competition is thinner and they are fewer options, but their B2C showings (FordPass, myFordMobile before that for EVs, SYNC) is lacking. From this outsider's perspective, part of this is due to having a diverse, international catalog of vehicles; part of this is due to lacking vertical integration; and part of this still is due to software engineering being treated largely as a cost center (though I think this is changing)
    - Kon-Peki 2y ago
      B2C is probably treated as a cost center because it is a cost center. Nobody wants to pay subscription fees for heated seats or navigation or audio or whatever. B2B is pulling in money hand over fist because fleet owners see value in the recurring monthly subscription. Wall Street analysts seem to think that many fleets buy Ford commercial vehicles for their SAAS offerings.

yourself12 2y ago

Absolutely agree with Farley’s take. Legacy automakers are drowning in a sea of fragmented software, making it nearly impossible to innovate quickly. Tesla’s vertically integrated model clearly shows the benefits of having all systems under one roof—faster updates, better integration, and more control. Ford stepping up to insource their electric architecture is a bold move, but it’s exactly what’s needed to stay competitive. It’s a tough transition, but if they pull it off, it could set a new standard in the industry. Here’s to hoping other traditional car companies follow suit and prioritize software like Tesla has!

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

SoftTalker 2y ago

> just remember car companies have never written software like this, ever, so we're literally writing how the vehicle operates the software to operate the vehicle for the first time ever. Note to self: avoid Ford for the next decade.

m-p-3 2y ago
You mean every legacy car makers out there.
bdangubic 2y ago
you should have avoided it all along, along with pretty much every other car - the whole industry (minus Tesla) is exactly the same
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- gibbitz 2y ago
  Yeah, but they can design door handles, turn signals and windshield wipers that work. Tesla may be good at writing software, but their car designs and UI suck.
SushiHippie 2y ago
Funfact: There is a German saying: "Ford kaufen, Ford fahren, Ford schmeißen" which translates to "Buy a Ford, drive a Ford (or "drive away"), throw away [a Ford]." As Ford sounds the same as "fort" and "fortfahren" -> "drive away", "fortschmeißen" -> "throw away"
- chatmasta 2y ago
  The American version of this is “FORD - Fix or Repair Daily.”
  - yial 2y ago
    Also: Found On Road, Dead (I actually like Ford. I have owned a few Mustangs and an F150 which have all been excellent vehicles. (Mechanically, reliability. ) Though I have bought only Infiniti's since 2015 ish.

hindsightbias 2y ago

The best code is no code. Give me manual seat adjustment, rolling window, temp knob and wiper stalk over yer damn rolling iphone.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Hard to comply with ecall, automatic braking, etc with no code.
- marssaxman 2y ago
  Sounds like a win to me.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Not being able to drive on a public road sounds good to you?
aeonik 2y ago
But give me headers to connect after market control, or tinker with Arduino control.

wumeow 2y ago

Ford barely even makes cars anymore. All trucks and SUVs besides the Mustang.

ethbr1 2y ago
Focus? Taurus?
- quantified 2y ago
  Forgive the parent poster. The Taurus was discontinued in 2018, and the rebadged Mondeo isn't available in the US. A Focus does exist, and won't be sold after 2025. So, pretty insignificant.

dzonga 2y ago

the integrated take tesla takes is the same approach spacex takes and was able to beat competitors. everything in house.

datax2 2y ago

This is so often missed by people in the auto industry, I am glad he is saying something. But this is not just limited to vehicle components within hardware of cars; this also will also often apply to the companies entire tech stack. By this I mean vehicle ordering systems, parts management systems, dealer systems... etc. The auto industry for years has had a "Vendor Solution" problem which has created insurmountable software and hardware tech debt or dependencies. Some manufactures are using systems dating back to the 90's in production. Companies will deploy newer better DB's and never migrate off the old solutions and this leap frog happens multiple times so you have 3 or 4 "Generations" old infra. Most of this is the result of farming out or contracting vendors to build a system, deploy a system, and it just stays. After which all of the knowledge vanishes about how it was built, then business owners want updates and no one know how to, so its farmed out to figure out how to fix it... this cost $$$ and time, there is scope creep, and the cycle repeats. This is starting to change, but Farley's right in describing this is a HUGE problem the public doesn't really see beyond just the vehicle systems. If you are unsure if this is true, this is why the CDK Global hack essentially froze all vehicle sales and dealer pay, CDK is a huge DMS (Dealer Management Systems) provider that dealers pay to do their parts and sales systems. It was profitable to do this in the 90's, 2000's, and 2010's due to globalization and smaller digital foot printing, but that has all changed with IOT, Smarter sensors and controllers, and consumer & CEO expectations of product advancements.

nunez 2y ago

Honestly, I can't believe it took so long for Farley to come out and say it. Lacking in-vehicle software integration due to a "software is a cost center" mindset has been a problem for a long, long time and Tesla, correctly, spent a lot of money and effort owning as much of the stack as possible to avoid these problems.

maxerickson 2y ago
Most components on a vehicle have a reasonably constrained set of functions. You don't need to be writing the firmware for the seat to have the vehicle controller adjusting the position to each driver. You need good support for controlling the seat in the vehicle controller of course, but you don't need to be writing the firmware on both sides to get that (and that is clearly what he is talking about).

figassis 2y ago

I think the winner here is whoever builds “Android for cars”. An vehicle OS that car makers can safely adopt and that exposes an api and module/app system to change or replace functionality.