Why Ford is dumping Microsoft

[DP]

When Bill Gates announced a new partnership with Ford Motor Co. (F) in early 2007, he declared: “Our ambition is to give you connected experiences 24 hours a day. We’re going to have Ford cars leading the way and showing you how to do that.”

It didn’t quite work out that way. The Sync system Ford developed with Microsoft (MSFT) did become one of the most advanced systems for controlling mobile devices, such as phones and music players, through a vehicle’s dashboard controls. It wasn't exactly what consumers were looking for, however, which is why seven years later, Ford is dumping Microsoft for technology powered by BlackBerry (BBRY), the former smartphone maker that has become a poster child for disruptor-turned-disrupted.

But Sync has never been as seamless as Ford and Microsoft promised. Many drivers find it inherently awkward to talk to their car, much as some iPhone users reject the mild-mannered services of Siri, the computerized concierge. Getting full use out of Sync requires memorizing dozens of voice commands. Making a mistake can lead to computerized dead ends, like giving the wrong answers when prompted to choose an option on an automated customer-service call. Sync users frequently complain about abandoning the confusing voice-command system and reverting to the touch screen, which can be confusing itself -- defeating the purpose of a hands-free system in the first place.

Consumer Reports may have been the most prominent critic of Ford’s Sync system and an upgrade known as MyFord Touch. In 2010, CR praised Ford for “pushing the connectivity envelope” with Sync, but also complained that “not one of us to date has ever been able to make it work.” As the magazine’s auto testers got more familiar with the system, their criticism intensified. One review questioned whether Sync represented “intuition, or insanity?”

Consumers complained too, with Ford falling sharply in J.D. Power quality ratings in a single year -- almost entirely because of frustration with Sync. In the latest Power quality survey, Ford ranked well below average, and Lincoln ranked average. In Consumer Reports' latest reliability ratings, Ford came in third from last and Lincoln second from last.

It did always amaze me that quality ratings for a vehicle could suffer so badly based on just a sound system. And, good luck to BB.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-excha...23367.html

[clay]

No experience with their system, but it seems odd to be dropping MS and then picking up BB. Hey Ford, you're heading the wrong way down the "developers that understand how to make stuff that people actually want to use" spectrum. Why jump ship to a company that's circling the drain?

[silvarios]

clay wrote:
No experience with their system, but it seems odd to be dropping MS and then picking up BB. Hey Ford, you're heading the wrong way down the "developers that understand how to make stuff that people actually want to use" spectrum. Why jump ship to a company that's circling the drain?

QNX is long established in the automotive industry perhaps? There's a whole world beyond mobile phones.

[mrbigstuff]

The first iteration of Sync worked seamlessly with whatever phones I had in about 2009, but the subsequent versions have been horrible. I'm not sure what happened but they really had some 'splainin' to do why they effed it up so royally.

[M A V I C]

One of my biggest gripes with the whole concept was that MS introduced a horrible concept to cars - software crashes. In any car I spent much time in with Sync, it would crash. And when it crashed, the only way to get it working again was to power off the car and start it again.

I recently had a rental for a couple weeks. It was a Ford Explorer Limited that had three LCD screens controlled by various controllers, and in some instances they would control more than one screen.

The entire interface was awkward. No immediate pattern was easily discoverable. A basic task like dialing a phone number was tedious and awkward.

Then I tried an Audi with their MMI. It was a 2009 model, so at least 4yrs older. The overall pattern was immediately discoverable, and tasks like typing a phone number were much more easy.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

M A V I C wrote:
One of my biggest gripes with the whole concept was that MS introduced a horrible concept to cars - software crashes.

From 1999: http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp

[Mike Johnson]

I've only used it in rental cars. I had to spend twenty minutes on an iPhone reading a PDF of the manual to figure out some of the basics. And even then I remember occasionally pulling over, shutting the car off, and starting it up again to get the radio to work properly. Faster and easier than trying to dick around with menus designed by a crunch smoker.

I'm not surprised that it affected their ratings. I'm sure I'm not the only person here was was confounded for like three years that almost no car stereos, installed or aftermarket, had so much as an aux input jack on the front. Then finally aux inputs were everywhere. Then when I was shopping for a car, iPod/iPhone compatibility was a major selling point.

Every time I use one of these car computers, or the seatback entertainment system on an airplane, I think, Holy cow is it 2005? I mean, the UI is like what you get on a $40 touchscreen tracfone.

[hal]

I was hoping that this was about Rob Ford's computer being hacked and the internet filled with salacious stories.

[Paul F.]

N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
[quote=M A V I C]
One of my biggest gripes with the whole concept was that MS introduced a horrible concept to cars - software crashes.

From 1999: http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp
Still falsely attributed...
Still funny.

[sekker]

I've had several Ford rentals, and the Sync software was terrible - with iPods, iPhones, etc.