CarPlay is here! - Megathread

[Impatient7536]

I don't think that Lucid is dragging their feet on CarPlay or Android Auto or any other missing features. IMHO, they botched the entire software platform and are trying to recover and this will take time.

i wonder if at one point when they were trying to integrate more functions and features, they realized that their current code is so poorly written and non-scalable that it won't be sustainable, so they internally decided to nuke the whole thing and start from scratch again. so now, a small dedicated team is doing these band-aid fixes and updates to tide things over, while the majority of the team is scrambling to rebuild from the ground up.

not a coder, so not sure how malleable a software's "foundation" is, or if it's so jacked up that it's better and easier to start over than to work with what you got.

 

[HC_79]

i wonder if at one point when they were trying to integrate more functions and features, they realized that their current code is so poorly written and non-scalable that it won't be sustainable, so they internally decided to nuke the whole thing and start from scratch again. so now, a small dedicated team is doing these band-aid fixes and updates to tide things over, while the majority of the team is scrambling to rebuild from the ground up.

not a coder, so not sure how malleable a software's "foundation" is, or if it's so jacked up that it's better and easier to start over than to work with what you got.

Who knows, Lucid certainly isn't saying what's wrong publicly.

 

[Demosthenes]

I can appreciate the utility of Apple CarPlay, it certainly makes life easier in rental cars. However, as conceptualised here, it looks too, um…utilitarian. Like the Apple Politburo designed it. Would it that Lucid hire software designers who could design software that would not only look organically Lucid-premium beautiful, but equally as useful as CarPlay. If only…

This is exactly what I dream of. I don’t want Apple CarPlay running my Lucid. I want Lucid CarPlay.

 

[MoniputerLM]

Who knows, Lucid certainly isn't saying what's wrong publicly.

And that's part of the problem!

 

[Keith]

i wonder if at one point when they were trying to integrate more functions and features, they realized that their current code is so poorly written and non-scalable that it won't be sustainable, so they internally decided to nuke the whole thing and start from scratch again. so now, a small dedicated team is doing these band-aid fixes and updates to tide things over, while the majority of the team is scrambling to rebuild from the ground up.

not a coder, so not sure how malleable a software's "foundation" is, or if it's so jacked up that it's better and easier to start over than to work with what you got.

I am a Software Engineer, and most every big project I worked on (Digital, HP, Lucent, Dell, Oracle) at one time or another needed to be scrapped and rewritten. Generally speaking, it's because there wasn't enough time up front to understand all the requirements and design something solid, elegant and extensible. The few times management did allow for proper software development and testing (which typically adds 2-3x to the project timeline) the results were outstanding. Unfortunately, it comes down to: Features, Time to Market and Quality ... Pick Two

 

[HC_79]

Working in IT and presenting solutions I often reference this. It annoys execs to no end but it gets the point across when they set unrealistic timelines

 

[Impatient7536]

I am a Software Engineer, and most every big project I worked on (Digital, HP, Lucent, Dell, Oracle) at one time or another needed to be scrapped and rewritten. Generally speaking, it's because there wasn't enough time up front to understand all the requirements and design something solid, elegant and extensible. The few times management did allow for proper software development and testing (which typically adds 2-3x to the project timeline) the results were outstanding. Unfortunately, it comes down to: Features, Time to Market and Quality ... Pick Two

awesome perspective. thanks for sharing. i guess it's reassuring in a weird way that scrapping a whole thing and starting new is not unusual, and can usually lead to a better product, although painful for both the engineers and consumers hahaha

 

[steveairgt]

I am a Software Engineer, and most every big project I worked on (Digital, HP, Lucent, Dell, Oracle) at one time or another needed to be scrapped and rewritten. Generally speaking, it's because there wasn't enough time up front to understand all the requirements and design something solid, elegant and extensible. The few times management did allow for proper software development and testing (which typically adds 2-3x to the project timeline) the results were outstanding. Unfortunately, it comes down to: Features, Time to Market and Quality ... Pick Two

Keith
Sounds like you’re from New England. You mentioned all the companies that changed names over the years in MA.

I too worked for HP and Lucent.

Small world.

Welcome to the Lucid !!!

 

[digiboxer]

awesome perspective. thanks for sharing. i guess it's reassuring in a weird way that scrapping a whole thing and starting new is not unusual, and can usually lead to a better product, although painful for both the engineers and consumers hahaha

So why not subcontract it out to an enterprise software giant in the first place? (They aren't curing their own in-house rubber for tires..)

 

[DeaneG]

So why not subcontract it out to an enterprise software giant in the first place? (They aren't curing their own in-house rubber for tires..)

Generally more companies are realizing that software is a core part of their users' experience, and want to build in-house expertise and maintain in-house control. Imagine if Apple only built the hardware for their iPhone and other computing products, and contracted out the software development.

 

[joec]

Generally more companies are realizing that software is a core part of their users' experience, and want to build in-house expertise and maintain in-house control. Imagine if Apple only built the hardware for their iPhone and other computing products, and contracted out the software development.

We don't have to imagine that. Just buy a Samsung phone.

 

[borski]

So why not subcontract it out to an enterprise software giant in the first place? (They aren't curing their own in-house rubber for tires..)

Because many software subcontractors suck, and it means you don’t have control over the experience or the process. The flexibility of changing the software is of utmost importance, as you discover what does and doesn’t work.

 

[Sam6062]

Working in IT and presenting solutions I often reference this. It annoys execs to no end but it gets the point across when they set unrealistic timelines

View attachment 3127

Amen… you can only get 2 out of 3 so management has to pick one.

 

[Sam6062]

Because many software subcontractors suck, and it means you don’t have control over the experience or the process. The flexibility of changing the software is of utmost importance, as you discover what does and doesn’t work.

Another issue is if more than one team is working on different parts of the system and they do not take into account all the touchpoints/handoffs then it creates a messy overall application. The other thing you always hear is that a perfect product can never come to market because it would never be finished.

 

[hydbob]

The other thing you always hear is that a perfect product can never come to market because it would never be finished.

Hmmm...

 

[thecodingart]

So why not subcontract it out to an enterprise software giant in the first place? (They aren't curing their own in-house rubber for tires..)

This is a terrible suggestion for all the reasons listed above and more. Lucid really just needs to get its own house in order.

 

[Keith]

Another issue is if more than one team is working on different parts of the system and they do not take into account all the touchpoints/handoffs then it creates a messy overall application. The other thing you always hear is that a perfect product can never come to market because it would never be finished.

Ex: The Apollo 13 mission where the CO scrubbers in the LEM were different from the Command Module .. built by different sub-contractors. Riveting movie.

I love our Hyundai Ioniq 5 .. but the UI (both in cabin and the app) appear to have been made by different teams, then slapped together. Not a great user experience. Though the car itself is stellar

 

[Parachute Adams]

This is a terrible suggestion for all the reasons listed above and more. Lucid really just needs to get its own house in order.

This would be a bit more persuasive if L's software were working Like Apple's...or if it was clear that it ever will....

 

[Parachute Adams]

Because many software subcontractors suck, and it means you don’t have control over the experience or the process. The flexibility of changing the software is of utmost importance, as you discover what does and doesn’t work.

So why are people begging for A Auto and CarPlay if they expect Lucid to create a great user experience? Those are third party apps.

 

[maractwin]

So why are people begging for A Auto and CarPlay if they expect Lucid to create a great user experience? Those are third party apps.

Our smart phones have become so integrated into our lives that there are things they will always do better (for us as individuals) than any other system. My phone has my calendar and knows when and where I need to be places. I can spend time re-keying that info into the car, or just have the phone help get me there. The entertainment options on my phone I use in several settings--and I want to use those in the car too.

The car needs to do car-specific things really well, and allow me to do other things in the way that best fits the rest of my life, not just while I'm driving.