Your logic doesn't hold. Almost every piece of software undergoes updates to improve efficiency, fix bugs or add features. How often do you update Windows or Linux? A vehicle is no different.

 

That is absolutely true. As a software developer myself, I'll be the first to say that software is never done. Instead it gets abandoned at some point. However, to some extent we have reached somewhat of a plateau. Improvements are incremental mostly, and often just for the sake of change. The consequence is software gets bloated, slow and unstable over time, and then has to be fixed or rewritten. Improvements should be driven by useful features and not gimmicks, or just to keep the developers busy. We didn't need Windows 11 for example, but Microsoft decided to slap yet another UI on top of Windows. Another example are touchscreens in cars. They are not an improvement over the physical controls we had before, but they are more complex and as a consequence the software behind it is more prone to bugs. We should remember the KISS principle more often. Keep it simple, stupid.

 

I retired as an enterprise software exec. Seems to me there are simply multiple software delivery models, all of which are valid, and all of which have tradeoffs.

The embedded software model, which most OEM's have used across history, is all about stability since they know that it's VERY expense to update things - this is the "you have to go to the dealer to get the firmware flashed" model. Or even worse, there is no way to update at all. In this model the software has to be feature complete and thoroughly tested at first delivery since it may never get updated. This model leads, for example, to vehicle head units with what feels like very old technology, as there is far too much overhead to keep up with the latest tech available even during the 5-7 year lifecycle of a vehicle generation.

The packaged software model shipped major releases, and then had periodic updates - monthly or quarterly being the most often. This model started before the Internet, so updates had to be available on physical media. Later on updates could be delivered over the Internet - but the internet was rarely an absolute requirement. The rule back then was you never introduced major new functionality in between releases - there was too much user retraining and too much QA required. This model is like the Microsoft Operating system - big releases every year or every few years, and updates once a month or once a quarter.

The internet-centric software model breaks all of the above rules - the key insight is that when a device is always or frequently connected to the internet, it becomes possible to do continuous updating and improvement, with frequent updates. In this model you absolutely can introduce new features continuously - and you might push updates daily. Automated QA testing is super important in this model, and there is a requirement for frequent Internet connectivity. We are all most used to this model with our cell phones - you might receive multiple updates to your phone and the apps on your phone every day.

I personally and vastly prefer the internet model - I appreciate continuous innovation, bug fixes, and new feature delivery - in essence, the internet model means a product you bought keeps getting better over time. The poster above is absolutely right that this can be seen as a crutch if an OEM uses this model to deliver incomplete products - I'm experiencing this problem with my F150 right now, where self-driving was promised for last Q3 and still has not been delivered. But I think at the end of the day in the Internet model you will get much more functionality, and it will keep getting better over time. The key insight is don't buy something until the baseline functionality you need is all there... The concern about this is that legacy OEMs that have development teams used to the OEM model can really struggle to move to the Internet model - everything from product management through development and QA and delivery is completely different. Tesla has so far figured this out better than anyone else in the automotive space, but many consumer electronics companies are also really good at it too.

 

The Internet model works well for general purpose computing devices and I wouldn't want it any other way. These devices are used for many things. We all install a suite of apps to make the devices do what we need them to do, and it should be updated regularly. There are likely no two devices with exactly the same apps installed. A car on the other hand is an appliance. It has a very specific purpose. We use it to drive somewhere. We don't use it to do anything else. While we are driving somewhere there are certain features that we use. Listening to music and navigation probably being the top two. It shouldn't need the same level of regular updates as a general purpose computing device as the use cases and purpose is much more limited.

 

I disagree. Navigation and entertainment systems need continual updates. Broadcast stations and roads are frequently changing at least in my area. In developing areas many new roads seemingly appear overnight. In areas that are overbuilt, roads disappear as they are vacated to make room for redevelopment. In my car the functionality changes with OTA updates. Some features are removed as in the case of my '18 E300 such as navigation traffic advisories, internet connectivity, ...

 

Yes, as I stated before regular map updates are absolutely a must, and MB is doing that already, but I don't know why you need an update for broadcast stations. Even a 20 year old radio still receives all the FM frequencies. Also map updates isn't new software. That's just a database update. Bluetooth is also backwards compatible, so you can continue to stream music from a device to the car's speakers. Services being discontinued and not necessarily replaced is another story. Those are mainly server-side. Live traffic for example got discontinued for some of the mBrace cars because TomTom terminated their relationship and no longer wants to support it. MB switched the newer cars on the new Mercedes me connect platform to HERE traffic, but they don't seem to care about the older mBrace models that lost it. There are some models and model years that came out during a transition phase and they are sort of in limbo now. Having OTA updates isn't a panacea to a car not eventually being outdated. Vendors regularly drop older hardware. For now Tesla still pushes out updates I think for every model ever built, but how long until they start dropping some of the older hardware, because it's just no longer cost effective to keep them updated? The testing burden continues to increase the more hardware generations that have to be supported.

 

I've had trouble with my '18 E300 Bluetooth not being able to pair with low energy Bluetooth Smart devices. The protocol is different so a software update is needed.

 

Right, they likely don't support Bluetooth LE. What kind of Smart devices are you trying to connect to the car and why? The devices that are supported by an Infotainment system are typically not using Bluetooth LE. That's more for IoT devices and headphones, but none of those would make any sense to connect to a car.

 

Ok explain to me then how the example of Tesla improving the braking performance via OTA after CR called them out on the long stopping distance is reflective of good system design? To do that you will have to justify why it wasn't that way to begin with. Neither the laws of physics or the hardware that the car was shipped with changed.

 

Just wanted to quote this. This is the Achilles heel.

 

Chalk it up to cost control along with marketing strategy. It is the incremental model of product development. Most tech products have followed that path by offering incremental enhancements via software changes. Think of it as version 1.0 followed by version 1.1, ...

Engine tuning is a prime example of incremental performance improvements via software changes.

 

I had a passenger that had Bluetooth LE hearing aids. I was trying to enable a connection to the entertainment system while we waited in an hours long queue.

 

Yeah that doesn't have anything to do with Bluetooth LE and a software update wouldn't fix this. Infotainment systems don't support the headset profile. They are not meant to be listened to with headphones as it is illegal to wear headphones while driving. There's no use case for it. They are hands free devices, so they do the opposite. They can be an audio output for another device, but not the other way around.

 

BLE hearing aids are NOT headphones. They are not illegal. They are simply a method that allows hearing challenged people to listen. Your views are technologically obsolete.

 

I get that. You are missing the point. They use the same Bluetooth profile as headphones. My views are not obsolete. I work in technology. Point is, Infotainment systems don't support to be paired with headphones, whether they are hearing aids or actual headphones. Specifically Infotainment systems pair with input devices such as Smartphones. Bluetooth hearing aids are output devices and Infotainment systems don't pair with output devices.

https://www.unitron.com/content/unit...n-the-car.html

 

With the hyper screen, doesn’t the passenger infotainment system pair with front passenger headphones? With the hyper screen, I have read the front passenger can listen to their own music….I’m assuming this is via Bluetooth and not some sort of Mercedes proprietary protocol? Or am I mistaken how this works in the EQS?

 

That's absolutely possible. I haven't looked into this specifically for the Hyperscreen, but if it does indeed support multiple audio sources so the passengers can listen to their own music, then yes, I would expect that they'd do that by pairing their headphones. Rear passenger entertainment systems also work this way. They let the rear passengers pair their headphones so they can watch movies etc., so it's likely the EQS supports the same experience for the front passenger letting them watch movies etc., but one can't pair headphones to the main head unit in the majority of cars that don't have separate entertainment systems for the passengers.

 

if you are talking about aftermarket tuning, they are not being held to the same certification standards / life requirements that the OEM's are.

 

Even OEM tuning follows the same incremental model. Look at the various tuning states that MB has offered for the same engine. For example the current M274 DE20 LA engine is available with various HP ratings from 154 HP to 253 HP.

 

Lucid wins over the EQS in this MT comparo: https://apple.news/AVoz98pmsTkqoAwgDDlBKeg

 

They forgot to mention that the Lucid has no working ADAS or CarPlay. The door locks dont work half the time and all of those software issues.

 

They noted all the things I felt about the interior VS the S Class, I agree with this 100%:

They also shared my viewpoint that the car feels more E Class than S Class:

 

There is some truth and some inaccuracy to this. I was at the dealership this morning and sat inside every model (flagship dealership). The interior to me is definitely a lot nicer than E-Class. But I do agree that it is not quite S-Class. I think what they have done here is a bit akin to what they did with the GLS. The GLS interior and the GLE interior are almost identical. I think we will see the same thing with the EQS and EQE. As a result you get an interior that is in-between. The main area it seems deficient to me is the texture of the non leather surfaces is the grainy MB-Tex as opposed to the Nappa-effect MB-Tex. The other area is the lack of standard rear climate controls.

That said the interior is still nicer and more spacious than the Lucid which is closer to an E-Class level product than the EQS. Another thing I liked about the EQS is that the rear seat cushions are higher than in the Lucid and the Tesla, which makes the rear cabin more comfortable.

 

If you look at the EQE it shares the same door panels as the W206 C-Class, so expect some areas of the EQE to be closer to C. I imagine the EQS being closer to an E in some areas also allows the EQS to be priced under the S-Class.

 

I looked. Door panels are different. Check out the ambient lighting. Not the same. Then you notice the shape and length of the door is a little different.

They are clearly trying to have a consistent look across the MB Line-up but it’s not the same door panel.