• wreckedcarzz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    126·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • Nate@programming.devEnglish
      35·
      11 months ago

      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”

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        161·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • Nate@programming.devEnglish
          7·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • Kogasa@programming.dev
            2·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • Nate@programming.devEnglish
              1·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • Kogasa@programming.dev
                3·
                11 months ago

                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.

      • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        11 months ago

        Yeah likely, and I’d be super pissed about this. You’re (ford) telling me you cheap fucks couldn’t be asked to install two like, shit, even cheap-ass comsumer-grade 100gb ssds or something at the cost of like $10 a pop, before ‘economies of scale’, in my fucking 50k vehicle. I want the tow bill comped, I want the repair comped, I want an equivalent rental vehicle comped for the entire duration of the repair, I want it in writing that if this shit happens again that I’m going to get the same treatment as I am now, and my time isn’t free either so I want complementary maintenance the next time I’m in here; or I’m driving straight through the front window as soon as the repair is done, and I’m not stopping with the first vehicle I crash into.

        • 31337@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          11 months ago

          Yeah, I’ve worked on embedded systems (some projects involving automotive and heavy machinery), and the amount of penny-pinching they used when selecting components was pretty crazy. On one project I worked on, they didn’t want to spend an extra 30 cents for a microcontroller with more flash, so we had to be very cognizant of every byte we used. Flash was so tight, our firmware would only fit if we used the highest optimization setting on the compiler (making debugging very difficult).

    • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      23·
      11 months ago

      Even some decent modern Wi-Fi routers have such protection. There’s working and backup partition. If a firmware update fails, it boots using the previous working partition.

      This is a better explanation (in this case for Cisco Linksys EA3500):

      Like several other Linksys devices, the EA3500 has a dual firmware layout: working and backup partitions. Unless you manually choose which partition by doing a manual uboot/tftp install, firmware flashes occur on the backup partition and the EA3500 shall reboot from the backup partition following from a firmware flash. The backup partition becomes the new working partition when the reboot was successful. The former working partition becomes the new backup partition.

      Source: https://openwrt.org/toh/linksys/ea3500

      • Oderus@lemmy.world
        4·
        11 months ago

        Motherboards for years have a backup firmware just in case you fry the primary firmware.

        This Ford issue is laughable.

    • Lath@kbin.social
      13·
      11 months ago

      Ford is only focused on finding new ways of having your car break down in the middle of nowhere.

        • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          4·
          11 months ago

          Fix Or Repair Daily

          eh my F250 is a beast and keeps on going. Only has broken down on me one time because of an oil pressure sensor. On a 7.3L diesel the oil flow is a must!

  • spujb@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    114·
    11 months ago

    this is exactly what henry ford wanted to happen i did a seance and checked in with him

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world
    35·
    11 months ago

    “tow truck” why on earth would a tow truck require smart components at all? This is multiple layers of stupidity and dystopian.

    • key@lemmy.keychat.orgEnglish
      45·
      11 months ago

      I think it’s steps for the tow truck operator to perform before they can tow the now-undriveable car. Like getting it in neutral, disabling parking break, maybe disconnecting batteries.

      • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world
        2·
        11 months ago

        Yeah that sounds completely unessesary to have such features when they can be done manually and probably with better compatibility (I’m guessing Ford tow trucks only connect to their proprietary standard)

        • jasondj@ttrpg.network
          3·
          11 months ago

          Modern cars have some stupid functions in the form of nicities.

          How are you going to put a car in neutral if it’s a push-button shift that’s unresponsive because the infotainment system has to boot for the transmission control module (probably for some stupid reason like being able to display errors like this).

          My wife’s minivan has a push button shift. And automatic headlights. You want to go to the drive-in? Gotta hit the (pushbutton) park-brake to disable the auto headlights. And the radio will turn off every 30 minutes during the movie to save battery.

            • jasondj@ttrpg.network
              1·
              11 months ago

              That message is for the tow truck operator pulling out the car.

              Believe it or not, sometimes the tow truck operator sees something for the first time. Sometimes, even, the savvy car owner sees things for the first time.

              I had an 86 Cougar that got struck in the rear quarter panel and wouldn’t start. While I was waiting for a tow, as luck would have it, my regular tow truck driver lived right in front of where I broke down (I’d crossed paths with this guy a lot of times because my dad was restoring a car and had bought a couple donor cars to pull parts from). He showed me that there’s a safety switch in the trunk that turns off power to the fuel pump. He reset it and it started right up.

              Now, guaranteed, at one point in time this guy had never seen a post-Pinto Ford that wouldn’t start after a collision. I’m sure a screen that told him (or the owner) that there’s a safety switch would’ve helped him that day.

              Now, when my jeep radiator hose cracked and I didn’t want to risk driving it home overheating, the tow truck driver (AAA) saved me a tow by cutting back a bit of the hose and reattaching it with the good part in tact. That’s the type of trick that a good driver knows and can share. But you can’t expect them to know of the safeties and bypasses of dozens of different configurations that come out every year, off-hand, potentially somewhere without internet access.

                • jasondj@ttrpg.network
                  1·
                  11 months ago

                  Wait, what do you think is happening? Do you think the car just wants to see a tow truck driver and is acting out to get its way?

                  The vehicle is immobile. There is more to do to prep it for towing than simple shift-to-neutral. The message explains how to do that. What the fuck about the message is keeping it from functioning?

  • ADTJ@feddit.uk
    19·
    11 months ago

    Could it be the update was to patch a safety recall issue and so without the update, the car isn’t considered safe to drive?

    • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
      16·
      11 months ago

      They need to have a solution in place other than brick your vehicle. Even if it only allows your nav to go to the nearest dealership or some shit. Will it be ignored? Yup, but at least I can get to my job. Or to my house where I can, ya know… Update.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      Don’t care. If I buy a car and your software makes the decision to disable it, fuck you forever and you’ll never see another nickel from me. If you sold me a car that isn’t safe to drive in the first place, fuck you forever and you’ll never see another nickel from me.