My understanding of GM is that they outsource almost everything. Last time I hired an embedded software engineer from them, the guy felt he was in a very tiny niche within the company and it was a fluke his group still existed to write code.
Infotainment systems may be different, but suppliers were doing most of the code several years back (I hired one of those guys too). With the desire to bring SaaS to automotive I would expect GM to bring some software development in-house, but they are a management-heavy company.
>Last time I hired an embedded software engineer from them, the guy felt he was in a very tiny niche within the company and it was a fluke his group still existed to write code.
I've worked there. There are two types of people: "Lifers" which are the people you described. They are content with doing their pieces and never taking a step outside the cog they are part of. This is most of the people there.
Then there are temporary workers. Contract or Independent minded, these are the people who have no trouble calling out the problem and working on it, even if its outside the job scope. They didn't learn this at GM, they learned this somewhere else. They are temporary because they see that GM is a zombie company. There are too many useless cogs that you described. There are likely more people tracking the completion of work, than those doing work. These people are looking at their resume and how they can grow their skills to leave and make more money.
I feel like finding good workers at large companies are like playing the lottery.
>> There are likely more people tracking the completion of work, than those doing work.
I completely agree. I interviewed there and above a certain level all they really want is the ability to bargain with others for resources if you or your own people can't get something done or done on time. It's not a bad thing, it's just the entire focus at that level, which leads to more chiefs than indians.
I think it stems from interdependence of components and the huge supply chain. You can't miss or it impacts the model year changeover. IMHO they need to work on that so they can have more incremental change if needed.
“My understanding of GM is that they outsource almost everything”
I think that was an attitude from like 10 years ago. When i worked there they had all their web & mobile apps in-house. They even stood up their own hosted PCF network into the more recently partnered with Azure.
>My understanding of GM is that they outsource almost everything.
Every single automaker outsources nearly everything under the bodywork related to engineering and development to their suppliers. VW, Renault, BMW, Mercedes, etc. all of them do it.
True, but outsourcing hardware components and outsourcing software aren't the same. Even when the hardware is actually very software-heavy, and designed to super specific requirements from the buyer, in the eyes of the supplier it's still a product. But outsourced software invariably becomes a project, with all the incentive misalignment that's implied by the term "billable hours". Even when that's technically not how the contract is set up.
Probably, I just don’t think executives can drive that kind of innovation. Especially those who are in sustaining roles in already large and successful companies.
They removed the home button on iPhones, which was a net loss, since face recognition is much less reliable and easy to use than fingerprint, and requires a visually-disruptive bar overlay to indicate you need to swipe up.
You have to look at the device to open it. It's by nature another step of distraction. Grabbing a device and having your thumb on it opening it up so that it's ready to go by the time it reaches your eyes... it's faster. What gesture gets you back to the main/home screen as quickly? I still regret (somewhat) moving away from the SE, and might move back. I found an old one in the desk and it's making me want to move back.
That's just an amazingly boneheaded move, isn't it?
I absolutely will not buy another car in the foreseeable future that lacks Carplay. It's too good, and too much better than any carmaker's attempts to integrate with phones or music players that came before.
(I also won't pay EXTRA for it; looking at you, BMW.)
It's really not that good. On my Mazda, Apple CarPlay won't even let me change albums while I'm driving. Which encourages me to then pick up my phone, take my eyes off the road to unlock it with my face, and fumble around with the music app until I get to what I want. Mazda even disables the touch screen while driving, forcing you to use their navigation wheel, which is supposedly safer! So I don't understand why CarPlay still tries to keep me from doing the thing it was designed to do.
I love using the knob to navigate CarPlay, but I admit the Music app is nearly unusable with the knob and IMHO only marginally better with touch. The music app in CarPlay just generally sucks and appears to intentionally limit how deeply you can browse your library.
That said, in my experience Siri works well for music selection. I just hit the voice button on my steering wheel and ask for the playlist, album, or artist I want to hear.
I frequently find myself picking up my phone in motion because their dial knob is utterly useless with navigating the music app and maps often as well.
I personally like having a car with these, but I'm not convinced it will be the death of GM like people predict.
>GM was not affected by PRISM, so they could make claims of having a privacy oriented vehicle. That messaging does really well on HN and I imagine other communities as well.
>The other thing is deeper integration. Yes it sounds like a security nightmare, but you will get additional features this way.
>You also write your own future. If the tech duopoly decides to do something like forbid alternative web browser engines, you don't need to bend the knee.
Not to mention, if every car has a generic infotainment screen, it makes the car less unique. Cars are all about the marketing and if you can make someone feel like they are cool for driving your car with the infotainment screen, you can sell that car.
> GM was not affected by PRISM, so they could make claims of having a privacy oriented vehicle
I don't this this really follows. Can't you be unaffected by PRISM and then later also sell lots of customer data or whatever? Though I agree this won't be the death of GM. The worst case is they later go back and just add Carplay and Android Auto and waste a bunch of money trying to write their own stuff.
> >You also write your own future. If the tech duopoly decides to do something like forbid alternative web browser engines, you don't need to bend the knee.
I just want to say that this isn't the case for any person or corporation and it never will be. You always rely on someone or something else. GM for example relies on the United States to secure oil. You, a regular person rely on (whoever) to go and mine minerals to build your laptop. It's not just a fantasy but it's a uniquely weird, and hysterical anti-social pattern that I wish would just die. It's ok to rely on someone else and in fact it's normal, acceptable, and desirable. Relying on someone else means you have to forge relationships, and not be an ass.
I know what you mean but it's just an arbitrary line in the sand on web browsers. A web browser in this context is just another raw material input that is no different than tires, paint, skilled workers, or anything else.
Not affected by PRISM? Although technically true, it's mostly because PRISM predated the hardware, and because GM touts the big brother stuff as a feature of OnStar. Here are two recent articles, four years apart (though they have been doing this for much longer):