Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 570 posts

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#101

Post by uncletaco »

HWR_14 wrote: post #74
rektide wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there's a vibrant ecosystem around Android with wonderful third party support, with a rich platform & ecosystem already well known & loved by many developers & consumers alike. Where-as QNX is a toolkit for building one-off custom appliances that no third party will ever see or improve or enrich. One is a dead end stuck in a niche, the other realized it had to create more value than it captured. And generally…

Why would I want third party support, a rich platform or an ecosystem? I want a radio and something that plays what my cellphone tells it. That's it.

Well that's you, somebody else might want to use the subscription music service they pay for and use car controls to change the tracks, someone else might want a map that displays in the center console as opposed to their phone, etc etc. With android there's the possibility of adding apps that people would want to the car itself. This would be something device manufacturers could be interested in for dash cams or other electronics that could benefit from richer control interfaces.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#102

Post by jackmott »

Rooster61 wrote: post #7

It's incredibly frustrating to me that buying a vehicle with a pushbutton, working, reliable interface is becoming increasingly impossible to do. Why is UX so horrifically bad in the vehicle space? Is it poor management decisions or a shortage of good UX engineers? I get that lumping everything into the touchscreen can be a cheaper option to build, but I'd GLADLY pay for a different option. I don't understand it.

No post body was provided.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#103

Post by lttlrck »

karamanolev wrote: post #78
genocidicbunny wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turing the wheel unpredictably selects objects on the screen, forcing you to keep your eyes off the road while you keep turning the wheel until the item you need is selected. You shouldn't need to do anything requiring the wheel while you're driving though. All the controls that you would want to have accessible while you're driving are physical (climate control, basic media/phone controls.) For everything else you…

Yet, it's not what people are doing. The UIs of cars and other objects should take into account how they're going to be used, not how they are designed to be used. It's been proven again and again that you can only marginally educate or tell people how to behave. It's better to make a system that is safe 7/10 in real world usage, instead of one designed for 9/10, but actually getting 5/10.

Both hands staying on the steering wheel is a huge plus. And the inputs are stepwise and therefore less prone to error, so safer.

And then there is Siri which makes all the things that you might want to do while driving, and probably shouldn't (touchscreen or not) far easier and safer.

How is a touchscreen safer?

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#104

Post by nine_k »

Rooster61 wrote: post #7

It's incredibly frustrating to me that buying a vehicle with a pushbutton, working, reliable interface is becoming increasingly impossible to do. Why is UX so horrifically bad in the vehicle space? Is it poor management decisions or a shortage of good UX engineers? I get that lumping everything into the touchscreen can be a cheaper option to build, but I'd GLADLY pay for a different option. I don't understand it.

I wonder if third-party infotainment with buttons and otherwise ergonomic, reliable UI is legally possible. If so, it could be a viable business?

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#105

Post by [deleted] »

twobitshifter wrote: post #93

With the performance of this and other EVs now beating the Raptor pickup, do you think we’ll start to see performance regulated for safety reasons? A massive pickup able to 0-60 in a few seconds is cool, but in the hands of the less responsible it sounds like a huge safety risk. We cap the performance of tiny scooters but multiton trucks are able to go as fast as humanly possible?

[deleted]

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#106

Post by guntars »

TylerE wrote: post #29
Rooster61 wrote: post #7

It's incredibly frustrating to me that buying a vehicle with a pushbutton, working, reliable interface is becoming increasingly impossible to do. Why is UX so horrifically bad in the vehicle space? Is it poor management decisions or a shortage of good UX engineers? I get that lumping everything into the touchscreen can be a cheaper option to build, but I'd GLADLY pay for a different option. I don't understand it.

None of that. Costs. Buttons are expensive, and additional points of failure. Cheaper to just cram everything into a touchscreen.

Yet the cars are more expensive than ever. Nah, it’s a bet by the management that people don’t actually choose a car based on the polish of the infotainment system.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#107

Post by namecheapTA »

twobitshifter wrote: post #93

With the performance of this and other EVs now beating the Raptor pickup, do you think we’ll start to see performance regulated for safety reasons? A massive pickup able to 0-60 in a few seconds is cool, but in the hands of the less responsible it sounds like a huge safety risk. We cap the performance of tiny scooters but multiton trucks are able to go as fast as humanly possible?

Atleast when a Dodge Charger is charging up from behind, I can hear the thing. Pedestrians can hear the thing.

When the demographic that currently commits most reckless driving eventually adopts electric cars, it's going to be a blood bath.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#108

Post by vel0city »

twblalock wrote: post #86
PaulWaldman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Mazda is apparently taking the right approach here -- increasing the tactile buttons on the dash and console, and ditching touchscreens. Huh? After using both Ford's (2022 Explorer) and Mazda's (2022 CX-7) infotainment systems recently for several weeks, I couldn't disagree more. Android Auto and CarPlay interfaces were designed for touchscreen control. Mazda forcing the use of a wheel, like a joystick is a safety h…

> What good is tactile feedback when you have no idea what you're adjusting without staring at the screen? This is what people don't understand about touchscreen vs dial-based UIs. One is not safer than the other if they both require you to take your eyes off the road and look at a screen! If car makers want to have a button control a feature, then they should simply make a button that controls that feature. Cars wor…

The idea with the touchscreen controls is that the driver shouldn't really be using the touchscreen at all while driving except as a quick reference to the map.

You're not supposed to be using the screen to adjust your media while driving, there's steering wheel and voice controls.

You're not supposed to be adjusting the climate controls while moving, auto climate should just handle it. Why would I want to be distracted by needing to change the climate controls? I shouldn't have to adjust them while the vehicle is in motion.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#109

Post by ggm »

What is the balance of experience between touch, aural/tactile/visua push response on screens, and actual physical buttons which go "click" and light up?

I think the place we know most about this, is the Aircraft space. I am interested because I used to live in 'press it go click' world and now live half-blessed by a car with some controls which are real and a lot of controls which are soft, and I have to say I don't entirely like the experience.

When you look at a Concorde control deck, its a 3 man (4 man?) crew, and its unbelievably complex. The replacement in a current spec Boeing or Airbus is simpler, but it's hardly one touch screen.

Tesla has gone off the deep end.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#110

Post by vel0city »

izacus wrote: post #90
andrewla wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that sounds intensely bad! I haven't actually driven a Mazda, I just heard that they were getting rid of touchscreens and it honestly didn't occur to me that they'd try to shoehorn full Android Auto or CarPlay into that. I just assumed that they would have a minimal interface and let your phone do the work, and then have "next track" and "previous track" buttons and a volume knob, plus climate control and stuff,…

I own a Mazda and using Android Auto with physical controls works just fine, no idea what the OP is talking about. All the main driving features are accessible by buttons and don't need eyes off the road. It's a massive difference in compasion to some brands that require you to use touchscreen to switch to next track or adjust AC temp.

Which cars have touchscreens and don't have steering wheel media controls?
Post reply on HN