Ford Ousted Its CEO And Is Doubling Down On Self-Driving Cars (qz.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: At a press conference today, Ford announced that it had replaced CEO Mark Fields with Jim Hackett, director of the company's autonomous-car research. Previously the CEO of furniture company Steelcase (and a former athletic director at the University of Michigan), Hackett took a seat on Ford's board in 2013. He has been running the company's Smart Mobility subsidiary since March 2016. Smart Mobility is tasked with securing Ford's long-term future. The division houses Ford's self-driving car program, which plans to start ferrying employees around its Dearborn, Michigan campus in 2018. Outgoing CEO Mark Fields previously said that Ford would sell autonomous vehicles to consumers by 2025. [...] Hackett is expected to continue the push into self-driving cars. "We have to re-energize our business, we need to modernize our business," executive chairman Bill Ford said about the company's initiatives into new technologies at the conference.

Comments

Whatever

[fluffernutter]

Whatever gets me closer to a car that materializes in my driveway as soon as I open my front door, which will be tailored to meet all my requirements for a vehicle and take me everywhere I want to go for a $1. Since this is what people seem to think this will turn into.

Re: Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd buy that for $1!

Re:Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

if it's anything like zipcar in NYC in the summertime when you want to go to the beach on the weekend, sorry no cars available. Or it costs $100 a day

Re:Whatever

[fluffernutter]

Oh, and people say zipcars are so wonderful.. Thanks for the info.

Re:Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently it is because demand is exceeding supply.

Re:Whatever

[OhSoLaMeow]

To paraphrase Yogi Berra:

Nobody uses zipcars anymore because they're not available

Re:Whatever

[ranton]

Whatever gets me closer to a car that materializes in my driveway as soon as I open my front door, which will be tailored to meet all my requirements for a vehicle and take me everywhere I want to go for a $1.

Other than the ridiculous price point, nothing you asked for is very far fetched once autonomous cars become a thing. Give the car service 10 minutes to find a car with the prerequisite number of seats / child seats and one is waiting for you when you open your front door. Transform the glove box to a safety deposit box stored at a depot in your neighborhood with personal effects like sun glasses and you car is always equipped and ready to go.

$1 is certainly just hyperbole, but at somewhere between $10-$20 for a standard round trip it becomes economically viable to use this type of service instead of owning a car.

Re: Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

You could even carry some sort of holding device equipped with some sort of carrying element that would allow you to carry it on your body and place a number of personal items in it.

Re:Whatever

[fluffernutter]

Right, 10-20. Yet I have argued with many people that think they will be far less than a taxi cab. More like a cheap Uber, or rickshaw dragged by someone very poor with a starving family.

Re:Whatever

[fluffernutter]

And I wouldn't personally like to wait 10 minutes for a ride. For me the thing about owning is that you can walk out to your driveway without waiting. If I wanted to wait, have a cheap ride, and not have to drive, then I would be taking a bus already.

Re:Whatever

[ranton]

And I wouldn't personally like to wait 10 minutes for a ride. For me the thing about owning is that you can walk out to your driveway without waiting.

You personally don't have to wait 10 minutes for a ride, since I doubt you will be forced to forego having a car. I on the other hand doubt there is a single time I just needed to rush out of the house with no notice in the last year. Even when my daughter broke her leg it took us time to get diaper bags and other incidentals for both of our kids ready, and if this really became commonplace there would probably be some kind of 911 service with 5x the cost but will be there immediately.

If I wanted to wait, have a cheap ride, and not have to drive, then I would be taking a bus already.

Most people don't even have the option of a bus, since they don't live in urban areas. And for those where a bus is an option, I doubt they can hail a bus and pick them up at their house. It really isn't much of a comparison.

Re:Whatever

[fluffernutter]

Well you may be a lot more organized than I am. I've woken up with my kids in the morning and realized I don't have lunch to send with them to school that day. It really helps to get to the grocery store and back in 15 minutes flat on those mornings. I don't know how I would give that freedom up.

Re: Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on the days most people want them.

Re:Whatever

[beastofburdon]

No, there will not be "emergency" autonomous vehicles to take you to the doctor. There will be ambulances just like there are now.

This idea of autonomous cars being a simple call away within 10 minutes is something only available in a city which does have buses. It will not be available to those who do not live in cities unless you are willing to pay hundreds of dollars and willing to wait for hours.

Re:Whatever

[ranton]

This idea of autonomous cars being a simple call away within 10 minutes is something only available in a city which does have buses. It will not be available to those who do not live in cities unless you are willing to pay hundreds of dollars and willing to wait for hours.

It may not be available to people whose closest neighbors tend to be a quarter mile away (like the farm I grew up in), but in the suburbs it is quite feasible. The nearest small town to my father's farm was about 10 square miles with 12,000 people. An unused autonomous car on the other side of town could be at your house in 10 minutes.

The total number of cars necessary will be determined by rush hour needs. This will provide more than enough available cars for any unplanned trips throughout the day, regardless of how populated the area is.

How big was the golden parachute?

[Anonymous Coward]

50 mil? 100 mil?

I feel like the greedy lede was buried here.

As a shareholder...

[__aaclcg7560]

I don't mind the 35% decline in share prices, as the dividends can buy more shares at a lower price.

Re:As a shareholder...

[Anonymous Coward]

The dividend will be slashed soon. They can't afford to keep paying that level. The new CEO will have to make this hard decision for the good of the company.

Re:As a shareholder...

[__aaclcg7560]

The dividend will be slashed soon.

Slashing the dividend will probably decrease the share price even further. If so, I'll probably buy more shares out of pocket.

Re:As a shareholder...

[ctilsie242]

That wouldn't be too bad. I'd wind up just buying more Ford shares as a stock to keep and hold.

Re:As a shareholder...

[Anonymous Coward]

By this logic, if a stock drops to zero and slashes its dividend to zero, you would plow your life savings into the company, because "it must be worth lots of money."

If the stock price itself is hammered, and then the company slashes the dividend, in what way is that an investment? Both ways for recouping your initial purchase price have been rendered ineffective.

Re:As a shareholder...

[__aaclcg7560]

If the stock price itself is hammered, and then the company slashes the dividend, in what way is that an investment?

Depends on the fundamentals. Why does a stock get hammered? Why does the dividend get slashed? What's the short-term and long-term prospects?

Wall Street has a short-term mentality. I'm playing the long game.

take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, If they are serious about making a car that I can nap in the back seat or send home empty I'll buy one. It can even have a 500cc hamster engine that takes 45sec to reach cruising speed and I'd still buy it.

Re:take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

Radical islam will load it full of anfo with a remote camera and detonator and use it as a guided missile to wage jihad. Ford will be sued and the cars will be outlawed.

Re:take my money

[TWX]

That's actually a good point, in that vehicle performance matters a lot less when the occupant does not directly operate the vehicle. Performance is no unimportant; most people want to be conveyed to their destinations in reasonable amounts of time and don't like unnecessary waiting, but if one looks back on the late seventies during the fallout from the OPEC oil embargo, most full-sized cars had less than 200 horsepower while weighing in at over two tons and they still managed to sell. Even what were considered mainstream performance or sports cars of the '60s and early '70s have acceleration rates that can be met by most mid-market, "boring" cars today.

If true autonomous vehicles become the norm, I fully expect that the entire nature of auto body design will change. The traditional three-box design of sedans and coupes and two-box design of wagons, SUVs, vans will almost undoubtedly be re-examined as there will no longer be a need for the driver to face forward, and if powertrain efficiency continues to improve then there may be less need to continue streamlining. While autonomous vehicles and driver-controlled vehicles are mixed on the road I expect that autonomous vehicles will still have to pass crash-safety testing, but it may not be unrealistic to see fully autonomous vehicles start to re-examine traditional carriage design where occupants are able to face each other instead of everyone facing forward, and you could even see tabletops inside of vehicles that are intended for long over-the-road travel.

If petroleum-burning powertrains continune to increase in efficiency, then it's not unreasonble to consider relocating a smaller, barely-adequate powertrain to under the passenger compartment rather than in front of it, similar to the old Skateboard concept that GM worked on in the early noughties, especially if they do a more thorough job of divorcing the duties of the body control module and the powertrain control module such that some bolts and a single umbilicle connect the passenger body from the chassis. Service would be rolling the car into a bay, securing the lift to the body, unbolting the body and the umbilicle, lifting the body off, and having room to work on the chassis. Boxer-type horizontally-opposed engines would fit this chassis well. Obviously electric drivetrains would be even easier.

Future vehicle development would probably center on the configuration of the passenger compartment along with amenities, while attempting to define vehicle exteriors that meet expectations but don't necessarily have to exceed them for most buyers. If one looks at vehicle design now and historically, everyone follows each others' leads anyway, so it would be no stretch to assume that future autonomous passenger cars would continue to follow suit where everyone mimicks everyone else with the occasional halo-car coming out to stir-up interest.

It'll be interesting to see what happens long-term.

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

That's the problem, you won't be thinking about all the people with manual cars driving behind you. Cars like that will need a special lane.

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

You may want to live more of your life in your car but I don't. I am no good to my family if I am in a car traveling home from work. The faster it can get me to where I need to go the better, so it is a much more useful objective for an automatic car to go faster not slower. Also one thing you are not taking into consideration is that there will be a mix of manual and automatic cars on the road, so how expensive will it be to redesign the roads so that the slow manual cars don't hold up the faster ones?

Re:take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you driven on the interstate lately? It's a terrible mix of 65 mph and 85 mph. There are already special lanes (slow lane = right light, fast lane = passing lane = right lane) but those special lanes seem to rarely get used for their special purposes. You can add all the special lanes you want but that's not going to help.

In reality, we could have slowly accelerating vehicles (just as we do today) and people would deal with it more or less just fine (as they do today).

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

I choose not to live in a place where I have to put up with that.

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

We do have slowly accelerating vehicles in the winter when it is icy, and trust me, that makes traffic worse.

Re:take my money

[TWX]

I don't expect autonomous cars to have ridiculously low speeds. 100hp can get you up to freeway speeds and conduct you at those speeds on flat terrain. 150hp with proper gearing is likely plenty for driving at-speed in hilly areas, assuming a reasonable amount of passenger weight.

Autonomous vehicles will not need 300hp to smartly merge onto the freeway and drive with-traffic at 70mph speeds.

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

So no one will need to pull a trailer? People buy cars that are 300hp because they are fun to drive, not because it is necessary for driving. This will not change with automated cars.

Re:take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

Your wife said you are no good for your family anyway. At least that is what it sounded like she was trying to say, my dick was in her mouth at the time.

Re:take my money

[ctilsie242]

I can see that. With traffic now, there isn't a need for 2 second 0-60 times. What is needed is fuel economy, being able to handle being stopped and using as little fuel as possible, and being comfortable to handle the two hour commute caused by a jack-knifed semi or some drunk who flipped their vehicle.

Horsepower has improved since the 1990s. The days of a Geo Metro or Mazda GLC holding up an entire line of traffic on a highway merge are long gone. Almost any car these days can merge safely onto US roads, and if it doesn't... that is the driver's error. We really don't need more HP, but a focus on creature comforts, reliability, and fuel economy. Cheap gas isn't going to last (it can be gone in hours, especially if Iran decides its time to mine the Strait of Hormuz again, or Daesh knocks out a refinery.) Hybrid cars bring the ability to use grid power (here in the US, that can come from biomass, solar, coal, nuclear, wind, or the hot air over DC.), reducing the need for fossil fuels specifically.

With commute times getting longer, and cities uninterested in expanding roads, it might be wise to consider autonomous cars like pop-top campervans. Hop in the vehicle, then take a shower and eat while it takes you to work, similar with the commute home. For longer trips, it would be useful because with automatic refueling, one could let the vehicle drive 24/7, and if you don't feel like stopping for something, you can just do a trip fairly quickly, no having to stop at a hotel for the night.

Re:take my money

[TWX]

Not everyone has the same needs. Besides, not every vehicle right now is expected to or is even capable of pulling a trailer anyway.

I fully expect those who use their vehicles for more than just passenger transportation will not find wholly-autonomous vehicles appropriate to their needs. For those there will continue to be other kinds of vehicles, and those other kinds of vehicles will probably offer both autonomous and conventional driving modes.

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

Right but all these people are still going to be on the same road at once.. so how do we keep the people with slow car needs from holding up the others?

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

I thought EVs were going to solve that problem? EVs will be mainstream before self driving cars are.

Re:take my money

[TWX]

What slower cars?

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

We're talking about how some cars will have less power and thus accelerate slower. They may reach full speed but it may take them a full block to do so, meaning from light to light it may not happen.

Re:take my money

[TWX]

You're looking at the situation like there's only one problem and only one solution.

Sport Utility Vehicles that are actual 4x4s with offroad capability, commercial trucks including light trucks (ie, pickups), and long-haul vehicles will probably retain the option of an internal combustion engine, as these vehicles are may all be used in situations where there's no access to electrical infrastructure to recharge batteries, where the mass for batteries is too cumbersome, or where the amount of time to recharge is unacceptable. As such there will be conventionally-powered or hybrid-powered vehicles capable of at least part-time autonomous operation on the roads.

An electric, full-time-autonomous vehicle is something like a 70% or 80% solution, as probably 70-80% of the time or for 70-80% of the population this vehicle completely meets their needs. The most common use of a vehicle is commuting to work, and most people drive the same commute day-in, day-out. An electric car that can do this plus 50% more range would satisfy the vast majority of people; it would meet their regular needs plus allow for side-trips or other routes that they may reasonably expect to need.

For the rest of the 20-30% other solutions are absolutely necessary. Other drivetrains, other modes of control, etc. Some people would choose to continue to drive themselves regardless. Some would choose to use a vehicle that is less-suited to commuting, as they already do, because of their personal reasons. Either way though, there will still be a sizable market for these customers and it will be filled.

Re:take my money

[Kjella]

Radical islam will load it full of anfo with a remote camera and detonator and use it as a guided missile to wage jihad. Ford will be sued and the cars will be outlawed.

Except they'll both chase you and backtrack where you came from, how many terrorists successfully escape even if they don't do it as a suicide mission? They mostly end up in some kind of shootout/hostage situation shortly after, like the Boston marathon bombers, San Bernardino, the Christmas market attack in Berlin etc. so I figure for the most part jihadists will simply drive themselves. Failing that you can much easier make an "RC car" with a dummy, dash cam and a bit of hydraulics to push the pedals. Didn't someone essentially make that for $1000?

Re:take my money

[TWX]

I don't think we'll see too many vehicles equipped to let the occupants do things like bathe while in-motion simply because if there is an emergency there's no good way to protect the occupants from injury. I could see a degree of portable office or entertainment center being common though, especially for those who already have the option to telecommute or for those accustomed to streaming their television content on a schedule of their choosing.

It might even be common to have breakfast or to otherwise dine while in-motion, but I expect it'll be some time before we see more than microwave food prep in a vehicle underway on a public road. Either prepare your breakfast at home and take it into the car with you, or else plan to microwave something while en-route or eat a cold breakfast.

Comparing what people do on commuter-rail might be the best, discounting those services on rail that require an employee to perform.

Re:take my money

[TWX]

To quote myself,

I don't expect autonomous cars to have ridiculously low speeds. 100hp can get you up to freeway speeds and conduct you at those speeds on flat terrain. 150hp with proper gearing is likely plenty for driving at-speed in hilly areas, assuming a reasonable amount of passenger weight.

Autonomous vehicles will not need 300hp to smartly merge onto the freeway and drive with-traffic at 70mph speeds.

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

But are 70-80% of the people going to be willing to buy a car that will preclude them from ever being able to do long distance trips? That is the real question. My ICE I drive to work 95% of the time, but I also want to be able to do a long distance trip with it so I will still buy an ICE. Just because a vehicle meets people's needs most of the time it doesn't mean they will be willing to limit themselves from the other 20%.

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

I thought you were talking top speed, not acceleration. I can't tell you how quickly a 100hp car would accelerate off the top of my head, but it is sure annoying when you get behind someone who seems reluctant to get to the speed limit as quickly as possible.

Re:take my money

[__aaclcg7560]

A car that drive itself on the freeway will make it easier for johns and hookers to conduct business in private. Police will be pulling over self-driving cars with steamed up windows to make arrests. Think of the children!

Re:take my money

[TWX]

Reluctance to use the power at one's disposal an the power itself are not the same thing.

I've seen people in 5-series BMWs obstruct traffic, and people in 116hp 1990 Mazda Miatas set the pace.

Re:take my money

[rogoshen1]

could we add special lanes for soccer moms driving minivans (or outrageously large SUV's) to keep them out of the left lane?

I feel that i'd be justified in getting a rocket launcher to 'nudge' these people out of the way, but i fear there might be some complicated legal entanglements to contend with.

There is no emotional equal to the contempt one feels at seeing a soccer mom merge onto the freeway, immediately hop into the left lane, and set their cruise control for 60 and just diddle themselves while being COMPLETELY oblivious to the conga line of angry motorists behind them.

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

Right and people will be people. Inconsistency allows it to work most of the time. If we say an automated car can be made in a certain way though, suddenly you have thousands of cars on the road that will drive consistently slowly. That will be a problem.

Re:take my money

[TWX]

If ICE cars can be rented for road trips, absolutely. For multi-car households, absolutely. For those that feel it is acceptable to stop at the modern-equivalent of rural diner and gas station to have the car charged-up while having a meal, absolutely.

Remember, electric cars have very little maintenance compared to fossil-fuel powered cars. There are simply less consumed lubricants, and many systems that use hydraulics or other fluids or mechanical processes are going to use electric processes. Even things like brakes will need less maintenance, as regen braking attempts to use wheel-motors in lieu of friction to slow the vehicle when possible. For the first hundred-thousand miles I expect that tires, alignments, and brakes will be the only major expenses unless something actually fails, and that the service-life of the vehicle will be based on a combination of the quality of the interior components and how they hold up, plus the longevity of the electric power train, weighed against battery replacement costs. A car with an interior that is in good shape and halfway through the expected longevity of its motor and any power transmission parts would probably have its batteries replaced even if they're expensive. A car with a worn-out interior or close to the end of the expected service life of the motor or transmission probably would not.

Re:take my money

[TWX]

Why would they drive slowly? I expect that they'd drive the way that the manufacturer sets them out to drive, and without a human at the controls they'd probably accelerate as quickly as the automaker figures the occupants will accept, and drive as fast as the occupants will accept.

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

Yeah I'm not interested in renting a car for a road trip. You haven't seen what my kids can do to a back seat, and I don't want to be beholden to the fees I may incur simply to remove a stain.

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

Then that's fine. You were talking about minimizing the horsepower. If it is enough horsepower to come up to speed quickly then fine.

Re:take my money

[fluffernutter]

Just so you know, here is what driving with self driving cars is going to be like: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

Re:take my money

[TWX]

Then congratulations, you will continue to fall into the 20-30% range for at least one vehicle in your household.

If it's any consolation I will undoubtedly find myself in the same position, partially since working on cars is a hobby of mine and since we currently have six vehicles already. I wouldn't mind for my daily-commuter and for my wife's daily-commuter to be autonomous, electric vehicles through.

Re: take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not rent a trailer-pulling unit when you need it? If it is self driving you don't need to be in the trailer pulling unit, just arrive at the destination when your trailer does. Your trailer could go three hours early at half the speed and take six hours, meaning lower strain on its mechanical elements, and with lower drag be able to use a less powerful pulling unit. You get to stay home until 10am, setting out after a leisurely breakfast, whilst your trailer started off at 7am.

Re: take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

My car has excellent acceleration (kick in the seat of the pants) and can pull a 20 foot trailer, although not with that level of acceleration, and the engine is 110hp. I think you are unrealistic if you think 300 hp is required for good acceleration.

Re: take my money

[Anonymous Coward]

If people want to travel a long distance they rarely buy a plane. What we are likely to see, if gradually, is a change to the model of usage. For me, if I need to drive to a place of work and don't want to car pool then something with a single seat and space for a bag is enough. For general use a four seater is good. For getting a sofa back from IKEA, I'd already need to rent a van. If a rental model was cheaper than now it might well be the best option. As it is 95% of the time my car doesn't even move as I cycle or walk to work unless I'm ill, it's very hot, it very wet, or if I'm off on an errand immediately afterwards.

New CEO is clueless

[mspohr]

The new CEO used to work at a furniture company but is good friends with the Ford family so that's how he got his job. He knows nothing about cars or autonomous vehicles in spite of being in charge of the AV program. He's just a well connected good old boy.
I don't see how this can help. Ford needs somebody who understands cars and autonomous vehicles and electric vehicles. This guy knows nothing.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

I want Hackett to hack and slash the company to set it up for Jim Farley.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

tim cook was a logistics guy at compaq. how did that turn out? now he makes phones and runs a hugely profitable online store. Furniture had it's own rent a couch model, if they want to make cars the same way then hiring someone from another line of business makes sense.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

He's going to make Ford great again!

Re:New CEO is clueless

[GLMDesigns]

The CEO doesn't need to know how to build cars. He needs to have a vision, have excellent managerial skills (which includes delegating authority and being able to recognize talent.) The CEO doesn't need to be an engineer; and he doesn't need to have spent a lifetime in the industry, his skill set is setting (and adjusting) goals, setting (and adjusting) timelines, finding and promoting talent. If you've ever seen someone flail around with timelines and leading a project then you know the value of someone skilled at that position.

I've had some great managers who do not know the difference between a for loop and a variable. I've had other managers who have been in the industry for 30 years, starting out with punch cards and Fortran who were terrible managers.

Here's an example George Steinbrenner didn't know anything about baseball but he was a good CEO of the NY Yankees. (As a Met fan it pains me to say it, but it's true.)

Re:New CEO is clueless

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The new CEO used to work at a furniture company but is good friends with the Ford family so that's how he got his job. He knows nothing about cars or autonomous vehicles in spite of being in charge of the AV program. He's just a well connected good old boy. I don't see how this can help. Ford needs somebody who understands cars and autonomous vehicles and electric vehicles. This guy knows nothing.

Ford has often had incompetent leadership. Maybe finding a way to have less Ford family influence is a good thing.

It's kind of strange that in the Great Recession the general idea was that Ford was the only American car manufacturer that knew what it was doing and now they are slashing jobs (By the way, where's the outrage from the president?) and seem completely clueless. Do consumers want to buy autonomous cars? Seems like a risky bet to me. Young people will just use Uber/Lyft/etc. and have somebody else own and maintain the autonomous cars. Older people are never going to go along with cars they own but can't drive themselves.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Do consumers want to buy autonomous cars? Seems like a risky bet to me. Young people will just use Uber/Lyft/etc. and have somebody else own and maintain the autonomous cars.

Regardless of who owns it, someone will have to manufacture the car that will be owned by Uber or Lyft. The risk in my mind is if the technology is viable. can it be built in the next 20 years?

Re:New CEO is clueless

[aoism]

It's not a manager or executives job to be the smartest person in a room. It's their job to inspire those around them to do their best, and to enable them to be the smartest.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[rogoshen1]

Yes and Mulally worked at Boeing and did a fantastic job at running Ford.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[jellomizer]

Being a CEO is more about pushing around the money, then actually knowing the details of the product. That said, an automaker company seems to be far more complex then even a large furniture company. A choice to use cheaper parts in furniture often will not have the same impact to human lives as a similar choice for an automobile. Because if that stitch that holds the leather on your sofa fails vs a bolt holding a vital component has a different set of consequences. Also to the note the Automotive industry for good and for bad has heavy political influence, that a furniture CEO may not be fully accustom to.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[mspohr]

Look at most tech companies under tech knowledgable leaders and under "bean counters".
Take Apple under Jobs vs. Scully... no contest.
Take Microsoft under Gates vs. Balmer... no contest
HP under Carly Fiorina... I rest my case.
Fortunately, companies such as Facebook, Tesla, Twitter, AirBnB and others still have their original tech savvy founders.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[mspohr]

The car of the future is an autonomous electric vehicle.
The future is starting... now.
Ford is way behind.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Office furniture and fords are not that much different. Haven't you ever had an office chair race?
Attach a rumba = instant autonomous vehicle. Clearly you aren't CEO material.

Re: New CEO is clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahaha Tim Cook. Riding on the coat tails of greatness and success. Steve Jobs was an ass hole but he made $Apple. Tim Cook will run out of crap that was already in the works during the Jobs era and fizzle out. RIP Apple (even if it will take forever due to their cash reserves and foot print).

Re: New CEO is clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

They can literally buy Disney and have cash left over. They're not going anywhere.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

But Ford already don't know how to make cars. The Edsel, the Pinto, the Exploder ^H^H^H^H I mean, Explorer. And look up John Cardogan on YouTube about the new Mustang.

Now lets' see, all this new tech is .. electronics. And electronics is one thing Ford keep fouling up. Evidence please, I hear you say, ok here is some evidence:

A friend of mine had a dream to own a Mustang, early 00's. One was duly organized and on his birthday a new Mustang featured in his driveway. Much joy initially, but only 3 months later he traded it in as the electronics were failing.

Mid 90's another friend of mine had a Ford as a work vehicle - he was a bit of a mechanic and ripped out all the electronic stuff when it failed, the car ran smoother and used less fuel on a good old-school carburettor.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[Luthair]

Being a CEO is more about pushing around the money, then actually knowing the details of the product.

I think evidence would suggest that is how many American companies including car manufacturers have run into problems. People with a business background do a good job of squeezing profits out of a successful business, however they seem to inevitably end up playing catch-up to the market.

The CFO's job to push money around, its the CEOs job to understand the market, the products and how to allocate the resources. I don't see how someone can effectively do this without working their way up through the business.

Re:New CEO is clueless

[Luthair]

Meh. 4 wheels. 5 wheels. A selection of colors and trim levels....

Re: New CEO is clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs also nearly destroyed Apple, Pixar and NextStep.

Oh joy!

[hackel]

Just imagine the new wave of proprietary software Ford's going to try to jam down our throats. Unauditable software/firmware in a vehicle is simply unacceptable. Until that changes, we really should not trust these companies with our lives. I hope that someone (looking at you, Tesla) creates an international foundation to handle the development of safe, Free software to run on our vehicles. Even the tech in manually controlled vehicles is dangerous and frightening. Things only will continue to get worse as cars become more and more autonomous unless we put a stop to it now!

Re:Oh joy!

[Hamsterdan]

I'll bite. Free software is cool and everything, most of my stuff is running on it. But do you really want all the different car safety stuff to be open? Didn't they ditch a Jeep by remote last year? My car (1999 Grand Marquis LS) is not open to that kind of hacking. Sure, it doesn't have anything fancy like bluetooth or remote software update, but the software that runs the car is pretty safe from malware. I'd like my next car to be like that...

I love open software, but since so many eyeballs can look at the code, do I really want that in my car? (because the many eyeballs stuff)

Re:Oh joy!

[Anonymous Coward]

>I love open software, but since so many eyeballs can look at the code, do I really want that in my car? (because the many eyeballs stuff)

Indeed yes, the many eyeballs is precisely the reason to want any software relating to security to be open.

Re:Oh joy!

[sl3xd]

Just imagine the new wave of proprietary software Ford's going to try to jam down our throats.

How is that different from the status quo? I'll admit I don't track what Ford does with a great deal of interest, but has any car manufacturer released the source to anything - including traction control, stability control, ABS brakes, airbags, throttle control, temperature control, electronic suspension, electronic transmission, valve timing... the list goes on and on.

Re:Oh joy!

[Anubis IV]

Look, I'd love to see the software used in these sorts of things go open source as well, but it seems like a bit of a stretch to suggest that it's "unacceptable", when we already accept closed source in plenty of other devices that have life-and-death stakes.

For instance, when was the last time you saw the source code for traffic lights, elevators, trains, or x-ray machines? Any of those could result in life-threatening injuries or death if the software malfunctioned in just the wrong way* (e.g. Therac-25, Schindler elevators, etc.), but most of us have no problem accepting them as part of our everyday lives without having seen the source code, and I'd be willing to wager that the same is true for you as well.

* To be fair, some would require corresponding hardware failures as well before they could kill you, though in many cases, a software failure would greatly increase the odds of a related hardware failure.

Re:Oh joy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. That's the obvious response.

By your reasoning windows should be most secure mainstream OS as it is "not open" to "hacking".

Re:Oh joy!

[ausekilis]

I love open software, but since so many eyeballs can look at the code, do I really want that in my car? (because the many eyeballs stuff)

I would rather have many companies working on one solid OS than the many mixed disparate crap-fests that we have in cars now.

I agree that my infotainment system should be completely separate and distinct from ALL mechanical control (e.g. gas, brake, steering).

Re:Oh joy!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be happy enough for the car companies to use open SW from a safety stand point, the more eyes on it the less likely bugs get ignored/overlooked.

However by opening it I'd then be concerned that someone would modify the SW for their car to do something they think is cool and endanger the other road users.

Or of course someone could modify the code an load it onto someones car to take control. Some kind of signing mechanism to make sure a car can only run authorized SW would be a good idea.

Re:Oh joy!

[Anonymous Coward]

The ideal solution for car infotainment systems is one the car manufacturers will never go for. A dumb microphone, speaker, and a few media buttons. I already carry a multifunction entertainment and communications device that gets frequent updates with a large ecosystem of applications, it's called my phone.

All I need from the car is a plug or bluetooth and some buttons on the wheel to activate Ok Google/Siri/whatever you have on your phone. Then it doesn't matter if my car is a decade old, my phone is new and will keep up to date with fancy new things. Never again would I have to deal with the awful voice commands that ask me to confirm or deny six times to do anything (I'm looking at you Kia).

Unfortunately this means the car manufacturer can't advertise on the unique and distinctive features of their infotainment shit so they'll never go for it. Just like phones with stock android.

Re:Oh joy!

[Anonymous Coward]

The system behind sync is open source and on github. It even has a sample hmi that looks a lot like Sync. You can compile and run it on your machine and it runs on embedded hardware.

Re:Oh joy!

[Anubis IV]

Are you talking about Microsoft Sync? The infotainment system? That's hardly the same as software used to make decisions that have the potential to kill you if they go wrong.

Re:Oh joy!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://corporate.ford.com/ford-open-source.html

You Fool! Tesla!

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you heard?! Tesla will control the automotive industry by 2020!

Because as soon as everyone sees the greatness and awesomeness of the Tesla Model 3, they are going get rid of their current car and immediately buy it! Tesla will be the biggest automaker EVAR!

Elon Musk is this innovative genius and he is going to show Ford and other automakers how it's done!

Sorry, Ford is doomed. DOOMED! Their EV will fail against Tesla.

So, sell all your Ford, mortgage your house or just sell it, donate blood, and put all your money -including all your retirement - into Tesla!

Elon can't fail!!

Re:You Fool! Tesla!

[__aaclcg7560]

Haven't you heard?! Tesla will control the automotive industry by 2020!

At $300+ per share and no P/E, I'll pass. This is one of those stocks that you buy a share of to impress your friends and family. That only works if they know next to nothing about stocks. I had a roommate who was so proud that he owned a share of Oracle prior to the dot com bust, and he got mad when I pointed out a half-dozen dividend-paying stocks that were a better investment. IIRC, he only made $11 in profit after selling it off.

Re: You Fool! Tesla!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey one share that would be impressive to me is BRK.A! At the least more than Tesla.

Re:You Fool! Tesla!

[Anonymous Coward]

At $300+ per share and no P/E, I'll pass.

Tesla is an aggressive growth stock. Investors are betting that the company will be wildly successful, and end up making billions when it completely disrupts the automotive industry.

Which is possible. It's a long-shot, but it's possible. Which is why growth stocks are considered such a risky investment, while blue chip stocks tend to be the stable-priced, dividend-paying stocks, are considered the more stable types of stocks. There's massive possible upside on a growth stock, but there's also a very significant chance you'll lose your entire investment.

Re: You Fool! Tesla!

[Anonymous Coward]

Electric cars, rockets, space travel, cars on trolleys? Musk has been watching Thunderbirds. I predict a renaissance in Cliff Richard's career.

Re: You Fool! Tesla!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's Cliff Richards got to do with the Thunderbirds? apart from a similar hairstyle?

Half-assedly chasing Tesla

[zerofoo]

Musk is an entrepreneur and a bonafide tech geek. The new guy running Ford is neither of those.

Musk knows the money isn't in electric cars - those are relatively easy to make. Elon has placed his long bets on electric storage and charging infrastructure.

Even if the big 3, the Germans and the Asians all get off their asses and produce actual electric cars people want to buy in significant volumes they will, most likely be buying batteries and charging facilities from Musk.

The legacy auto industry is asleep at the wheel - they are 5 years late to this game and it will cost them a fortune to catch up - and I'm not even talking about autonomous driving. For risk-averse legacy automakers, that technology may be even further out.

Re:Half-assedly chasing Tesla

[rogoshen1]

The problem with that analysis is that you're not taking into account the massive capital investment needed to produce cars with any real output. Sure the existing manufacturers are behind the curve on electrical storage/generation. Tesla however, is even farther behind on manufacturing.

A Ford/GM/Kia plant could outpace Tesla's entire production with a single lane at any of their manufacturing plants. Even if the industry winds up paying a royalty fee and piggybacking off of Tesla's infrastructure, they'll be just fine selling the cars that use it. And if gas stays relatively cheap, they'll be just fine making petrol powered cars too (You don't critique them for not owning the gasoline distribution network, why would it be any different for electric cars?).

As far as autonomous cars go; which would you rather be -- a company that can develop the software, but has trifling production capacity; or a company like F/GM which might be a few years behind the curve on the software side (which isn't necessarily bad, since the bugs and overall approach can be someone else's beta test); but once developed is able to pump out literally millions of cars per year. (Software, you develop it once, and it's infinitely re-usable; not so with figuring out production capacity.)

Re:Half-assedly chasing Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

Long bets are the issue. Ford investors want to get the results of long bets without seeing a reduction in quarterly dividends once ever.

Re:System of control

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the above, it's important: https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

dealership only service with self driving cars

[Joe_Dragon]

dealership only service with self driving cars

Ford is going to lose big

[Anonymous Coward]

that's my prediction.

Solely a "pump and dump" stock maneuver

[Anonymous Coward]

Hoping to capitalize on the popularity of Uber stock among retail (i.e. stupid) investors, Ford is making this move purely to pump and dump some stock. Companies do this frequently when they plan an equity offering, because they don't have to sell as many shares to raise the same capital.

Pump up the price, sell some equity, then let the price settle back down to what it should be.

Used cars will beceom soooo cheap

[Sir Holo]

FTA: Ford is facing a glut of used cars on the market, which makes it easy for consumers to find affordable recent models instead of buying new cars.

Perfecting AI for self-driving cars is a long way off. Idiots (other drivers) are extremely inventive.

RE the quote FTA: YES. This fact means that the economics of buying a gas car will shift rapidly, especially as self-driving and electrics take a big chunk of the market. Skipping the guts of the microeconomics argument:

I think it can be safely said that we are stuck on gasoline cars as a major percentage of the public fleet for two or three decades, minimum.

Cheaper gas, cheaper parts for repair (used or after-market), people with the skills to maintain aging vehicles exist already. If economic times are tight, people are going to make a choice against their conscience and opt for the far-cheaper (future) option of a used gasoline car.

Oh! Unless we crush them all like GM did with all of the EV1's. That prevented any aftermarket from ever developing. Smashy smashy!

Auto company death spiral

[katorga]

Self driving cars are a death spiral for car companies.

The liability will be too great. Every accident will be the "car's fault" and result in litigation. Eventually a software bug will bankrupt one of the car companies.

They are primarily useful for "fleet" sales not consumer sales and will kill profit margins.

Re:Auto company death spiral

[katorga]

On top of the above the 1% market doesn't want a Ferrari that you don't get to drive.

Re:Auto company death spiral

[squiggleslash]

No, they'll be fine.

Every accident will be the "car's fault" and result in litigation

No, every accident will be the car's fault. That'll be it. Rarely any litigation needed. That's a cost saving over the current system all by itself.

Right now, liability is split between car maker and driver. A driver has to pay around $1,000 a year to cover their side of the liability. In self driving cars, the manufacturer would build that into the cost of buying the car (that would add $10,000 for an expected ten year lifetime, if no changes are made.) But, of course, it won't be $10,000, because:

1. The car will be involved in fewer accidents
2. There's no insurer trying to make a profit
3. Litigation will be the exception, not the rule

So, it'll probably be more like $2-3000. Per car. Which might not even be paid up front, I mean, self driving cars will probably have to have a subscription element associated with them anyway, for servicing etc, so it may end up being that instead of paying $1000 a year for insuring your car, plus the cost of new tires, etc, you'll pay $500 a year for keeping the maps updated, the bits that need oiling oiled (I assume there'll be less of that in an electric vehicle), periodic safety check, and the manufacturer can tack on the risk pool funding at the same time.

Self driving cars are a death spiral for GEICO, AllState, Progressive, and the TV channels that rely upon their advertising dollars. Not for the manufacturers themselves.

Re:Auto company death spiral

[Tablizer]

The liability will be too great. Every accident will be the "car's fault" and result in litigation.

I suspect self-driving cars will be on average more reliable than human drivers once the kinks are worked out. Humans drivers are often inattentive, emotional, hyper, and/or drunk. I've seen way too much crap.

Thus, there's an overall insurance savings to be had. The hard part is the politics and business side of distributing the savings. Thus, it's probably more of a "social" issue than a technical issue.

Re:Auto company death spiral

[Tablizer]

Humans drivers are often inattentive, emotional, hyper, and/or drunk. I've seen way too much crap.

Irony, per guy who fouled up the slashdot quoting (me). Viva Mondays.

Re:Auto company death spiral

[MattskEE]

I really don't understand how liability can be "too great". All businesses involves risk, sometimes massive risk, but by testing and qualifying designs that risk can be reduced to the extent which is reasonable. Most of the remaining small risk is dealt with via insurance. If the cost of that insurance exceeds what a consumer can pay for a product then the product is not sold.

Liability exceeding the insurance policy or not covered by the insurance is dealt with by pursuing company assets to the point of bankruptcy if it reaches that point. Criminal charges could probably be filed if gross negligence led to a massive safety defect.

The riskiest thing for a car company would be to not sell self-driving cars since that will already guarantee them to eventually go out of business.

New Driving Paradigm

[mentil]

I imagine there's lots of old leadership at Ford who insist that there's be a smooth orderly transition to autonomous cars that they'll be all over. However, if things go more like how Lyft expects, they could be in trouble. Their best-selling vehicle (and the USA's best-selling vehicle, for over a decade straight, last I heard) is the F150 pickup truck. 95% of the time I see someone in an F150, it has 1 passenger and isn't hauling anything that wouldn't fit in the back of a Prius (fold down the back seat, and quite a bit can fit in a Prius.) Once people no longer own their own vehicle, and simply call for an autonomous ride to pick them up, how often are they going to be calling a pickup because they need to haul something serious? Not bloody often. Meaning autonomous ridesharing companies are going to buy very few of them. Meaning pickup sales are going to fall off a cliff. Meaning Ford is fucked. I suspect that soccer moms will keep the SUV, and rideshare to replace their sedan when they drive themselves around, so sedan sales will mostly go to autonomous ridesharing companies. Coupes/sports cars will still be purchased as luxury status symbols. If the Mustang is their new F150, Ford's sales are going to be... not so good.

Re:New Driving Paradigm

[JustNiz]

>> I suspect that soccer moms will keep the SUV, and rideshare to replace their sedan when they drive themselves around,

So you're being all pragmatic about the actual need for flatbed trucks, but then you say Moms will keep their off-road vehicles for the school run? Also I'm honestly not seeing many women allowing strangers in their cars whenever they have a spare seat. Most women aren't very frugal at all especially when it comes to perceived convenience or luxuries.

Re:New Driving Paradigm

[mentil]

That's right. If you have 3 kids in the backseat, 2 in baby seats, watching a DVD on the entertainment console, munching crackers and getting crumbs everywhere, ridesharers won't be very willing to accomodate that. And by 'ridesharing' I mean 'Johnny Cab', it'll go autonomous faster than the semi-truck hauling sector.

Autonomous cars will not become the norm

[Anonymous Coward]

Autonomous cars will not become the norm in our lifetimes. I could take you on a ten-mile aternoon drive here on any day, and point out a half-dozen different situations which such a car could not handle. The lane closure (utility tree trimming. Be gone in a couple of hours, pal), detours (just temporary. Truck stalled.), police directing traffic (sometimes requiring you to ignore the traffic signal!), accidents, school crossing guards, signal out, animal crossing road, funeral procession, potholes, stopped school buses (requiring traffic to stop on both sides of the road). Oh, sure, you could deploy gizmos all over the place to help guide the car, but who's going to pay for that? Besides, hackers would have a field day.

Re:Autonomous cars will not become the norm

[Anonymous Coward]

Add the occasional flooded roadway that is not marked but you'll drown if you don't turn around...

Re:Autonomous cars will not become the norm

[Anonymous Coward]

and remember all those GPS issues telling people to turn into rivers, lakes, and other ? GPS isn't perfect as land masses can change over time and are not always updated in a timely manner

Re:Autonomous cars will not become the norm

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, and how about the unmarked railway crossing, even if it has warning lights but no cross arm, how does a self-driving car avoid certain calamity, the list goes on and on...

Re:Autonomous cars will not become the norm

[jezwel]

the list goes on and on...

As it does for human drivers now too.

The difference being, once a problem has been solved (or worked around) in an automated vehicle, *all* of those same vehicles (and potentially everything from that manufacturer) should be able to download and use the fix.
Try doing that with humans.

That list of problems is now a checkbox of projects. Some may never be solved, and would require human intervention no matter what. I expect the vast majority though would be resolved however.
Somewhere in there is a crux point where autonomous cars will be better on average than manual drivers.

Who is the Customer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Self-driving will put a substantial premium on the price of a car, at least for the first couple generations. Ford can afford to subsidize some of the cost to score market share, for a year or two. This isn't the sort of thing that will bring their CAFE numbers down. Early adopters and tech geeks will likely go for it, but that's not that big of a market. I'm thinking the big buyers won't be the average driver but taxi companies and other fleet operators.

Electric sedan first

[ceview]

Would rather they develop a standard four door normal looking sedan with an electric motor first. Even if it only has a range of 200km

Self driving is the next big bust

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't think that many want self driving vehicles. Except for many some businesses who somehow have delusions of eliminating lot's of human jobs to save money. Personally, I don't think realistically we have the money to invest in the infrastructure to support these technologies in automobiles in a majority of world highways.

Ford really is doubling down on stupidity.

[sethstorm]

First, they detune cars and throw in a turbocharger, now they want to try making it blander than a salt-free cracker.