There's no way storage space is the issue. It would cost pennies per car and take up no additional space or power. The size of map/gps data would dwarf the OS by an order of magnitude or more.
You're 100% right. It would be pennies for larger storage. However, that doesn't mean they wouldn't go for a smaller size to save those pennies.
I used to work on a car lot, and a disturbingly large number of cars had an SD card port that would only be used for map data. You had to purchase these cards from a dealer or the manufacturer specifically, and if you wanted map data the SD card had to be inserted. I saw this specifically on some Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Subaru models, though it wouldn't surprise me if Ford uses the same method.
They certainly wouldn't add more storage than they need. But "need" is a relative term. If having a bit more storage means you aren't bricking customer cars requiring expensive service, then you "need" the storage.
It's more likely that the update process itself is a bit more complicated than e.g. updating a phone, and unexpected errors in specific processes make it harder to guarantee the safety of the device. For example if an update fails because one of the devices failed to flash, one may not be able to easily re-flash it and it may indicate a hardware fault.
That's also a valid possibility. Not a big fan of the idea of an ECU or similar getting an OTA, but I guess it's better than doing a recall if there's an issue? Not that my 1990 or 2010 vehicles ever needed something updated in them.
I hate the future of vehicles. I don't believe that the infotainment system should ever be connected to important vehicle functions.
I agree totally. Ideally the car should be fully functional with barely any complex software like most cars before 2010. The only case where a failing software update should be able to brick your car is when it's fixing a low level OS bug that renders the car unsafe to drive without the update.
There's no way storage space is the issue. It would cost pennies per car and take up no additional space or power. The size of map/gps data would dwarf the OS by an order of magnitude or more.
You're 100% right. It would be pennies for larger storage. However, that doesn't mean they wouldn't go for a smaller size to save those pennies.
I used to work on a car lot, and a disturbingly large number of cars had an SD card port that would only be used for map data. You had to purchase these cards from a dealer or the manufacturer specifically, and if you wanted map data the SD card had to be inserted. I saw this specifically on some Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Subaru models, though it wouldn't surprise me if Ford uses the same method.
They certainly wouldn't add more storage than they need. But "need" is a relative term. If having a bit more storage means you aren't bricking customer cars requiring expensive service, then you "need" the storage.
It's more likely that the update process itself is a bit more complicated than e.g. updating a phone, and unexpected errors in specific processes make it harder to guarantee the safety of the device. For example if an update fails because one of the devices failed to flash, one may not be able to easily re-flash it and it may indicate a hardware fault.
That's also a valid possibility. Not a big fan of the idea of an ECU or similar getting an OTA, but I guess it's better than doing a recall if there's an issue? Not that my 1990 or 2010 vehicles ever needed something updated in them.
I hate the future of vehicles. I don't believe that the infotainment system should ever be connected to important vehicle functions.
I agree totally. Ideally the car should be fully functional with barely any complex software like most cars before 2010. The only case where a failing software update should be able to brick your car is when it's fixing a low level OS bug that renders the car unsafe to drive without the update.