The 2022 Chevy Silverado I rented died at 488 miles on the odometer. The roadside assistance mechanic said the transmission "lost data connection to the engine". Later, a tow truck had to drag it onto it's flatbed as the rear wheels were locked up.
Also, apparently the tailgate is electric now. And for some reason it stopped working when the transmission died. Also also, there is no way to turn the truck off? When it entered the error-state, the dash stayed on and the cabin motor stayed blowing, but the "Start" button wouldn't turn anything off.
I know I'm an odd case, my newest car is from 1997... but I am gobsmacked at just how terrible modern vehicles are. I know customers are dumb and are easily impressed by cheap gadgetry, but why did we have to throw the baby out with the bath water?
So when I hear that GM is going to build their own CarPlay or whatever I can't help but laugh. They can't even build a good fleet pickup truck.
> but I am gobsmacked at just how terrible modern vehicles are
CarPlay, adaptive cruise control, lane assist, automatic lights (brights, on/off, turning), cameras, remote start from my phone, and lots of other things are awesome modern additions to cars that I wouldn't want to go without anymore.
We are simply speaking different languages because we value different things based on what we want from a vehicle.
My perspective is one from someone that does their own car maintenance/repair and has only owned used cars. When I look at a new car or truck today, I'm looking at components that are most affected by entropy. Of the features you listed, how many are likely to still work in 2033? 2043? Will any of them create a no-start condition or poor running condition if they fail? Is there a way to bypass the automatic lights with a manual switch if some part of the automatic light system becomes unobtainable at any price? Having any part of the engine ignition process connected to a DRM'ed internet connected remote start system seems insane to me, considering how many cars have problems with non-internet connected remote start systems.
I fully admit that my perspective is the minority, and it's rare to have someone agree with me on HN. However, I do find many comrades at the junkyards.
> I'm looking at components that are most affected by entropy
This! I have difficulty understanding why more people don't view products from this angle, as this is the thinking that dominates my thoughts when considering any purchase.
Everything is going to break, that's physical reality. So how easy (cost & availability) will it be to fix? What are the consequences of things breaking? Is it just that one feature that becomes disabled until fixed, or does it take down other systems or the entire product?
> Most people probably sell their cars after 5 (8) years or so.
But these are stats from new car buyers. But of course they are selling to someone else, and so on. The always-new car buyer won't experience these problems, but these are the people rich enough to be buying new cars every handful of years. The car will live on for many decades in the second-hand market and still needs to be repaired.
> Cars that live 20+ years are probably a minority.
That seems vastly unlikely? But I don't have stats one way or the other.
My newest car is 19 years old and it's like new for all purposes. My other cars currently are 30 and 35 years old and aside from paint faiding they are as good as new. With reasonable maintenance, cars will last for many many decades.
You are by far the exception, especially since being on HN, you're most likely to be middle class or higher.
Poor people have cars that old, usually, there's a reason they're called "beaters".
People in general try not to have cars older than around 7 years if they can, that's the "public wisdom" regarding when cars start having bigger maintenance problems.
I have a friend who has been a Automotive Engineer for 20 years and we have this conversation all the time. If I were to distill all our conversations down to one take away it would be this: There was a paradigm shift sometime shortly after the Great Recession. Before then, vehicles operated and degraded in expected and manageable ways.
I'm in the vintage camp at the moment. I just replaced the Chrysler ignition system that was in my old 80s Volvo for a Bosch one that came in a later model. That and replacing the timing belt took all of one weekend and $500 (I splurged on some new parts that I didn't technically need to). The next week I drove it cross country and had a blast, somehow having the time of my life despite not having the last 35 years of features that many people can't live without.
Is there a sweet spot between parts commonality/compatibility and proper reliability engineering? I get the feeling that cars before the 90s had parts commonality but reliability was more of an afterthought.
The 80s were a weird decade. GM didn't want to give up vacuum lines, Ford had electronic fuel injection and little else, and Chrysler had those K-Cars that broke a lot, but they were at least cheap to fix.
Toyotas, Hondas and Volvos of that era lasted a long time, and it would have been simple to predict had you bothered to look. Simplicity + Robustness = Longevity. Because of that equation, the domestic long running vehicles are all pickup trucks.
The last era where we had any semblance of simplicity and reliability was probably the 2000s right up to the recession. Those cars and trucks were just the perfected versions of their 90s version. (Except Chrysler, it's best to avoid all era of Chrysler and I say this as former K-Car and Ram owner.)
Post recession we added turbos to everything. Then came CVTs and variable timing and a slew of new engines. And then came the slow and steady computerization and electric motor actuators for everything. The length of wiring harnesses exploded. Why does my car seat now weigh 300 pounds and have 1200 position settings and climate control, etc. etc.
Simplicity + Robustness = Longevity is true for any era.
Those late 80s and 90s Cherokees lasted a long time, I still see them around town. Most of the survivors have that great inline 6 that was a carryover from the AMC days.
Lane assist done poorly IS dangerous. Case in point: my 2016 Civic. On the highways around here, they will add pullover lanes on the right hand side so that through traffic doesn't have to slow down if someone ahead is slowing down to turn right. Great. But my car just sees the road as getting wider so it steers RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE between the two lanes. I just keep this potentially deadly feature turned off.
And let's talk about the car's adaptive cruise control. It is wonderful. When it works. My drive to work starts with a long featureless country gravel road that is straight as an arrow north / south. Every now and then, I'll be driving along and after 10 km the car will figure "Not much going on here. The radar must have failed. As a safety precaution, I'm just going to beep at the driver and turn off ACC with no error message of any kind that would trouble the driver". Well no problem, I'll just press the button to turn it on again. But how presumptuous of me: the car is smarter than I am because it just beeps and turns it immediately off again. The only way to get ACC back on again is come to a full stop, turn the ignition off and back on again. My dealer was mystified so they phoned the factory. Also mystified. I've taken the car to get it looked at more times than I care to think of and just gave up.
I shudder at a future filled with autonomous vehicles filled with strange bugs like these.
>Lane assist done poorly (seen on my latest Toyota Corolla rental) is distracting and made me want to turn it off.
TSS is actually pretty good once you get comfortable using it. But this is the Toyota philosophy on ADAS systems in general. They are not going all in on FSD like the other manufacturers because it simply isn't ready yet. And so their lane assist is designed to be a safety catch for innattentive drivers, not an automated system.
Indeed. Some cars feel dangerous with lane assist when there's significant noise from repaving,sealing, etc to confuse the car and it's trying to correct nothing.
That said, I still enjoy most of the modern computer conveniences that cars have. Remote start is great, cameras are great, so I'm sure more and more good/safe designs will come with time.
I don't have any of these on my 2013 vehicles, and the only one I truly miss is CarPlay.
I've been in nice cars with these features, and I'm happy I don't have most of these. Adaptive cruise control brakes are too late and hard for me to trust, lane assist is nice on straights but is annoying when it bounces between the sides of the lane, and automatic high-beams are infuriating with the constant on & off.
I was able to add android auto/carplay to my old car by installing an aftermarket pioneer head unit with this functionality. The nice thing about older cars is that such replacement is possible and relatively easy.
> The nice thing about older cars is that such replacement is possible and relatively easy.
Unless the 2013 vehicle is a Subaru Outback with factory navigation. Then it might be possible with some fabrication skills and equipment, but it's definitely not going to be easy.
After just moving from a 2009 to a 2023 vehicle (both Ford), I agree. I’m overall happy
with the tech improvements, despite the occasional bond-headed software implementation.
I say this as someone who used to be a “stick-driving don’t put a computer if it’s not required” card carrying member. Maybe I’m just getting soft.
It's even beyond the UI and how the components work with each other (the example of the transmission dying killing everything). Some of the vehicles will shut down entirely, some will cut out into limp mode, etc.
> I know customers are dumb and are easily impressed by cheap gadgetry, but why did we have to throw the baby out with the bath water?
I don't think it's about gadgetry. I think there are a few other things going on. None are really pro-consumer, in my opinion.
- Software can be updated. Overhauling mechanical parts is way harder. This lets the manufacturer go a little quicker with development - you can "fix it in post."
- Software can be easier to reuse across models of vehicles (in theory). "We'll figure out software-based tailgates just once, and can use it everywhere."
- Software can be controlled remotely. For example, Ford filed a patent to disable cars remotely if the owner misses a payment [0].
- Software can help build a monopoly on maintenance. Electronically controlled stuff is way harder (even impossible) to diagnose if you don't have maintenance software and computers to interface with the car. So the manufacturer can control more of the maintenance chain.
One other reason I've discovered, is regulatory. The amount of mandatory "features" required nowadays by government regulation is incredible, and the only economical way to meet many of those is with software implementations. The big automakers certainly aren't complaining because it justifies higher price tags and has a major stifling effect on upstarts and other competition, and they've got the machinery (literal and figurative) to navigate the requirements. Hell they write a lot of them.
I've been commenting on this for a while, the current cars are extremely fragile electrically given how everything is interconnected. I had a tail light go out in a BMW, a repair that should cost maybe $1 for a new bulb or in the worst case a few more dollars in new wire. On the BMW? A $1000+ proprietary control module plus access to multi-tens-of-thousands dollars of BMW factory diagnostic equipment to "pair" the new bulb with the new controller. This is all insane if viewed objectively.
The worst part is not the cost, although that stings. A few decades down the road, where is this proprietary bulb control module going to come from? It won't be available from anywhere at any cost.
I get that it's cool to see a new car with all the gadgetry but we should really be thinking longer term here. The lifetime of a car is many decades. The lifetime of electronic gadgetry is a few years, maybe a decade tops. It is perfectly reasonable to daily drive a car from the 80s, but imagine continuing to doing real work on a computer from the 80s today? The lifetimes of cars and electronics are too vastly different, they need to be decoupled.
I confidently predict that a century from now there will still be collectors driving classic cars from the 90s and before, but there will be nearly no cars from the 2020s that remain operational.
I'm sure car manufacturers aren't too unhappy to create a world where everyone throws away their car as often as they throw away their phone, but let's consider the enviromental disaster of this waste.
People also fail to realize that often dealers are the only source that can even replace these components. Bob's Tire on main is likely not going to be able to troubleshoot nor replace stuff like this when these components start to fail regularly out of warranty in the coming years.
This is a great question and I actually go back and forth on it myself. I do tend to be harsher to consumers, because that's who I'm around. My friends who work directly at the auto makers or their suppliers like to blame "MBA's". But find me an engineer that doesn't blame it all on MBAs.
> I am gobsmacked at just how terrible modern vehicles are.
Okay, but in fairness to modern cars as a whole, how long has it been since Chevrolet was considered a high-quality brand by the market? Forty-five years?
This brings to mind the CANBUS hack article on HN a few weeks ago...horrifying but fascinating to think you can steal a car by attacking it's IoT headlight..
Is that an issue with modern cars, or GM's quality? Overall, American cars have been seen as low quality for decades.
I've had several Toyotas, Hondas, and now a Kia. I know I'm just a dumb guy but they all had "cheap gadgetry". However, what they didn't have was any of the issues you describe.
"but I am gobsmacked at just how terrible modern vehicles are"
I have a F250 platinum with many similar features, including an electrically operated tailgate and I've had exactly zero issues in 50k miles. Obligatory knock on wood.
Worth pointing out that GM actually failed as a business and only survived the 2008 recession because the government briefly nationalized it as part of an economic bailout. In a free market GM wouldn’t exist.
It's a moot point. In a free market, Tesla wouldn't exist either and neither would some of the biggest financial institutions, or the interstate highway system.
Somehow BYD is the product of free market in a way that GM isn’t? I think that’s a ridiculous characterization for any Chinese company operating at scale.
This sort of thing is not limited to Chevy/GM. The new 2023 BMW i7 (starting price ~$120K, fully loaded ~$160K) comes with options for a massive fold-down widescreen cinema in the back seat, and the back seat can turn into a recliner for the ultimate movie experience (I am paraphrasing)[1][2]. My daughter looked at a couple of reviews and said something along the lines of "it's like they thought of every amazing thing they could put in a car, and then went and did all of them". And indeed, the video reviews look very impressive. Then I saw the one from Car Guide[3] in which he mentions that not only when the cinema screen is down in the back, the driver can't see out of the rear view mirror (obvious when you think about it), but also when the back seat is in recliner mode, it folds the front passenger seat forward, and then the passenger headrest completely obscures the passenger wing mirror, so that the driver then has no idea what's going on around the car.
It's clear how superficially impressive the car is looking at the video and from my daughter's reaction (she's a teenager, but I don't think being impressed by this stuff is limited to teenagers, and I confess to a "wow!" moment myself when watching the same video). But the car is failing at its basic functionality: being a car that's safe to drive. Like BMW or not, I don't think this sort of stuff would have happened in the past. It feels like they have lost their way.
From my own perspective, I really dislike the touch-sensitive user interfaces in new cars. Anything that distracts me from looking at the road is bad, and there is really no tactile element to these interfaces (when I rented a Jeep recently, I found myself having to examine the touchscreen when stopped at red lights to learn where the various controls were - granted this can happen in any car, where you have to learn where things are, but at least there aren't usually multiple nested levels of menus - but still having to at least glance at the screen to see where to put my finger, whereas in older cars once you learn where things are you can locate controls by touch and activate them without having to take your eyes off the road).
I’d say they kept it together a little longer. My 2006 e46 still had most of that BMW DNA from my friends’ e36 & e30s… Even my 2010 e83 is essentially a lifted e46 (with a really bad suspension tune). IMHO it was really the f chassis where they told their enthusiast fans to fuck off so they could sell to suburban women instead
Infotainment has been commoditized by way of Android Automotive and Carplay.
The perception that there is a subscription revenue opportunity for intotainment is misguided - the TAM is insignificant, and the net loss of prospective Customers that refuse to buy a vehicle without Android Auto or or Carplay far outweighs any potential subscription revenue.
This will go over about as well as Cadillac Cue did from 2013-2017.
Source - I work in the automotive industry, live in the Detroit suburbs, and live and breathe this stuff every day.
Yup. All buyers who care about having a good infotainment setup will avoid GM, leaving them with only buyers that don't care about it as much. Are these the buyers they think will then pony up $30 a month for their store-brand version?
OnStar is dead, guys. It's not coming back. Don't destroy your actual business (cars) by trying to cosplay as a "tech company SaaS vertical"
Having used proprietary infotainment systems in the past and currently using carplay, for me it would 100% be a complete deal-breaker. (Unless of course I'm buying a car that predates the technology)
It wouldn’t be a dealbreaker for me if I was buying a low cost used car, although at this point it has been around for long enough that even the beater Camry rental I’m driving right now has it.
But if I’m paying big bucks for a new car I can’t imagine not having CarPlay. Ironically it’s the expensive “high-tech” brands like Tesla and Rivian that don’t support it.
My Tesla driving friend let his Tesla subscription lapse over a card failure last week, and the infotainment system, that has Spotify -- with an account he pays for -- no longer functions.
But like, if he paired his bluetooth, he'd get Spotify playback capability, he'd just have to use his voice to explore Spotify music.
Meanwhile, me in my 2004; with an aftermarket radio - with wireless tethering to my phone OR a google Fi sim, can do Carplay OR independently run maps and spotify -- for $0 extra a month.
According to the email I got from Tesla about an upcoming end of free Premium Connectivity, Music Streaming still works when tethered to a smartphone.
The main drawback of letting the subscription lapse is loss of live traffic data on the map. The other lost feature is satellite view maps. Everything else works when tethered via wifi.
They have this misguided perception that EVs require some deep level integration via some customized build of AAOS, that can't already be solved by individual apps on a smartphone.
Namely - customizing charging times at home for off-peak rates / usage, identifying chargers on a specific route or daily commute, pre-warming or pre-cooling a car (which can be done already today because all these vehicles have LTE or 5G modems already), saving profiles that save mechanical preferences / functions like mirror / seat settings.
People want buttons and knobs to control mechanical functions like HVAC, mirrors, and seats. People don't see the value associated with the premium price of having an driver to passenger end to end full screen display, such as what was first implemented on the Mercedes EQS and is now being implemented on the (Chinese made) 2024 Lincoln Nautilus.
I downsized vehicles from a new one with Carplay to one with no touch screen and once your hands+fingers learn locations of buttons it is blissful to drive.
I can adjust nearly anything without taking my eyes off the road. I miss Carplay for the maps functionality but a properly placed phone holder can accomplish the same. I don't need 14" display of maps and entertainment options.
I would also suggest that EV's that require a large screen to explain charging options, rates, usages, etc. are doing it wrong. If the EV and its charging systems (internal and external) are that complex to monitor and manage then you have larger problems about UX.
a fully integrated OS is a better experience, if done right. unfortunately, the trend here is towards monetization (enshittification?) of everything in the UX: monthly data plan, onstar, required GM login for any smart features to work, mandatory mobile app installation.
Quick poll: who here doesn't want infotainment software in their car? How about keeping cars limited to 1990s level logic: basic ICs, fuel / emissions / safety control (abs, airbags).
Something like 1990s Mazda with a japanese-size pickup, miata & basic sedan / hatchback.
But there is information I want, and there is entertainment I want.
I want my readily replaceable phone to be able to connect to a screen that's safe for a driver to view, to display GPS information.
I want my readily replaceable phone to be able to play music through the car's speakers, and allow me access to basic sound playback controls.
Beyond that, I don't care. So do I want no infotainment? No, I can't say that. But this was a solved problem, that is now going to go backwards or get worse depending on the people making decisions for these corporations.
I don't want to go back to pre-Tesla cruise control. Not the FSD but the basic cruise control they offer that can stop in traffic, keep in the lane and automatically start moving once the car ahead moves.
> who here doesn't want infotainment software in their car?
I definitely do not want the car to embed any infotainment. It's the wrong place for it.
Any infotainment built into the car is going to be obsolete before you drive out the dealer lot, and laughably so ten years later. But the lifetime of the car itself is many decades. It makes zero sense to join the two.
The car should excel and being a car and I will use a phone or tablet for the infotainment part (which I do anyway, even if the car has some).
Keep the fancy airbags and traction control, adaptive cruise control etc.
Just throw out the garbage custom navigation and radio. It never works well. The display should be simply used for carplay/android auto, and be a black rectangle otherwise.
Maybe sell an addon package to just shove a preconfigured phone into the glove box for people who don't want to tether their device.
The cost of a cars has risen lower than the rate of inflation for nearly the past 90 years, and for much of the time period when cars were getting computerized (since the late 90s) average new car prices dropped rather than went up. All the while cars were getting safer (seat belts, airbags, crumple zones) and far more reliable.
The most recent price spike is a direct result of the pandemic supply chain issues and car makers shutting down manufacturing capacity in anticipation of a consumer collapse that didn't happen (instead the opposite happened).
I was thinking of a 1970 Dodge Dart, which last I checked was $21,000 in 2021 dollars; compared to the price of an average new car today ~42K.
That today's average car might have more features is true; but for many of these features, you're not allowed to forego them in favor of a new, decontented, cheaper car.
> I was thinking of a 1970 Dodge Dart, which last I checked was $21,000 in 2021 dollars; compared to the price of an average new car today ~42K.
That's an invalid comparison, because 42k is the average new car transaction price (ATP), not the average MSRP, which is what your 1970 Dodge Dart is: an MSRP.
The ATP is heavily weighted toward the fact that most new cars purchased are larger SUVs and higher end cars, and also lately influenced by heavy dealer markups due to the pandemic supply/demand imbalance for cars in general.
That doesn't mean more economical cars the equivalent of the 1970 Dart aren't available today, and they are even cheaper than the Dart, i.e. the 2023 Nissan Versa at $17k. There are several other similarly cheap cars, just search "cheapest new cars 2023".
> I was thinking of a 1970 Dodge Dart, which last I checked was $21,000 in 2021 dollars; compared to the price of an average new car today ~42K.
A more relevant comparison would be the $3452 average new car price in 1970 against today, which is $27,704 in today's dollars.
> That today's average car might have more features is true; but for many of these features, you're not allowed to forego them in favor of a new, decontented, cheaper car.
But you can get a car cheaper than the average new cars. In fact, “cars” proper are often less than the inflation adjusted amount from 1970; much of the reason the average new “car” price is higher is because it is more likely now to be an medium to large SUV than a car (sedan/coupe).
Plenty of gas-powered sedans/coupes and small SUVs are less than $27.7K.
I could also admit that in 1970, there were even cheaper cars than a Dodge Dart, but I'm excluding them b/c at the time, they were still a sort of novelty...the Dart, being "compact" only with respect to American cars of the period, is sufficiently large such that it doesn't register as a different category.
As for modern small SUVs...you're still not going to get much change back from your $27K for a VW Taos, or Mazda CX-30, or Hyundai Santa Fe...how small are you willing to go for cheap?
> I could also admit that in 1970, there were even cheaper cars than a Dodge Dart, but I'm excluding them b/c at the time, they were still a sort of novelty..
The cheapest car I can find from 1972 was $2131 or $15k in today's dollars [1]. That's pretty close to the cheapest car today, the Nissan Versa at $16K.
There was no time when cars were significantly cheaper (inflation adjusted) than they are today.
The Model T would have cost $27000 in today's dollars. And in almost every other year in car history, cars have on average been more expensive than that [2].
> I should have qualified what I said-a car the size of a Dodge Dart in 1970 is now twice as expensive.
I don't understand what information you using to draw that conclusion.
A 2023 Nissan Sentra ($20k) dimensions:
183″ L x 72″ W x 57″ H.
The 1970 Dart ($21k in today's dollars) dimensions:
196" L x 72" W x 54" H.
And a good chunk of that extra length is the huge engine in the Dart and the resulting long hood, so it actually probably had equivalent or less passenger space.
The Nissan also has the full raft of safety/convenience features that you said should make it more expensive than the 1970 Dart: ABS, airbags, TPMS, AndroidAuto/Carplay, cruise control, collision detection, auto-braking for pedestrians, driver alertness monitoring, lane departure warning, etc etc etc. Yet it's still cheaper in real dollars than the Dart was.
Hm. My memory must be going; I remember the Dart being much larger. And you're right; I'm certain that modern FWD compacts probably do use interior room better.
The Dart certainly looks more hefty than modern cars from a design perspective. And I'll also readily admit that the cars that most people want - big cars - have gotten very pricey, especially since the pandemic.
>A base price 1995 Ford Contour was $13805–$16190 [1]. ABS was an upgrade option on that car.
True; and interesting that the Contour struggled in the market due to it being noticeably more expensive than the model it replaced! The thought was that being a much better car (to the tune of $6 billion in development costs), Ford could sell it on its merits, but as it turns out, buyers of small cars in the US are really, really price-sensitive.
> as it turns out, buyers of small cars in the US are really, really price-sensitive.
Unless it has a particular popular feature people (at least some segment of the population) are willing to buy for (hybrids, when they were newer, for instance), yes, because Americans mostly don’t want small cars, they settle for small cars if the price is compelling.
some are good e.g. ABS, ESP, airbags. Some are mixed like backup cameras (low res, poor field of view). Some are distractions like all the climate stuff, gps, complex radio, apps.
You could save all the great stuff and still operate the car with no software, simple firmware, and 2002-era ICs
This is utter bullshit, as a cloud Apple employee.
Mike was an excellent leader in iCloud, championed a whole bunch of new tech, and took a failing business and made it massively profitable. I don't think anyone in Eddy's org was happy to see him go.
No, it is not bullshit. And no, he certainly was not excellent. Perhaps he managed to take credit for a few "good" things, but it's interesting to watch you defend someone who was ~so~ widely hated.
I could give you a list of 40 tenured engineers and leaders in Eddy's org [along with at least 20 in adjacent orgs] who physically celebrated his departure.
I was an engineering manager in Mike's org. I liked him on a personal level but he was thrown a lot of legacy services from other orgs. Cloud services is just not Apple's forte. The internal tools/infra feels 10 years behind Google (based on friends who've worked at both). I too heard that he was pushed out.
Definitely more than 10 years behind Google and probably going to stay shit for foreseeable future based on their hiring patterns and pay.
Apple routinely claims they can underpay new hires compared to Google and Facebook and they have to accept it because "it is a privilege to work at Apple." Probably you can hire a bunch of cultists with that message to work closer to iPhone and UI but I doubt the hardcore infrastructure folks particularly count "working as Apple" as a special privilege compared to Google and Facebook.
I'd prefer working at Apple to F/G because at least Apple pretend to care about user's privacy, and their business model isn't inherently opposed to it.
I'm an android/PC user by choice, so working on the iWidgets doesn't hold much appeal for me.
This is not a question that warrants much abstract analysis. Only relevant if you have simultaneous offers or work at one of the companies and get an offer at the other and are faced with the concrete numbers and a choice.
Me personally wouldn’t prefer working at a place with sucky tooling (build systems, code review, testing) and comparatively inferior average infrastructure engineering while taking a lower pay simply because the company is great at building iPhones. Sure I commend their attitude towards privacy and I am a happy customer.
I spent a year in Apple Cloud Infrastructure (ACI) during the pandemic. From my perspective, Mike didn't invest in the infrastructure in the ways that he probably should have. I am aware of at least one very senior manager in the org who escalated on Mike for that reason.
Sure hope iCloud is “massively profitable”, they’ve been spamming me non-stop with their messages both on my phone and on my laptop ever since my cloud hardware disk space there (which I had never asked for in the first place) got “full” or such some time ago.
Otherwise great hardware products, both the Apple phone and the Apple laptop.
> Otherwise great hardware products, both the Apple phone and the Apple laptop.
as a person who (prior to the framework laptop) would like to buy macbooks and put linux on them (love apple hardware, hate their software and philosophical approach to things) I used to say this a lot, but I'm stopping.
As has become clear to me through conversation, there is no hardware without software in Apple's approach/opinion. It's not really a computer, it's more of an appliance. You don't buy a toaster and be unhappy that you can't put Linux on it. As engineers we like to separate software and hardware, but that's just not how Apple works. You can't just buy in to the hardware, because the hardware and the software are a complete unit. In other words, we've been looking at things the wrong way and once you view it correctly Apple's approach starts to make a lot of sense. If you don't agree with this view, then (as I've been told many times) you're not the target market.
Hey /u/paganel your 256gb iphone is out of storage due to your 20gb of photos! This is because we defaulted all your photos to icloud to achieve this result. Would you like to pay us $60/yr to remove this static notification from your settings page? You can also pay us $120/yr if you want.
Well for other users they might wonder WHY their data is no longer being backed up. Hell they may not even know they hit capacity until the alert.
Should users be able to dismiss the alert? Yes. Should the alert pop back up at a later time to remind the user that their data is still not being backed up? Yes.
Throwaway, It was chaotic, plenty of technical and leadership missteps. But at the core, he was incapable of confronting deeper issues. The proficiency of Apple does not lie in cloud or infrastructure. It's a simple truth.
You can certainly argue that Apple isn't good at cloud or infra in the same way Google and Amazon are (which would still be a weird argument), but it seems undeniable that cloud and cloud infra is a fundamental part of their product offering. Things like universal sync, iCloud, email, etc are important parts of the value prop for Apple devices.
From a user perspective, Apple had a rough time with "cloud" for a long time (iTools, .Mac, MobileMe) and the recent era of iCloud feels like they've finally gotten their cloud services in a good direction. It does what I need it to.
Compensation and title are basically everything once you leave the IC role. Trampolining through GM is just fine if you want to land at some other mega company after.
IMHO, most tech ICs have literally no idea what comp packages look like when you get out of the bottom and middle. Sure, they know that Pichai is making $220M a year but they recognize that's unusual. Making $10M+ a year, though, isn't that unusual in these big companies once you are an SVP or EVP plus lots of deferred comp perks and so on.
Strategically, you work at tier one companies in order to _facilitate_ these career moves. The FANG/etc.-focused crowd needs to ask themselves what their terminal goals are.
I'm a newgrad, would you mind giving me a rough overview estimate of a full career's comp growth (excluding outliers like HFT)?
What I'm seeing in my cohort is newgrad offers ranging from $100k-$300k/year (FB rockstar return intern offer), with an expected promotion/jobhop to mid level dev in 2 years and then senior in another 2-3 (assuming you do well). What happens after that?
My suggestion to you would be to focus on your long term strategic goals. Job hopping optimizes near term but will leave you without a solid network of allies and no big base of trusted lieutenants to draw from when you are trying to build a team.
That last one matters a lot when you find yourself at 40 and needing to staff your startup with people you trust that you know are good because you've worked long enough with them to know their work ethic and that they can do the job and will stick it out all the way to shipping v2.
Your career is more than comp.
North of a million a year TC is possible in most large tech companies outside of FANG for distinguished engineer roles.
Some folks really love what they do, and being given the keys to the castle to do what they love the way they want to do it is an awfully enticing opportunity.
Yeah, I mean its one thing to take a seat in a rocketship and go along for the ride, but its quite another from a challenge and career perspective to turn the rocket thats falling to earth around and pointing it in the right direction.
Generally at this stage in my career, I would probably enjoy the latter more. I was a smallish part of two turnarounds like this, and its just a real joy watching people get unshackled. Just stripping away busy work like requiring accounts to get approvals by 3 people (and why not just give everyone in the tech org a gitlab/pagerduty/whatever account and write a script that if they don't use it for a month, its automatically deactivated). Just asking why repeatedly until you finally get to the "scary" person no one wanted to confront who can't give you a good answer so you just say ok, lets just get rid of this... Removing the busy work, getting rid of bureaucracy, which I hear exists in enormous amounts at GM and other automakers... yeah taking that and just turning everything on its head can be wonderfully rewarding.
I would take a job like that again in a heartbeat. And tbh, he is a big enough deal at this point its not like its going to be career ending if he fails. And if he does fail, its likely just going to be from not being given enough authority to make the changes he wants. One kind of argument that may be very difficult to swallow for his upper management- allowing fully remote workers/teams. I am sure there are a lot of people that will want to work on something like this, but not a lot of them are going to want to move to Detroit to do so. So then you pivot to "well are you open to opening an office in the Bay area" and they reply "well that sounds expensive!" and you say... well we can also do it cheap and hire remotely, maybe even save on salaries... and then you get the "but what about [how do we know if they are working|Corporate Culture|That sounds scary" and on and on it goes until someone blinks. Anyway, getting into the weeds, but this is just a small facet of what goes into a role like this, before even getting into anything technical.
I was an engineering manager in Mike's org. I heard he was pushed out.
Also, at GM he's reporting directly to the CEO whereas at Apple he reported to Eddy Cue who reported to Tim Cook. This move puts him one level closer to the CEO spot.
Some people like to jump into extremely difficult situations if they think they have enough power to fix them. These situations usually have amazing rewards if you succeed.
He likely was promised an awful lot of power and freedom to do what he thinks it's right. Challenging situations can be fun, specially if you succeed in the end.
Reminds me of JCPenney hiring the Apple Store guy. They seem to think that a big name from a functioning organization like Apple can fix their own dysfunctional organization. And pretty much always the new guy will fail because he can’t do miracles in a bad organization.
Mike is going to be shocked when he learns the majority of GM's software talent are nearing retirement or are fresh out of college with barely any background in programming. The company isn't the best at enticing and retaining software talent.
At least he can get another $30M c-level job elsewhere. Since the size of the pool of people at his level is small, bigger and better opportunities exist elsewhere. That’s what executive hunters do these days: pedigree, but not the results.
I’m sure this move is primarily a financial one paired with wanting a bit of change from being at Apple. He joined Apple a bit over four years ago. I’m guessing whatever his stock grant refresher is wasn’t worth the stay.
It's going to utterly fail and he'll get very wealthy off of it and I'm sure he's aware of this.
He's not a product guy by any stretch of the imagination and seems to have a disdain for "all that UI fluff junk" (as he once called some of my work in a pitch meeting).
The company was building database access control tools. He was viscerally offended that we deigned to abstract technical concepts into a graphical interface.
Good luck to him on <checks notes> a graphical interface that abstracts technical concepts for cars.
Kind of, but not really. What GM is proposing here goes even deeper.
There are three current solutions -
- (2018 -> Today) Some existing solution that runs QNX as the base OS, that runs Android Auto / Carplay as an Application
- (2023 - > Today) A new based OS that is a skinned version of Android Automotive OS (AAOS / https://developers.google.com/cars/design/automotive-os) that runs both Android Auto Carplay and Carplay as an application, with the Automaker working with Google to incorporate customizations along with patches and updates to the base OS. Think Samsung's customized version of Android, and how they work to implement patches for major OS updates from ASOP. The infotainment used on General Motor's Global B architecture uses this.
- This proposal (2025 Model Year -> Future) - runs a customized version of AAOS that does not have Android Auto / Carplay support. My guess is that Google is throwing them a bone here and offering extra support for the Automaker (deferring the Automaker's costs) if the Automaker allows Google to retain the usage data.
I figured it was this. I mean, my car runs Ford Sync3 that runs CarPlay/AA (built by MS) and AAOS seems to compete directly with that.
The flamebait position trumpeted by GM CEO seems to be "we won't enable the CarPlay/AA app" but that could be reversed quite quickly when they realize customers don't want the builtin AAOS or AAOS doesn't do what CarPlay/AA can do.
The alternative is that AAOS has Apple Music and other apps built in (probably not Apple Maps) - like what you see with Tesla. I wonder if Apple will concede to this.
Red Hat is also making a move here, not at the UI layer but supporting RHEL in an automotive environment. It could be interesting to make these systems accessible to more software developers and appear a bit closer to cloud/web service/AI software stacks.
That's an amazing read. The GM guy is shamelessly going on and on about all the ways he will ruin the experience for drivers, so he can extract more money from them with hardware lock-in.
Google will cancel the project within a year after launching.
My understanding of GM is that they outsource almost everything. Last time I hired an embedded software engineer from them, the guy felt he was in a very tiny niche within the company and it was a fluke his group still existed to write code.
Infotainment systems may be different, but suppliers were doing most of the code several years back (I hired one of those guys too). With the desire to bring SaaS to automotive I would expect GM to bring some software development in-house, but they are a management-heavy company.
>Last time I hired an embedded software engineer from them, the guy felt he was in a very tiny niche within the company and it was a fluke his group still existed to write code.
I've worked there. There are two types of people: "Lifers" which are the people you described. They are content with doing their pieces and never taking a step outside the cog they are part of. This is most of the people there.
Then there are temporary workers. Contract or Independent minded, these are the people who have no trouble calling out the problem and working on it, even if its outside the job scope. They didn't learn this at GM, they learned this somewhere else. They are temporary because they see that GM is a zombie company. There are too many useless cogs that you described. There are likely more people tracking the completion of work, than those doing work. These people are looking at their resume and how they can grow their skills to leave and make more money.
I feel like finding good workers at large companies are like playing the lottery.
>> There are likely more people tracking the completion of work, than those doing work.
I completely agree. I interviewed there and above a certain level all they really want is the ability to bargain with others for resources if you or your own people can't get something done or done on time. It's not a bad thing, it's just the entire focus at that level, which leads to more chiefs than indians.
I think it stems from interdependence of components and the huge supply chain. You can't miss or it impacts the model year changeover. IMHO they need to work on that so they can have more incremental change if needed.
“My understanding of GM is that they outsource almost everything”
I think that was an attitude from like 10 years ago. When i worked there they had all their web & mobile apps in-house. They even stood up their own hosted PCF network into the more recently partnered with Azure.
>My understanding of GM is that they outsource almost everything.
Every single automaker outsources nearly everything under the bodywork related to engineering and development to their suppliers. VW, Renault, BMW, Mercedes, etc. all of them do it.
True, but outsourcing hardware components and outsourcing software aren't the same. Even when the hardware is actually very software-heavy, and designed to super specific requirements from the buyer, in the eyes of the supplier it's still a product. But outsourced software invariably becomes a project, with all the incentive misalignment that's implied by the term "billable hours". Even when that's technically not how the contract is set up.
Probably, I just don’t think executives can drive that kind of innovation. Especially those who are in sustaining roles in already large and successful companies.
They removed the home button on iPhones, which was a net loss, since face recognition is much less reliable and easy to use than fingerprint, and requires a visually-disruptive bar overlay to indicate you need to swipe up.
You have to look at the device to open it. It's by nature another step of distraction. Grabbing a device and having your thumb on it opening it up so that it's ready to go by the time it reaches your eyes... it's faster. What gesture gets you back to the main/home screen as quickly? I still regret (somewhat) moving away from the SE, and might move back. I found an old one in the desk and it's making me want to move back.
That's just an amazingly boneheaded move, isn't it?
I absolutely will not buy another car in the foreseeable future that lacks Carplay. It's too good, and too much better than any carmaker's attempts to integrate with phones or music players that came before.
(I also won't pay EXTRA for it; looking at you, BMW.)
It's really not that good. On my Mazda, Apple CarPlay won't even let me change albums while I'm driving. Which encourages me to then pick up my phone, take my eyes off the road to unlock it with my face, and fumble around with the music app until I get to what I want. Mazda even disables the touch screen while driving, forcing you to use their navigation wheel, which is supposedly safer! So I don't understand why CarPlay still tries to keep me from doing the thing it was designed to do.
I love using the knob to navigate CarPlay, but I admit the Music app is nearly unusable with the knob and IMHO only marginally better with touch. The music app in CarPlay just generally sucks and appears to intentionally limit how deeply you can browse your library.
That said, in my experience Siri works well for music selection. I just hit the voice button on my steering wheel and ask for the playlist, album, or artist I want to hear.
I frequently find myself picking up my phone in motion because their dial knob is utterly useless with navigating the music app and maps often as well.
I personally like having a car with these, but I'm not convinced it will be the death of GM like people predict.
>GM was not affected by PRISM, so they could make claims of having a privacy oriented vehicle. That messaging does really well on HN and I imagine other communities as well.
>The other thing is deeper integration. Yes it sounds like a security nightmare, but you will get additional features this way.
>You also write your own future. If the tech duopoly decides to do something like forbid alternative web browser engines, you don't need to bend the knee.
Not to mention, if every car has a generic infotainment screen, it makes the car less unique. Cars are all about the marketing and if you can make someone feel like they are cool for driving your car with the infotainment screen, you can sell that car.
> GM was not affected by PRISM, so they could make claims of having a privacy oriented vehicle
I don't this this really follows. Can't you be unaffected by PRISM and then later also sell lots of customer data or whatever? Though I agree this won't be the death of GM. The worst case is they later go back and just add Carplay and Android Auto and waste a bunch of money trying to write their own stuff.
> >You also write your own future. If the tech duopoly decides to do something like forbid alternative web browser engines, you don't need to bend the knee.
I just want to say that this isn't the case for any person or corporation and it never will be. You always rely on someone or something else. GM for example relies on the United States to secure oil. You, a regular person rely on (whoever) to go and mine minerals to build your laptop. It's not just a fantasy but it's a uniquely weird, and hysterical anti-social pattern that I wish would just die. It's ok to rely on someone else and in fact it's normal, acceptable, and desirable. Relying on someone else means you have to forge relationships, and not be an ass.
I know what you mean but it's just an arbitrary line in the sand on web browsers. A web browser in this context is just another raw material input that is no different than tires, paint, skilled workers, or anything else.
Not affected by PRISM? Although technically true, it's mostly because PRISM predated the hardware, and because GM touts the big brother stuff as a feature of OnStar. Here are two recent articles, four years apart (though they have been doing this for much longer):
It's a strange hire if you focus on software in the car, which GM says is Android Automotive (not Android Auto). He would not know a lot about Android.
But it looks sensible if he is more about cloud services: Dash cam video uploads, content management, etc.
The problem isn't "can GM make software" (though that is of course _a_ problem). It's "can GM continue to produce updates to a car's entertainment system for years after it was released, including matching new features from Android Auto or CarPlay". I'm not even sure it's a "will", I think it's legitimately a "can they" - the benefit of Android Auto and Car Play is that if a new feature requires improved hardware someone just needs a new phone. If GM needs new hardware for a feature they need at minimum a mechanic visit.
The whole point of the android and iPhone car thingies is that is not the case. New features no longer require buy a new car, you just get the free software update with your phone, and get whatever new features your phone hardware supports. Maybe you eventually get to the point your phone can no longer provide all the features of the OS update, but if you really want the new features a new phone costs substantially less than a new phone (even the stupid expensive top end ones).
That's why everyone is going "wtf" about GM saying "we're punting android and iOS car APIs". It's not just that car companies don't have a good track record of software design and UI, it's that they don't have any motivation to improve any car after it has been sold.
Both google and apple's car software are updated annually afaict, including major things like the mapping/navigation and turn-by-turn support.
I have an old car so know nothing more than:
* Android Auto and CarPlay exist
* They are regarded as being better than manufacturer provided software (but again I haven't used them)
* They get updated regularly
The last point is the one that I just don't see manufacturers doing, and even if they did I assume they'd require that to be a service center visit.
Also, apparently the tailgate is electric now. And for some reason it stopped working when the transmission died. Also also, there is no way to turn the truck off? When it entered the error-state, the dash stayed on and the cabin motor stayed blowing, but the "Start" button wouldn't turn anything off.
I know I'm an odd case, my newest car is from 1997... but I am gobsmacked at just how terrible modern vehicles are. I know customers are dumb and are easily impressed by cheap gadgetry, but why did we have to throw the baby out with the bath water?
So when I hear that GM is going to build their own CarPlay or whatever I can't help but laugh. They can't even build a good fleet pickup truck.