Most problems are software problems? Good news/bad news situation?

[AltadenaAir]

I could be wrong, and if I am I hope the moderators will rapidly correct me. But it seems to me that most of the issues we are discussing on this forum are - as best we can tell as mere users - software issues, not hardware issues.

Personally, on my own car, I can't name a single major hardware issue. OK, maybe a minor fit-and-finish issue, but nothing more substantial than the annoying little button on the steering wheel. The core hardware seems to performing very well.

The items that I have been most discussed (in my unscientific review of posts) are generally software issues, including:

• Questions about range prediction
• Concerns about the reliability and stability of charging at EA
• UI issues
• Reset/reboot concerns
• Self-driving concerns or observations
• Camera issues
• AC concerns

So I make the following claim: Lucid has done a wonderful job with the hardware, better by far than my experience with an early-gen (VIN #376) Model S. They just need to get more (and maybe more highly-experienced?) software folks. And here is why this is "good news": If Lucid invests just a bit more in software folks, OTA updates can readily and dramatically improve the experience of all the current owners as well as every future owner.

And, as a slightly provocative observation: Peter Tomlinson seems to be highly enamored of the hardware bits. For example, his video about the Lucid motor design went pretty overboard about how compact the motor was. And the video on the charging system was likewise very hardware oriented. But I haven't heard similar discussions of the importance of software. So maybe Peter's leadership bias is why we are seeing really good hardware and not-yet-great software?

 

[RM-S8]

I'm sure you meant Peter Rawlinson instead of Peter Tomlinson.
Minor quibble.
All of your issues, read though the posts on this forum.
Lucid is fully aware of them and working on various remedies.
Be patient, it took Tesla a lot longer to iron out software bugs.

 

[Neurio]

I could be wrong, and if I am I hope the moderators will rapidly correct me. But it seems to me that most of the issues we are discussing on this forum are - as best we can tell as mere users - software issues, not hardware issues.

Personally, on my own car, I can't name a single major hardware issue. OK, maybe a minor fit-and-finish issue, but nothing more substantial than the annoying little button on the steering wheel. The core hardware seems to performing very well.

The items that I have been most discussed (in my unscientific review of posts) are generally software issues, including:

• Questions about range prediction
• Concerns about the reliability and stability of charging at EA
• UI issues
• Reset/reboot concerns
• Self-driving concerns or observations
• Camera issues
• AC concerns

So I make the following claim: Lucid has done a wonderful job with the hardware, better by far than my experience with an early-gen (VIN #376) Model S. They just need to get more (and maybe more highly-experienced?) software folks. And here is why this is "good news": If Lucid invests just a bit more in software folks, OTA updates can readily and dramatically improve the experience of all the current owners as well as every future owner.

And, as a slightly provocative observation: Peter Tomlinson seems to be highly enamored of the hardware bits. For example, his video about the Lucid motor design went pretty overboard about how compact the motor was. And the video on the charging system was likewise very hardware oriented. But I haven't heard similar discussions of the importance of software. So maybe Peter's leadership bias is why we are seeing really good hardware and not-yet-great software?

Did you have software version 1.0.x on your car? If not, then you have no idea how far it's come in such a short time. Does it still need refinement? Of course, and I hope they never stop trying to improve it.

 

[Sam6062]

I could be wrong, and if I am I hope the moderators will rapidly correct me. But it seems to me that most of the issues we are discussing on this forum are - as best we can tell as mere users - software issues, not hardware issues.

Personally, on my own car, I can't name a single major hardware issue. OK, maybe a minor fit-and-finish issue, but nothing more substantial than the annoying little button on the steering wheel. The core hardware seems to performing very well.

The items that I have been most discussed (in my unscientific review of posts) are generally software issues, including:

• Questions about range prediction
• Concerns about the reliability and stability of charging at EA
• UI issues
• Reset/reboot concerns
• Self-driving concerns or observations
• Camera issues
• AC concerns

So I make the following claim: Lucid has done a wonderful job with the hardware, better by far than my experience with an early-gen (VIN #376) Model S. They just need to get more (and maybe more highly-experienced?) software folks. And here is why this is "good news": If Lucid invests just a bit more in software folks, OTA updates can readily and dramatically improve the experience of all the current owners as well as every future owner.

And, as a slightly provocative observation: Peter Tomlinson seems to be highly enamored of the hardware bits. For example, his video about the Lucid motor design went pretty overboard about how compact the motor was. And the video on the charging system was likewise very hardware oriented. But I haven't heard similar discussions of the importance of software. So maybe Peter's leadership bias is why we are seeing really good hardware and not-yet-great software?

If you have listened to some of his other interviews the guy wants to Sell only the Motors and the Battery Packs. He does not really want to build Cars except as a hobby. Hence the 240K Trimotor. We shall see how many they can sell.

 

[RM-S8]

If you have listened to some of his other interviews the guy wants to Sell only the Motors and the Battery Packs. He does not really want to build Cars except as a hobby. Hence the 240K Trimotor. We shall see how many they can sell.

I can tell, your are "one of the very few" here who wants Lucid to succeed.
Tesla's Plaid is doomed, admit it. Lol.

 

[Neurio]

If you have listened to some of his other interviews the guy wants to Sell only the Motors and the Battery Packs. He does not really want to build Cars except as a hobby. Hence the 240K Trimotor. We shall see how many they can sell.

Maybe he wants to do both? Build great cars and license out the vastly superior technology to other manufacturers.

Too bad we can't downvote on here like on Reddit...

 

[Bobby]

If you have listened to some of his other interviews the guy wants to Sell only the Motors and the Battery Packs. He does not really want to build Cars except as a hobby. Hence the 240K Trimotor. We shall see how many they can sell.

Please review the guidelines. Thank you.

 

[jsf1993]

I'm sure you meant Peter Rawlinson instead of Peter Tomlinson.
Minor quibble.
All of your issues, read though the posts on this forum.
Lucid is fully aware of them and working on various remedies.
Be patient, it took Tesla a lot longer to iron out software bugs.

I agree and remain hopeful that the software will improve significantly in the short term. Having said that, we have to admit that Rivian is also a startup, but its software is miles ahead of Lucid’s. The truth of the matter is that Lucid failed to prioritize the UI and software, in general, in their development plan and has yet to make up ground at a satisfactory pace for many Air owners. In contrast, Rivian obviously prioritized software development, something that may have been easier for it to do because (I believe) it was purchasing off the shelf motors/drivetrains/battery assemblies for its design.

 

[Sam6062]

Maybe he wants to do both? Build great cars and license out the vastly superior technology to other manufacturers.

Too bad we can't downvote on here like on Reddit...

Maybe a downvote button should be allowed if that helps you. Maybe he does but are people not allowed to express their opinion on what they have heard. Definitely suggest listening to that old interview before trying to downvote.

 

[Bobby]

Maybe a downvote button should be allowed if that helps you. Maybe he does but are people not allowed to express their opinion on what they have heard. Definitely suggest listening to that old interview before trying to downvote.

Dial it back please. Keep the conversations about the topic, not one another.

 

[nadecir]

I agree and remain hopeful that the software will improve significantly in the short term. Having said that, we have to admit that Rivian is also a startup, but its software is miles ahead of Lucid’s. The truth of the matter is that Lucid failed to prioritize the UI and software, in general, in their development plan and has yet to make up ground at a satisfactory pace for many Air owners. In contrast, Rivian obviously prioritized software development, something that may have been easier for it to do because (I believe) it was purchasing off the shelf motors/drivetrains/battery assemblies for its design.

Lucid has made some questionable software design decisions.

In its infancy, Lucid decided to use the open source Android Automotive as their vehicle operating system. But instead of licensing and integrating Google Automotive Services (GAS) quick is an add-on to Android Automotive, Lucid tried to duplicate much of the same functionality with their own in house development. GAS has been interested quite successfully by other car manufacturers.

Layering Alexa on top of Android Automotive is a real head scratcher.

You have to wonder how much further along Lucid would have been with their software if they had gone the easy route of adding Google Automotive Services. Quite often, the easy route is the best route in software development.

Lucid has designed world-class vehicle hardware. Time will tell, but maybe they should focus their energies on their hardware, and rely more on integrating existing software versus internal software development.

 

[hydbob]

Lucid has made some questionable software design decisions.

In its infancy, Lucid decided to use the open source Android Automotive as their vehicle operating system. But instead of licensing and integrating Google Automotive Services (GAS) quick is an add-on to Android Automotive, Lucid tried to duplicate much of the same functionality with their own in house development. GAS has been interested quite successfully by other car manufacturers.

Layering Alexa on top of Android Automotive is a real head scratcher.

You have to wonder how much further along Lucid would have been with their software if they had gone the easy route of adding Google Automotive Services. Quite often, the easy route is the best route in software development.

Lucid has designed world-class vehicle hardware. Time will tell, but maybe they should focus their energies on their hardware, and rely more on integrating existing software versus internal software development.

As good as the GAS services are, they don't feel premium. The argument is that they work, mostly, but for a premium sedan, you want a premium user experience. Again, usability is a large portion of that, but the look/feel of that software is also important. I'm glad Lucid has decided to continue to develop off of Android Automotive rather than just plug GAS into the car. That would definitely not make it feel luxury or premium, IMO.

 

[nadecir]

You can customize GAS all you want. GAS adds potential infotainment functionality without restricting anything. There's no downside to GAS.

There's a cumulative, insignificant cost of maintenance of the internally developed services that are duplicative of GAS services.

Having access to apps in the Google Play Store is a big advantage of GAS. With it, vehicle OEMs can leverage the existing work of many, many developers worldwide.

 

[Bobby]

You can customize GAS all you want. GAS adds potential infotainment functionality without restricting anything. There's no downside to GAS.

There's a cumulative, insignificant cost of maintenance of the internally developed services that are duplicative of GAS services.

Having access to apps in the Google Play Store is a big advantage of GAS. With it, vehicle OEMs can leverage the existing work of many, many developers worldwide.

That is not the direction they took. Simple as that.

 

[SDHacker]

You can customize GAS all you want. GAS adds potential infotainment functionality without restricting anything. There's no downside to GAS.

There's a cumulative, insignificant cost of maintenance of the internally developed services that are duplicative of GAS services.

Having access to apps in the Google Play Store is a big advantage of GAS. With it, vehicle OEMs can leverage the existing work of many, many developers worldwide.

Of the manufacturers incorporating Automotive as the infotainment OS, there are only 2 “luxury” brands - bmw and lucid. Both chose not to add GAS wanting their own take on what a luxury experience is. All the mass market makers chose to use GAS.

Yes, using GAS has immediate benefits but it isn’t what was thought to be the best play in the long run.

 

[Bobby]

Of the manufacturers incorporating Automotive as the infotainment OS, there are only 2 “luxury” brands - bmw and lucid. Both chose not to add GAS wanting their own take on what a luxury experience is. All the mass market makers chose to use GAS.

Yes, using GAS has immediate benefits but it isn’t what was thought to be the best play in the long run.

Android Automotive and Google Suite for car infotainment are two different approaches to integrating Google's technology into vehicles. Here's a breakdown of the main differences between the two:

Android Automotive:Android Automotive is a full-fledged operating system specifically designed for automotive infotainment systems. It is an extension of Google's Android platform but tailored for use in cars. Android Automotive provides a complete and integrated infotainment experience with a user interface that is optimized for in-car use.
Key features of Android Automotive:

• Native integration: Android Automotive is deeply integrated into the vehicle's hardware and software, offering seamless functionality and performance.
• App ecosystem: It allows access to the Google Play Store, enabling users to download and install Android apps directly on the infotainment system.
• Google services: Android Automotive comes with a suite of Google services like Google Maps, Google Assistant, and Google Play Music (or other media services). This integration enhances navigation, voice control, and entertainment options.
• Customization: Car manufacturers can customize the user interface and tailor the infotainment system to suit their brand and specific vehicle models.

Google Suite for Car Infotainment:Google Suite for Car Infotainment is not a standalone operating system but rather a collection of Google's apps and services that can be integrated into existing infotainment systems. It allows car manufacturers to incorporate specific Google applications and features without implementing Android Automotive as a whole.
Key features of Google Suite for Car Infotainment:

• App integration: Car manufacturers can choose specific Google apps to be integrated into their existing infotainment systems. This may include apps like Google Maps, Google Assistant, and other entertainment services.
• Customization: While some level of customization is possible, it might be limited compared to Android Automotive. Car manufacturers have more flexibility to decide which apps to include and how they are presented.
• Ecosystem integration: Google Suite for Car Infotainment allows seamless integration with the broader Google ecosystem, including Google Assistant voice commands and access to relevant data from users' Google accounts.

In summary, Android Automotive is a comprehensive operating system developed by Google specifically for automotive infotainment systems, offering full integration, app ecosystem, and customization options. On the other hand, Google Suite for Car Infotainment is a collection of specific Google apps and services that can be integrated into existing infotainment systems, offering more flexibility to car manufacturers but without the deep level of integration provided by Android Automotive.

Regarding "open source" versus cost:
Android Automotive, being a full-fledged operating system, typically requires a more substantial upfront investment from the car manufacturer. The integration of Android Automotive involves deeper hardware and software integration, customization of the user interface to align with the manufacturer's brand, and ensuring compatibility with the vehicle's systems. Additionally, car manufacturers might need to go through a certification process with Google to ensure compliance with Android Automotive's standards and access to Google Play services.

On the other hand, Google Suite for Car Infotainment might offer a more cost-effective solution for car manufacturers. It allows manufacturers to pick and choose specific Google apps and services to integrate into their existing infotainment systems. The level of customization might be more limited compared to Android Automotive, but it offers flexibility in selecting the desired Google features without implementing a full operating system overhaul.

Who uses what?

1. BMW: BMW uses its proprietary operating system called BMW Operating System 7.0. It features a customizable user interface with touch and voice control capabilities.
2. Mercedes-Benz: Mercedes-Benz uses its MBUX (Mercedes-Benz User Experience) infotainment system. MBUX is known for its advanced voice control and natural language processing capabilities.
3. Audi: Audi employs its MMI (Multi Media Interface) system, which integrates various functions like infotainment, navigation, and vehicle settings into one central display.
4. Porsche: Porsche uses its Porsche Communication Management (PCM) system, providing access to entertainment, navigation, and communication features.
5. Lexus: Lexus features the Lexus Enform infotainment system, offering connectivity, navigation, and app integration.
6. Land Rover / Jaguar: Land Rover and Jaguar models utilize the Touch Pro and Touch Pro Duo infotainment systems, providing access to various vehicle functions.
7. Bentley: Bentley offers its own infotainment system, which includes high-end audio and connectivity features.
8. Rolls-Royce: Rolls-Royce uses the Spirit of Ecstasy Rotary Controller, which is part of their infotainment system.

 

[borski]

Rolls-Royce uses the Spirit of Ecstasy

I’m sorry, the Spirit of Ecstasy? lol

 

[Bobby]

I’m sorry, the Spirit of Ecstasy? lol

I thought it was weird when ChatGPT listed that, but oh well.

 

[DeaneG]

Volvo is typically referred to as a luxury brand as well. I'm assuming Polestar is too.
Both use AAOS with GAS, and hence have native Google Maps, Waze, ABRP, Youtube music, Amazon music, Pocketcasts in-car apps etc available, in addition to the usual Spotify, iHeartradio, etc. Google Assistant is also built in, and for us functions far better than Alexa.

 

[SDHacker]

BMW OS 8 (on some models) and future releases will be based on AAOS