What's new
By:

Software leadership team fired

BrianBigNFun said:
while I hate for people to lose their jobs, accountability is important
Click to expand...
I agree but it should start at the top. Where was he when it was being developed? It is not like the software for the Air was perfect so he could rightfully assume it was under control. I don't see how the CEO can let the Gravity go without knowing how good or bad the software was. If heads have to roll, it should start with his.

Too often in this country we hold the little guy accountable while the big guy gets away with crap.
 
Steveinarizona said:
I agree but it should start at the top. Where was he when it was being developed? It is not like the software for the Air was perfect so he could rightfully assume it was under control. I don't see how the CEO can let the Gravity go without knowing how good or bad the software was. If heads have to roll, it should start with his.

Too often in this country we hold the little guy accountable while the big guy gets away with crap.
Click to expand...
Scapegoats...
 
Steveinarizona said:
I agree but it should start at the top. Where was he when it was being developed? It is not like the software for the Air was perfect so he could rightfully assume it was under control. I don't see how the CEO can let the Gravity go without knowing how good or bad the software was. If heads have to roll, it should start with his.

Too often in this country we hold the little guy accountable while the big guy gets away with crap.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s kinda in his title as interim CEO. Meaning that maybe the board did hold someone accountable that they believed responsible. I’m not inferring that to be the case.

The vehicle wasn’t solely developed under him. It’s been years in the making.

Not providing excuses. Just possible explanations for the reality we see without the entire story.
 
TakeDuo said:
Well, it’s kinda in his title as interim CEO. Meaning that maybe the board did hold someone accountable that they believed responsible. I’m not inferring that to be the case.

The vehicle wasn’t solely developed under him. It’s been years in the making.
Click to expand...

What clearly happened on Winterhoff's watch was the decision to start Gravity deliveries with the software in such a miserable state as well as either to skip factory inspection points or to ignore failures to pass inspection. (I know for a fact that this happened with our first Gravity delivered in June, as someone at Lucid admitted to me that checking that navigation systems were functioning only started after that car was shipped, and there was absolutely no way its badly distorted HUD screen was not noticed on the factory test circuit.)

His only escape from personal responsibility would be if the Board overrode him and insisted that deliveries start when they did.

The price Lucid paid is that almost every major automotive award passed the Gravity by, major reviewers have discussed at length the plethora of software glitches, and a company that engineers the best and most efficient driving machines and passenger conveyances on the planet is mostly talked about for its software incompetence.
 
hmp10 said:
The price Lucid paid is that almost every major automotive award passed the Gravity by, major reviewers have discussed at length the plethora of software glitches, and a company that engineers the best and most efficient driving machines and passenger conveyances on the planet is mostly talked about for its software incompetence.
Click to expand...
Yet here we are, criticizing the CEO for sacking the software dev team management...
 
TakeDuo said:
Well, it’s kinda in his title as interim CEO. Meaning that maybe the board did hold someone accountable that they believed responsible. I’m not inferring that to be the case.

The vehicle wasn’t solely developed under him. It’s been years in the making.

Not providing excuses. Just possible explanations for the reality we see without the entire story.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And with the new mid size coming out in a year or so the company needed to assure investors and potential buyers that it was addressing this Achilles heel. But you only get so many bites at the apple.
 
Steveinarizona said:
No we are not. We are criticizing Lucid for stopping the sacking at the lower levels instead of starting at the top.
Click to expand...
Nothing inspires investor confidence more than sacking your interim CEO. And we really don’t know what’s happening in the board room. It’s quite possible that we’ll see a new CEO in the not too distant future. And I say all of this as an owner, who’s not an investor.
 
hmp10 said:
What clearly happened on Winterhoff's watch was the decision to start Gravity deliveries with the software in such a miserable state as well as either to skip factory inspection points or to ignore failures to pass inspection. (I know for a fact that this happened with our first Gravity delivered in June, as someone at Lucid admitted to me that checking that navigation systems were functioning only started after that car was shipped, and there was absolutely no way its badly distorted HUD screen was not noticed on the factory test circuit.)

His only escape from personal responsibility would be if the Board overrode him and insisted that deliveries start when they did.

The price Lucid paid is that almost every major automotive award passed the Gravity by, major reviewers have discussed at length the plethora of software glitches, and a company that engineers the best and most efficient driving machines and passenger conveyances on the planet is mostly talked about for its software incompetence.
Click to expand...
I lean in the direction of the Board overriding him and insisting on deliveries starting.
It's possible the option was provided to Peter Rawlinson.
He refused to comply and instead left the company.
 
I completely understand why owners are frustrated. The software issues affect day-to-day usability, not just abstract specs. My wife struggles with bugs and frozen screens on our Gravity daily. That said, I think Lucid and Marc Winterhoff deserve a bit of breathing room.

Winterhoff has been interim CEO for just under a year and, prior to that, was COO for about a year, focused primarily on operations and delivery speed, not on software, customer experience, or quality. That distinction matters.

I’ve had the opportunity to be in the C-suite, and stepping into an organization with systemic issues is genuinely hard. Before you can fix anything, you have to understand where the problem actually is: technology, culture, process, incentives, leadership, or some combination. Even with strong instincts, it typically takes several months just to learn the business, evaluate the leadership team, and separate symptoms from root causes. Making sweeping changes sooner than that is often irresponsible rather than decisive.
I don’t know the exact timing of the recent software leadership changes, but even in well-run companies, changes of that magnitude usually take quarters, not weeks, to plan and execute. It then takes additional time for new leadership to assess what’s broken and why.

We also don’t actually know why the software team was replaced. It’s easy to assume this was purely an accountability move, but leadership changes can also be about creating a reset, changing culture, or rapidly injecting skills that weren’t previously present. I’ve replaced teams before for those reasons. What is clear is that the prior structure struggled to deliver consistent, high-quality software. We don’t have visibility into the internal constraints or tradeoffs they were operating under.

Was the software architecture flawed? Was there insufficient QA? Were timelines unrealistic? Was bug tracking immature? We simply don’t know.

What I do see are some encouraging signs: Marc has publicly acknowledged that there is a serious software problem and owned it. They’re making leadership and process changes. They’re engaging directly with the owner community on forums, social media, and YouTube. They’re creating clearer channels for reporting issues. That’s leaning in, not deflecting.
Finally, it’s worth remembering that Marc is an interim CEO. By definition, he’ll likely be replaced once a permanent CEO is hired. I highly doubt he’ll be fired before then. The real measure of accountability won’t be whether people get removed, It’ll be whether software quality, stability, and communication materially improve over the next few releases. Let’s check back in this fall and see where they get things.
 
Steveinarizona said:
No we are not. We are criticizing Lucid for stopping the sacking at the lower levels instead of starting at the top.
Click to expand...
Starting at the top means stock price drops significantly….thats all that matters in a capitalist economy- shareholder value! Everything else is expendable , including other humans.
 
brokebit4096 said:
I completely understand why owners are frustrated. The software issues affect day-to-day usability, not just abstract specs. My wife struggles with bugs and frozen screens on our Gravity daily. That said, I think Lucid and Marc Winterhoff deserve a bit of breathing room.

Winterhoff has been interim CEO for just under a year and, prior to that, was COO for about a year, focused primarily on operations and delivery speed, not on software, customer experience, or quality. That distinction matters.

I’ve had the opportunity to be in the C-suite, and stepping into an organization with systemic issues is genuinely hard. Before you can fix anything, you have to understand where the problem actually is: technology, culture, process, incentives, leadership, or some combination. Even with strong instincts, it typically takes several months just to learn the business, evaluate the leadership team, and separate symptoms from root causes. Making sweeping changes sooner than that is often irresponsible rather than decisive.
I don’t know the exact timing of the recent software leadership changes, but even in well-run companies, changes of that magnitude usually take quarters, not weeks, to plan and execute. It then takes additional time for new leadership to assess what’s broken and why.

We also don’t actually know why the software team was replaced. It’s easy to assume this was purely an accountability move, but leadership changes can also be about creating a reset, changing culture, or rapidly injecting skills that weren’t previously present. I’ve replaced teams before for those reasons. What is clear is that the prior structure struggled to deliver consistent, high-quality software. We don’t have visibility into the internal constraints or tradeoffs they were operating under.

Was the software architecture flawed? Was there insufficient QA? Were timelines unrealistic? Was bug tracking immature? We simply don’t know.

What I do see are some encouraging signs: Marc has publicly acknowledged that there is a serious software problem and owned it. They’re making leadership and process changes. They’re engaging directly with the owner community on forums, social media, and YouTube. They’re creating clearer channels for reporting issues. That’s leaning in, not deflecting.
Finally, it’s worth remembering that Marc is an interim CEO. By definition, he’ll likely be replaced once a permanent CEO is hired. I highly doubt he’ll be fired before then. The real measure of accountability won’t be whether people get removed, It’ll be whether software quality, stability, and communication materially improve over the next few releases. Let’s check back in this fall and see where they get things.
Click to expand...
My Air software is 95% perfect. They made great improvements! So, whatever Marc is doing is working.
 
Steveinarizona said:
No we are not. We are criticizing Lucid for stopping the sacking at the lower levels instead of starting at the top.
Click to expand...
So you think the would be better off cleaning house in the C-suite? I think you could kiss the company goodbye if they did that.
 
Steveinarizona said:
No we are not. We are criticizing Lucid for stopping the sacking at the lower levels instead of starting at the top.
Click to expand...
Well, it doesn't sound like individual engineers or even project leads were fired (although maybe some were). "Software Leadership" could encompass everything from VPs down to managers.

And with his word "replaced" - past tense - I think that happened several months ago.

For instance, this fellow is Director of Software QA at Lucid:

He started in May, 2025. Rawlinson "left" in Feb, 2025.

 
I don't really understand a lot of the criticism here. Basically the entire engineering leadership team that had responsibility for software has been replaced, going right up to Rawlinson. I think it's appropriate to be upset that Lucid decided to deliver Gravities to customers when it obviously wasn't ready, but we don't really know who made that decision, or why. If we knew all the facts, it might be reasonable to call for Winterhoff's head. But as other's pointed out, it may not have been his decision. And while he hasn't been fired, he also hasn't been made permanent CEO, so perhaps the board is exacting a punishment on him. For now, I'm quite content to see how their leadership change plays out, and it seems like there's been more accountability for leadership than many companies demonstrate.
 
I have no inside info whatsoever but from what I've read here and on other forums it would seem that things are actually improving under Winterhoff's leadership.
I kind of felt sorry for the guy after speaking with him at length at the SJ SC grand opening event about the key fob issues. I gathered Lucid just went with the fob manufacturer that Mercedes was using and didn't expect all the implementation issues.
Maybe it is on Lucid to oversee implementation of these things better and ensure stuff is working properly before releasing Gravity so who knows?
All I know is that my gut feeling is that this company does seem to "own it" & "lean in" and not deflect and deny and have that "we got your money for the sale so screw you now" attitude. Hoping for smoother sailing ahead.
 
Sorry. I can't help reading the word "sacked" and think of Monty Python.

"Those responsible for the sacking have been sacked."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top