670
Cyberpunk Rule
(i.imgur.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
670 points (100.0% liked)
196
16368 readers
2561 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Imagine only having one copy of the system so when a situation like this occurs, you lack the ability to automatically switch to a working one, re-download and retry, without danger of this occurring.
This was fixed a decade ago with Android. They could have literally taken the source code from aosp and added it, or at least converted it (if in different programming language), and never had this issue. It would cost $0 and minimal time. But no. That won't ever happen. It's built ford tough.
While the implementation of an A/B update system wouldn't be drag and drop from Android to a different OS, they absolutely could implement the same idea to prevent this issue.
The likely reason as to why is storage space, you need two copies of the system, while only one is running at a time. They probably put as little space into these infotainment systems as possible.
If they put more in new models, they'd then have to support two methods of updating the system. It's easier to tell the customer on the rare occasion that an error does happen "oops we made a fucky wucky it's on you to fix it"
There's no way storage space is the issue. It would cost pennies per car and take up no additional space or power. The size of map/gps data would dwarf the OS by an order of magnitude or more.
You're 100% right. It would be pennies for larger storage. However, that doesn't mean they wouldn't go for a smaller size to save those pennies.
I used to work on a car lot, and a disturbingly large number of cars had an SD card port that would only be used for map data. You had to purchase these cards from a dealer or the manufacturer specifically, and if you wanted map data the SD card had to be inserted. I saw this specifically on some Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Subaru models, though it wouldn't surprise me if Ford uses the same method.
They certainly wouldn't add more storage than they need. But "need" is a relative term. If having a bit more storage means you aren't bricking customer cars requiring expensive service, then you "need" the storage.
It's more likely that the update process itself is a bit more complicated than e.g. updating a phone, and unexpected errors in specific processes make it harder to guarantee the safety of the device. For example if an update fails because one of the devices failed to flash, one may not be able to easily re-flash it and it may indicate a hardware fault.
That's also a valid possibility. Not a big fan of the idea of an ECU or similar getting an OTA, but I guess it's better than doing a recall if there's an issue? Not that my 1990 or 2010 vehicles ever needed something updated in them.
I hate the future of vehicles. I don't believe that the infotainment system should ever be connected to important vehicle functions.
I agree totally. Ideally the car should be fully functional with barely any complex software like most cars before 2010. The only case where a failing software update should be able to brick your car is when it's fixing a low level OS bug that renders the car unsafe to drive without the update.