Double-Secret Updates - You're Just "Little People"

[MellowJohnny]

That's such a bad example. The C++ features have nothing to do with the users of iOS, they have everything to do with the C++ standard and thus are important to software developers, who want to know everything about that.

What I mentioned was that Ford quietly degraded the regen, which impacts everybody who drives with 1PD. Ford degraded the driving experience and the least they should have done was to mention that. By such updates they undermine the trust of the customers and will drive them away from Ford. Some issues like that may become a legal liability, like Apple discovered. But even when not, driving customer satisfaction down is not a smart business strategy. I personally would not buy another Ford if they don't fix it by the end of three years. I'm sure there will be enough competition by that time.

It’s a great example actually - it’s exactly what I wanted illustrate. OP wanted more detail in the release notes and I’m saying in cases where the changes are all low-level there is nothing really to tell Joe Public. The Devs get release notes they care about and so Joe Public gets the ubiquitous “Performance improvements & Bug Fixes”. We’d never give the public the dev release notes, right?

My point is sometimes there is nothing interesting to tell Joe Public - Devs get low-level stuff they care about, everyone’s else gets the “trust us, we fixed stuff” notes.

OP seems to imply Ford can’t be bothered telling us what’s actually changed, he wants detail. I’m saying sometimes there is nothing exciting to tell you.

I’ll let Ford answer the “you should have told us that” question. Boeing had the same issue with much much more tragic consequences. For the record when I speak at developer conferences my #1 rule is Don’t Lie. Ever.

Now if Ford is intentionally hiding stuff that’s a completely different topic, and as you can see it has started to build distrust when the release notes are thin. Two different issues.

They should maybe follow Rule #1 above…

Sponsored

 

[Chuck]

I've been in software developer management for decades. I can say with absolute certainty that giving too much information about updates raises more concerns, more feedback and more phone calls than being vague. It may satisfy the 1% that will understand the upgrade but it often puts doubt and fear in the other 99%. It dramatically increases the cost of support.

Unless it's a new feature that users will be happy to learn about there's no reason to describe "under the cover" changes that fix low level items or things the end user will never see. Sometimes it's just recoding routines in the software to for developers to make their work easier and more efficient that has nothing to do with the end user at all.

And, if the software upgrade is just changes that prepare the groundwork for future enhancements that's something you never say. If you do then the clock starts ticking in the end user's mind and every day that new feature isn't added it becomes late. Ford is just learning this. They've been burned by "delay after delay" because they announced things that didn't arrive on time. They now know that it's better not to announce at all.

 

[Regularmache]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. You jumped on the merry-go-round of this forum and then complain that you're dizzy.

95%+ of Mach-E owners have no clue about any of this stuff, and don't care.

Not fair, I have a clue, but don't necessarily need to know exactly what the update does. My last contract was software for satellites that have been in orbit for 15 years and we did software updates all the time. Most were, bug fixes and nothing the users could comprehend if we were given the software language and changes to code imperceptible to operators.

If it's something that the operator is going to notice, we would have that sent to them.

A lot of 'bug' fixes are found daily in most cases and kept in a cue until either enough piled up or an important one came around and then it would push out to the satellites.
I would guess the software engineers in the Forum would love the granularity of a full blown narrative on the code changes. I'm not sure Ford wants to give that info to the public. They already get us backdooring their order interface nabbing Vin Numbers and other things. They realize we've got some smart people that would be able to begin 'mapping' and tracking what does what and how to tweak things they don't want us hacking.

 

[Blue highway]

Just tell the customer what then need to know. The more info they get, the more "problems" they seem to find. Like how analog gauges forf temp or oil pressure are made to settle right in the middle of the "normal" range and fuel gauges are dampened so they don't bounce around. The average person doesn't have clue what is going on so feed them just enough to let them know everything is ok or not ok.

The only thing that bothers me just a little is how cute they make the release notes. Don't try so hard, just make it dry.

You know what I hate? Who ever decided that tpm systems should display the actual air pressure the tires are at. Oh your left front is at 33 and the rest are at 34 and your gauge at home says they're at 32?...ok.

I guess I'll side with the concept that making info available is good.

When my wife has the car and the idiot light says the tire pressure is low, I find it helpful to know if the tire pressure is 31 lbs (no immediate problem) or 16 lbs (need to do something)

 

[Blue highway]

Lying is not the same as "dumbing down" release notes for the GA. And that release probably did have "performance improvements" in addition to that lovely throttling "feature".

But I doubt this is the kind of granularity anyone is looking for:

• The following new C++20 and C++23 features are now implemented:
  • C++20 library concepts defined in <concepts>
  • constexpr for std::swap() and swap-related functions
  • Miscellaneous constexpr-ification in the library
  • std::atomic now default initializes as expected
  • A .contains() method for associative containers
  • Added std::bind_front() (88131816)

That's from the iOS 15.5 developer release notes, which of course the general public does not need to know about. So what the general public got was:

iOS 15.5 includes the following improvements and bug fixes:
• Wallet now enables Apple Cash customers to send and request money from their Apple Cash card
• Apple Podcasts includes a new setting to limit episodes stored on your iPhone and automatically delete older ones
• Fixes an issue where home automations, triggered by people arriving or leaving, may fail

And more often than not all you get is the first line - "improvements & bug fixes"...

So ya, 99% of it you don't need to know.

The coding examples are kind of a false straw man.

The other extreme that we seem to be at is zero content notification.

The 15.5 improvement text above would be a good example for the Ford updates... There is a vast middle ground here that is not happening.

 

[Burnsy8787]

Right...and for some reason it's not important to tell people why an update that was offered for their VIN is important. There must have been some reason for it.

And to the second part of your response...are you saying that the only things that are important are either recall notices or other things like CSPs that Ford may send snail-mail about?

So we shouldn't wonder about the other updates (that we don't get letters about) that we're offered, and why Ford thinks it's needed for my VIN, but doesn't need to explain why that is?

Okay....

Coming from someone that thinks Ford has no idea what they are doing... this is not something to get upset about. Very standard in software updates for there to be vague descriptions about minor changes. It is likely just stability improvements in the software. it's not like they are adding new features and not telling you.

 

[Mach1E]

I guess I'll side with the concept that making info available is good.

When my wife has the car and the idiot light says the tire pressure is low, I find it helpful to know if the tire pressure is 31 lbs (no immediate problem) or 16 lbs (need to do something)

Except that it’s probably more of a “need to know” situation.

In your tire pressure example, you need to know because you can and should take action.

In the vague update description, they’ll tell you when they add or change a feature, but if it’s just random code changes and preparation for future updates, there’s literally nothing you could do with the detailed info.

 

[Mike G]

My post has produced a lot of discussion, both for and against providing more information as to what an update contains.

After giving it a lot of thought and reading all the thoughtful comments posted in response to my original post I'm inclined to think that Ford is indeed walking a very fine line and attempting to avoid any sort of controversy by "managing expectations".

This then would be the definition of a "Goldilocks" OTA update note:

From this we get the fact that the OTA 2.8.2 milestone has been reached as a level of software currency, but literally nothing else. In essence a "minimal attack surface" (Teflon?) so that the customer has no clue what may or may not have been corrected or enhanced, and to cause minimal blowback that might have occurred if an item that may have been included in a more detailed description, doesn't appear to be operating as if it was corrected or enhanced.

In retrospect these "Update details" (although it is my belief the use of that term is a gross exaggeration) were probably staffed through all the levels (engineering, legal, management) before being authorized for release. It's a CYA excercise.

We just don't need to know anything more than it's 2.8.2.

Got it.

And I'm now really really okay with it.

 

[Mach1E]

My post has produced a lot of discussion, both for and against providing more information as to what an update contains.

After giving it a lot of thought and reading all the thoughtful comments posted in response to my original post I'm inclined to think that Ford is indeed walking a very fine line and attempting to avoid any sort of controversy by "managing expectations".

This then would be the definition of a "Goldilocks" OTA update note:

From this we get the fact that the OTA 2.8.2 milestone has been reached as a level of software currency, but literally nothing else. In essence a "minimal attack surface" (Teflon?) so that the customer has no clue what may or may not have been corrected or enhanced, and to cause minimal blowback that might have occurred if an item that may have been included in a more detailed description, doesn't appear to be operating as if it was corrected or enhanced.

In retrospect these "Update details" (although it is my belief the use of that term is a gross exaggeration) were probably staffed through all the levels (engineering, legal, management) before being authorized for release. It's a CYA excercise.

We just don't need to know anything more than it's 2.8.2.

Got it.

And I'm now really really okay with it.

I don’t know that anyone was “against” them providing more info.

Just that we understand why sometimes with updates that don’t actually add anything of substance, why we get the generic details.

 

[MellowJohnny]

The coding examples are kind of a false straw man.

The other extreme that we seem to be at is zero content notification.

The 15.5 improvement text above would be a good example for the Ford updates... There is a vast middle ground here that is not happening.

I don't disagree. Sometimes you need extreme examples to get a point across...

 

[bosbruce]

So OTAs come out, most recently the one for the GT-PE (2.8.2 I think)..and what does that do for the customer?

Oh, little things, you know...stuff.

And that's by no means all...what about the OBCC update from earlier this week? What was that supposed to correct or enhance?

The list goes on and on...very little in the way of clues as to what these updates are supposed to do for us but that in general we should be glad that we are so blessed.

So I guess @Ford Motor Company thinks we just don't need to know these things about why our cars are getting these updates, I guess because we're just "little people".

I get more info from Apple on what they want to change on my iPhone than I do from Ford on any topic I can think of, from reservations, to orders, to tracking. And after-sales it's the updates that have no explanation for why they're important. It takes smart folks on these forums to Sherlock this stuff out, and even at that many times the smart folks don't even know in the end.

Ridiculous.

I agree it looks silly, almost like they shouldn't even bother to have a field for what has changed... TSLA updates by comparison (I only had from 12/2018 to June 2021 when I sold my Model 3) mostly contained some details on what changed, though occasionally had more Ford-like "just some minor bug fixes and other super nice things" messages. On the other hand, TSLA updates on some occasions did more annoying things like moving where the speedometer was and then, in recent v2 update, reorganizing *most* menus such that any muscle memory you developed to compensate for any tactile feel was lost and very annoying to everyone I spoke with... I do not think Ford will be shuffling the deck as badly as TSLA did...

 

[Chuck]

So, if they send all information about all updates you guys would be happy? What if this kind of transparency requires them to tell you about this kind of update:

"We found a bug. When the car reaches 85 mph on a west facing freeway during sunset the car would lose all functionality and immediately apply the parking brake. So far this has never happened but it was right there in the code. We're thinking that this code was put in by a disgruntled developer before they left the company. No worries, you're fixed now."

Once that word got out everybody would be clamoring for the update immediately of sue. And, if you think that kind of update is far fetched and can't happen, think again.

Instead, they'll say, "Some bug fixes and functionality improvements."

 

[KevinS]

They're trying to do what pass in legal and marketing departments as "being cheeky." Thanks, Ford.

Sponsored