No he is right, hardware manufacturers treat software as a line item and just part of the BOM. Typically just contracted out (although some are trying to change that) Thats why its typically mediocre from companies outside of SV.

You need a software first agile mentality from the leadership of the company on downwards and these legacy companies just dont have it.

Agile workflow for making cars? No.

Agile workflow for frequently updating non-critical software in devices that happen to be cars? Sure.

> software first agile mentality

I can release a website with a list of known bugs. Do any govt allow release of cars with known bugs?

There's a wide spectrum of possible bugs. I would hazard that every car ever sold was sold with known bugs.

As long as you're reasonably confident that the bugs don't pose a safety issue I don't see the problem.

VW realized that software was important years ago and founded a dedicated software-only company called Cariad to specialize in it. They went ham recruiting traditional software folks for high salaries (in European terms). I know a few people who moved Bay area -> Europe to work for them and they have a couple west coast offices where you'd expect for the people who don't want to move.

It's been an absolute disaster, with billions of dollars spent to produce delayed, buggy software.

Damn that last sentence was a heck of a plot twist.

As someone who worked in a software startup founded by a hardware company, it was very predictable.

Oh no they did write that one piece of software, which was successful until it wasn't.

https://venturebeat.com/offbeat/how-volkswagen-used-software...

The problem with hardware companies is they’re bad at software because the disciplines are so different that what works for one doesn’t work for the other.

The problem with software companies is they’re bad at hardware for the same reason.

User experience companies can be good at both. Maybe not as good at hardware as a hardware company, maybe not as good at software as software companies.

Apple’s the obvious example, but Google, Garmin, heck even Starbucks are also good examples. Start with the user experience, build hardware of software or whatever else is needed. Specializing in a tool has value, but limits you to that tool.

OK, I'll bite. How is selling shitty coffee in large quantities a good example of either software or hardware excellence?

It’s neither. But they’re successful because of the user experience — consistency, the preloaded cards, the mobile ordering with notifications when your order is ready.

They build whatever hardware (in store) or software (mobile / back end) is necessary to give the user experience they want.

But you’re absolutely right — we can lump their mediocre coffee into hardware, or call it “goods” as a third category that you also don’t have to be the best at if you’re a UX company.

Having been in automotive software development and testing for over a decade now, I assure you, it's so very much worse than even that.

The complexity is a symptom of it being a side-project, not evidence that it isn't. As a reminder, today's cars are still vulnerable to remote takeover via malformed songs on the radio because of shitty can-bus practices combined with buffer overflows in those side projects.

Safety-critical firmware is scrutinized fairly well (not because it's not a side project, but because of regulatory constraints combined with the small scope allowing the car manufacturers to treat it as a fungible good), but other software is not, even broken feedback loops interacting with that firmware.

Automotive software is worse than you can possibly imagine. It is literally some of the most broken code I have seen in my entire career and that is the industry norm. Shockingly poor. In fairness, the constraints placed on automotive software production ensure this outcome. There is no room for good practice.

If I could walk everywhere the rest of my life, I would.