Mach-E Town Hall Sessions on Cybersecurity, Driving and Launch

[VegStang]

Emulating Google may make business sense as far as revenue, but not for the customer. Treating the customer as a product in an effort to monetize their data would be a scary road to go down. Now if Ford wants to sell services, upgrades ok, but one hopes for more disruption, not destruction.

Down the road, autonomous vehicles and the ride-shares will be ripe for such ideas, but when I buy a car I expect my privacy to remain intact (or respected) once I leave the lot.

Thai-Tang Outlines Company Vision for ‘Double Transformation’ at FREE


By Chris Rahi Kassab
Oct-16-2020

Ford is embarking on a double transformation, Chief Product Platform and Operations Officer Hau Thai-Tang

“We’ve got to fix our automotive business,” said Thai-Tang. “In parallel, we have to figure out how to disrupt ourselves and plan for future growth.”
Thai-Tang said to fix the automotive business, the company must do a better job launching products.
“We have four big launches this year – the Mustang Mach-E, the Bronco and Bronco Sport and the new F-150 – and they’re all very pivotal,” he said. “It’s imperative that we launch them on time with quality and hit the launch volume curves.”

The team must also continue to make progress on cost – both material and structural.
“We also have to action some of the restructuring we need to do at a much faster rate and allocate capital away from the underperforming businesses,” said Thai-Tang. “By that I mean geographic regions as well as segments where we’re not earning the return that we want.”

Thai-Tang said we need to play to our strengths and shift capital to areas where we know we have a strong, favorable brand opinion, command pricing power and have strong market share.
“As you would expect, it’s going to be around our commercial vehicles, pickup trucks, utilities, luxury and performance products,” he explained.
Thai-Tang said the company has identified key areas for growth.

“One is affordable vehicles. We know that by that by exiting the traditional passenger sedan business in North America we left a huge hole in the product showroom around entry products. That’s an area we want to focus on,” he said. “We also need to do more incremental products, leveraging our strong brand. You can see what we’re doing with Mustang, Bronco and Raptor, and we are looking to extend those beyond just one nameplate and leverage that brand strength to build profitable growth.”

Moving on to the concept of disruption, Thai-Tang shared an “aha” moment he and other senior leaders had at a meeting with Microsoft that left an indelible impression on him.
“The CEO of Microsoft Satya Nadella said to us, ‘Do you realize that Google makes more money on every PC than Microsoft does?’ We just nodded. And then Nadella said, ‘No, you don’t understand the significance of what I just said.

Our whole business model was based on selling the Windows Operating System and the Microsoft Office Suite. It was a transactional model,’” recalled Thai-Tang. “Nadella went on to say that what Microsoft didn’t recognize was the shift in the business model. Once customers buy their laptops, go home and get on the internet, Google starts to monetize every search through ad revenue. And for the life of that device, they make more money than Microsoft does.”

Thai-Tang said the learning for Ford is that once vehicles become connected there’s a whole new game to be played in terms of value creation.

“It’s about recurring revenue rather than this transaction model where I sell you a car and I hope you come back in six years and buy another one,” he said. “This is one of the theatres of growth in our industry that we have to capitalize on.”

 

[trutolife27]

 

[jparduhn70]

I see his point, but in my view, if I have a $50K transaction for a vehicle, I don't want to have everything I do in it monetized in some way, shape or form. I want to pay for it and be entitled to updates that can improve it from an operation and safety standpoint for that amount of money. I am getting subscription fatigue seeing as almost everything is going that way. It's one thing if I'm a corporation and have to consider OPEX and CAPEX for accounting and tax purposes for managing cash flow, but the average consumer doesn't operate this way. A PC to a car is an apple to an orange, IMHO.

 

[1pt21Gigawatts]

Emulating Google may make business sense as far as revenue, but not for the customer. Treating the customer as a product in an effort to monetize their data would be a scary road to go down. Now if Ford wants to sell services, upgrades ok, but one hopes for more disruption, not destruction.

Down the road, autonomous vehicles and the ride-shares will be ripe for such ideas, but when I buy a car I expect my privacy to remain intact (or respected) once I leave the lot.

I fully agree, for it is starting to sound a lot like Google, Apple eats Google for breakfast Because they know how to run a successful hardware and software ecosystem. The privacy is what keeps people coming back, and if ford loses that for a quick buck then they won’t be able to find customers no matter how nice the products are.

I am half considering to unplug my modem the second I get the car anyways.

 

[tomterky]

Did you get any video or pics of the Frunk?

and thank you very much for this!! This is the closest we have gotten!!

 

[hybrid2bev]

Another Mustang found on the inside of the charge port door, I hadn't noticed that before.

 

[macchiaz-o]

Another Mustang found on the inside of the charge port door, I hadn't noticed that before.

Yeah I noticed that also. My thought was that we're going to need to start a new horsepower measurement. We'll measure in number of imprinted horses rather than silly old motivational power.

I heard there's even a horse imprint within the headlamp fixture?

 

[Davedough]

What are the two sets of (looks like) blinking infrared LEDs on the center cluster used for?

 

[macchiaz-o]

What are the two sets of (looks like) blinking infrared LEDs on the center cluster used for?

They light up your eyes and face so that the infrared camera(s?) can perform gaze monitoring. This is part of the driver monitoring system.

 

[zhackwyatt]

I see his point, but in my view, if I have a $50K transaction for a vehicle, I don't want to have everything I do in it monetized in some way, shape or form. I want to pay for it and be entitled to updates that can improve it from an operation and safety standpoint for that amount of money. I am getting subscription fatigue seeing as almost everything is going that way. It's one thing if I'm a corporation and have to consider OPEX and CAPEX for accounting and tax purposes for managing cash flow, but the average consumer doesn't operate this way. A PC to a car is an apple to an orange, IMHO.

I agree. Everything is a subscription meaning we are all in perpetual debt forever.

One aspect though is there is continuing cost on the part of the manufacturer to create, maintain, and test updates, etc. People get upset because Microsoft ended support for Windows 7. Most people paid for the operating system once, how long are they supposed to support it for, forever?

 

[VegStang]

My favorite is the pony on the hood shield. Hope that stays.

Another Mustang found on the inside of the charge port door, I hadn't noticed that before.

 

[jparduhn70]

I agree. Everything is a subscription meaning we are all in perpetual debt forever.

One aspect though is there is continuing cost on the part of the manufacturer to create, maintain, and test updates, etc. People get upset because Microsoft ended support for Windows 7. Most people paid for the operating system once, how long are they supposed to support it for, forever?

Agreed, it can't go on forever, so you make a very valid point. Working for a large networking company, I see customers getting frustrated all the time with products that are old and our inability to maintain support indefinitely. The hardware ages along with the software on it, and eventually we have to end-of-life it. It's either too slow or cannot handle the new workloads. The customer wants additional support past that date sometimes, and we can't do it. It costs a lot to keep legacy stuff up and running, so you're absolutely correct. My only concern about the long run with a car like the MME is what auto manufacturers are going to do to maintain security on the software. What's going to happen if someone ten for fifteen years down the line discovers an exploit that can compromise safety? Is the car going to be obsolete? It's not like an old ICE car that has nothing a hacker can access to take control of it with. Are we getting forced into a world where we have no choice but to 'upgrade' every seven to ten years to stay current? What happens to these vehicles once they hit the used car market, or do they hit it at all if they're deemed unsafe? Lots of questions.

 

[macchiaz-o]

I agree. Everything is a subscription meaning we are all in perpetual debt forever.

It's sort of like leasing an auto instead of buying. Renting a home instead of owning.

One aspect though is there is continuing cost on the part of the manufacturer to create, maintain, and test updates, etc. People get upset because Microsoft ended support for Windows 7. Most people paid for the operating system once, how long are they supposed to support it for, forever?

One-time cost up front is sort of like being fully on the hook to do your own maintenance/enhancements of a product after it's initial new-buyer servicing period ends. While a subscription is sort of like paying for continual maintenance/enhancements in perpetuity or until you change your mind about paying.

Anyway, these might not be fair analogies. I'm terrible with analogies, but wanted to give it a shot.

The point I don't know how to eloquently make is that I like both systems. There are times when I want to buy a product and I don't care if the manufacturer ever updates the product I already bought. Like my office chair. I'm fine with it how it is for its expected lifetime/usage. There are other times where I buy something and would benefit from ongoing maintenance. I think that Ford is recognizing that I want both things, and they can deliver both to me on the same vehicle by dividing out its functions.

I buy and hold onto the vehicle for as many years as the emotional half of my brain is willing to allow. (Eventually I'll want a shiny new object.) And I'll keep it even longer if Ford provides me with incremental upgrades, or ongoing service benefits, during my vehicle ownership. This is EXACTLY what they are saying they'll do. By allowing me to pay a subscription fee if I want to, I will in exchange get ongoing maintenance of the vehicle's cloud connected capabilities. If the service turns out to be enjoyable and beneficial enough for me to use, then I will gladly pay for it when the time comes.

In lieu of subscriptions, Ford would need to predict how many years customers will continue to want certain functions/services in their vehicles, and they would need to pre-bill all of us for those items. So you all would be paying someone else's Wi-Fi hotspot service even if you don't use it at all yourself. Same with the cloud connected services relating to navigation and hands-free driving. If you don't see enough benefit from those things, don't pay for them. Or only pay for them when you road trip. I like having these options.

 

[zhackwyatt]

It's sort of like leasing an auto instead of buying. Renting a home instead of owning.



One-time cost up front is sort of like being fully on the hook to do your own maintenance/enhancements of a product after it's initial new-buyer servicing period ends. While a subscription is sort of like paying for continual maintenance/enhancements in perpetuity or until you change your mind about paying.

Anyway, these might not be fair analogies. I'm terrible with analogies, but wanted to give it a shot.

The point I don't know how to eloquently make is that I like both systems. There are times when I want to buy a product and I don't care if the manufacturer ever updates the product I already bought. Like my office chair. I'm fine with it how it is for its expected lifetime/usage. There are other times where I buy something and would benefit from ongoing maintenance. I think that Ford is recognizing that I want both things, and they can deliver both to me on the same vehicle by dividing out its functions.

I buy and hold onto the vehicle for as many years as the emotional half of my brain is willing to allow. (Eventually I'll want a shiny new object.) And I'll keep it even longer if Ford provides me with incremental upgrades, or ongoing service benefits, during my vehicle ownership. This is EXACTLY what they are saying they'll do. By allowing me to pay a subscription fee if I want to, I will in exchange get ongoing maintenance of the vehicle's cloud connected capabilities. If the service turns out to be enjoyable and beneficial enough for me to use, then I will gladly pay for it when the time comes.

In lieu of subscriptions, Ford would need to predict how many years customers will continue to want certain functions/services in their vehicles, and they would need to pre-bill all of us for those items. So you all would be paying someone else's Wi-Fi hotspot service even if you don't use it at all yourself. Same with the cloud connected services relating to navigation and hands-free driving. If you don't see enough benefit from those things, don't pay for them. Or only pay for them when you road trip. I like having these options.

Makes sense. I was referring in a more general sense though, as an example, I prefer to buy music than stream it from a service. I always have it, never have to worry about that streaming service going out of business or usage rights going away, etc.

 

[trutolife27]