6 ms·

You act like there's no benefit to the user either, plenty of software gets better because of updates shipped after the fact.

wyager 2mo ago
The averaged-over-usage-lifetime software quality for things like cars or video games is worse today than it was before OTA updates Arguably the peak quality after a few months/years of fixes is better, but that doesn't really matter because usage is front-loaded
- itake 2mo ago
  I remember my parents needing to buy very expensive map DVD disks in order to update the car’s navigation system to update their car’s navigation computer. The disks were very expensive and if you didn’t update them it wouldn’t know about new roads (slower trip, missed turns, etc).
  - mook 2mo ago
    That's why we have Android Auto: move the updates to a thing that already has frequent Internet connection, and if the update goes wrong it's clearly the fault of this other company, plus the car itself still works fine. Jeep already had an OTA the broke the ability for the car to be driven.
  - SoftTalker 2mo ago
    Did those updates ever break the navigation software?
    - vel0city 2mo ago
      I've had map update packages brick head units before, yes. Largely because they also shipped some software updates in that map update package.
foofoo55 2mo ago
s/better/less bad/
throw0101d 2mo ago
> You act like there's no benefit to the user either, plenty of software gets better because of updates shipped after the fact. There is a "release early, release often" line of thinking. But I also think there is a risk of "fixing it in post(-production)" thinking: that lack of preparation and care can be patched over after-the-fact.
slumberlust 2mo ago
You act like all the updates benefit the user.
- hahn-kev 2mo ago
  Fair
sudobash1 2mo ago
I would prefer to know what the product will do when I purchase it, and it should continue to do the same things in the same way for its entire lifespan. I would also prefer that vendors be unable to retroactively add ads, tracking, or other user hostile "features". Also, as an embedded engineer, I know things get tested better the more "final" they are. Faster release cadences always have poor testing as one of the tradeoffs.
hulitu 2mo ago
> plenty of software gets better because of updates This was true for old Microsoft Windows releases. This is not true anymore. Everything is a rolling release. Angry users ? F*k them. They will get an update.

wyager 2mo ago

The averaged-over-usage-lifetime software quality for things like cars or video games is worse today than it was before OTA updates Arguably the peak quality after a few months/years of fixes is better, but that doesn't really matter because usage is front-loaded

itake 2mo ago
I remember my parents needing to buy very expensive map DVD disks in order to update the car’s navigation system to update their car’s navigation computer. The disks were very expensive and if you didn’t update them it wouldn’t know about new roads (slower trip, missed turns, etc).
- mook 2mo ago
  That's why we have Android Auto: move the updates to a thing that already has frequent Internet connection, and if the update goes wrong it's clearly the fault of this other company, plus the car itself still works fine. Jeep already had an OTA the broke the ability for the car to be driven.
- SoftTalker 2mo ago
  Did those updates ever break the navigation software?
  - vel0city 2mo ago
    I've had map update packages brick head units before, yes. Largely because they also shipped some software updates in that map update package.

foofoo55 2mo ago

s/better/less bad/

throw0101d 2mo ago

> You act like there's no benefit to the user either, plenty of software gets better because of updates shipped after the fact. There is a "release early, release often" line of thinking. But I also think there is a risk of "fixing it in post(-production)" thinking: that lack of preparation and care can be patched over after-the-fact.

slumberlust 2mo ago

You act like all the updates benefit the user.

hahn-kev 2mo ago
Fair

sudobash1 2mo ago

I would prefer to know what the product will do when I purchase it, and it should continue to do the same things in the same way for its entire lifespan. I would also prefer that vendors be unable to retroactively add ads, tracking, or other user hostile "features". Also, as an embedded engineer, I know things get tested better the more "final" they are. Faster release cadences always have poor testing as one of the tradeoffs.

hulitu 2mo ago

> plenty of software gets better because of updates This was true for old Microsoft Windows releases. This is not true anymore. Everything is a rolling release. Angry users ? F*k them. They will get an update.