RichardJensen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 CUE has a multi-touch user interface with full system 3D acceleration That still lags noticeably while navigating from screen to screen, and that lags noticeably when 'buttons' are pushed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) That still lags noticeably while navigating from screen to screen, and that lags noticeably when 'buttons' are pushed. So do most android tablets, like the new Galaxy Note 10.1 I'm using right now. But like CUE, it works better than MyFord. And more importantly, CUE is stable, scalable, and under GM control. Edited August 29, 2012 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 CUE is stable, scalable, and under GM control. It lags, as MFT lags; MFT is more scalable; and MFT is as much under Ford's control as CUE is under GM control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) It lags, as MFT lags; MFT is more scalable; and MFT is as much under Ford's control as CUE is under GM control. Ford partnered, GM developed. Ford has limited say (or understanding) of MFT's development while GM is the developer and has built the infrastructure for further development. Remind me again how MFT's development turned out? From an end-user perspective, I prefer CUE despite that icon interface because the system just works and looks much better. MFT design has a germ of a good idea, wrapped in extraordinarily bad software and hardware design. Edited August 29, 2012 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) Ford didn't develop MFT, Microsoft and BSquare did. GM developed CUE, which means they own the talent and infrastructure to continue development. Ford is at the mercy of an inept partner with no software engineering in-house to grasp the scale of the challenges or how to implement a next-generation system. And once again, CUE does more than MFT with substantially more sophisticated software and hardware on a higher resolution display with capacitive multi-touch. And MFT lacks any robustness that comes with significantly outdated hardware and software. Ford made so many wrong choices with MFT from the platform and partners to the design of the UI, they are years away from fixing this issue because it's cultural. Their vision and confidence way exceeded their ability. MFT has gotten better, but CUE is way ahead at a very basic engineering level. And as both a MFT and CUE user, I am really impressed by CUE compared to the drab and archain experience with MFT/MLT. And it makes it more frustrating when MFT/MLT is just such a buggy mess. I actually had a random system re-start today after driving home from work where I had just tested my co-workers new XTS with CUE, and now my friggin Nav isn't working! Yeah, I'm not joking. Suffice it to say, I have rediscovered some of my MFT/MLT hatred which had been temporarily assuaged by the software update. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. WRONG! WRONG! First, Ford owns MFT. Secondly, BSquare has been relegated to legacy support. They have ZERO involvement in new work being done on MFT. Third, CUE is functionally equivalent to MFT. If you knew anything at all about programming. It has better voice & touch interfaces, but it is functionally equivalent. Fourth, you know nothing about hardware robustness. Nothing. Fifth, saying that Ford has cultural issues is absolutely, utterly unsupportable. Un-effing-supportable. You have zero basis to say that. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nil. NOTHING. No leg to stand on. Nothing. Sixth, what you know about 'basic engineering' is comparable to your knowledge of hardware robustness. Seventh: You think Cadillac is where it's at, huh? You thing GM's got all this stuff figured out, huh? I've got news for you: They're screwed. While they've been pouring all these resources into CUE (they've only been working on it for four years), they've ended up with a big pile of so-what everywhere else, their new Chevrolets are woefully uncompetitive, they have way more staff than they need, and basically, they're doing exactly what they did ten years ago: Spending a fortune on Cadillac in the hopes that it, and it alone, will save them. So yeah, there are cultural problems here. But they're at GM, not Ford. CUE? Yeah, it's better than MFT--for now. But the company that made CUE is in deep deep trouble. Edited August 29, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. WRONG! WRONG! First, Ford owns MFT. Secondly, BSquare has been relegated to legacy support. They have ZERO involvement in new work being done on MFT. Third, CUE is functionally equivalent to MFT. If you knew anything at all about programming. It has better voice & touch interfaces, but it is functionally equivalent. Fourth, you know nothing about hardware robustness. Nothing. Fifth, saying that Ford has cultural issues is absolutely, utterly unsupportable. Un-effing-supportable. You have zero basis to say that. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nil. NOTHING. No leg to stand on. Nothing. Sixth, what you know about 'basic engineering' is comparable to your knowledge of hardware robustness. Seventh: You think Cadillac is where it's at, huh? You thing GM's got all this stuff figured out, huh? I've got news for you: They're screwed. While they've been pouring all these resources into CUE, they've ended up with a big pile of so-what everywhere else, their new Chevrolets are woefully uncompetitive, they have way more staff than they need, and basically, they're doing exactly what they did ten years ago: Spending a fortune on Cadillac in the hopes that it, and it alone, will save them. So yeah, there are cultural problems here. But they're at GM, not Ford. CUE? Yeah, it's better than MFT. But the company that made CUE is in deep deep trouble. Legacy support includes customizing MFT into new vehicles? Everything else you just said about GM goes straight off the deep-end into complete unsubstantiated BS. CUE is better tech than MFT. Everything else you and I say is speculation. And as an end user, I can tell you MFT/MLT is not robust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Legacy support includes customizing MFT into new vehicles? From the original source: enhancing existing applications and customizing the MyFord Touch platform for additional vehicle models All of this is best summed up as 'maintenance'. They are still responsible for a section of the codebase, which means they are responsible for updating that codebase to work with new vehicles. Everything else you just said about GM goes straight off the deep-end into complete unsubstantiated BS. CUE is better tech than MFT. Everything else you and I say is speculation. And as an end user, I can tell you MFT/MLT is not robust. GM has roughly twice as many employees in NA, and only about 15% more sales. That's a problem. The Volt is not selling to expectations, the Silverado has lost significant ground to the F150, and does not offer competitive powertrains, the new Malibu has been widely panned. The Cruze and Sonic do not have a range of options on par with their competitors, which holds down both transaction prices and profit potential. They reportedly have ambitious plans to launch 'three Cadillac flagships', including a Cadillac version of the Volt, a version of the Ciel, and they have invested heavily in the Alpha platform, in order to produce a compact Cadillac sedan when they have significant holes in their CUV, commercial vehicle, and Chevrolet and Buick sedan ranges. As far as I'm concerned, this looks exactly like it did ten years ago: "Let's invest a ton of money in Cadillac, starve Chevrolet, and hope for the best." And I never said that CUE tech wasn't better than MFT tech. But I will argue, from inference and from statistics, that CUE is a symptom of what's wrong with GM. It's an excessive focus on a small piece of the business that is unjustified given the state of affairs elsewhere. They spent four years on CUE. Imagine what they could've done if they had spent that amount of money, and devoted that quantity of manhours on something like truck powertrains! They might have an 8 speed transmission like Dodge, or a GTDI V6 like Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Borg is like a crow - he's attracted to new and shiny things until the new and shiny wears off. Ooh - 3d icons! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Borg is like a crow - he's attracted to new and shiny things until the new and shiny wears off. Ooh - 3d icons! Hmmm, and I thought crows were attracted to smelly things whose shine had worn off a LOOOONG time ago! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonM Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Regarding CUE and voice control, CUE does not even allow voice control of the Climate system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonM Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Hmmm, and I thought crows were attracted to smelly things whose shine had worn off a LOOOONG time ago! LOL, after reading the latest reviews on CUE, and the laggy-ness of it and the awkward physical controls, I think you're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Hmmm, and I thought crows were attracted to smelly things whose shine had worn off a LOOOONG time ago! No, no you're thinking of buzzards like the ones circling GM and Chrysler a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 No, no you're thinking of buzzards like the ones circling GM and Chrysler a few years ago. FTFY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 No, no you're thinking of buzzards like the ones circling GM and Chrysler a few years ago. Ahhh, I always get those mixed up! I wonder if some of the negatards could explain the difference in taste...if they've ever tasted buzzard, cause they've surely eaten tons of crow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 One of the interesting things I noticed is that, apparently, CUE is implemented in Javascript. If so, that would certainly explain how a significantly faster processor still lags in page transitions and response times. Javascript is no way to build a GUI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 One of the interesting things I noticed is that, apparently, CUE is implemented in Javascript. If so, that would certainly explain how a significantly faster processor still lags in page transitions and response times. Javascript is no way to build a GUI. JavaScript? Seriously? I LOVE JS, but not to build a full GUI that doesn't HAVE to reside in a web browser. Wow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) JavaScript? Seriously? I LOVE JS, but not to build a full GUI that doesn't HAVE to reside in a web browser. Wow! I have to correct myself. It is perhaps not Javascript, but definitely HTML5: http://media.gm.com/...123_gm_cue.html Yikes. That's just not how you do stuff like this. (BTW: This would go a *long* way toward explaining why you have lag on a 3-core processor). Edited August 29, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I have to correct myself. It is perhaps not Javascript, but definitely HTML5: http://media.gm.com/...123_gm_cue.html Yikes. That's just not how you do stuff like this. (BTW: This would go a *long* way toward explaining why you have lag on a 3-core processor). Well, if it's using HTML5, I'm sure there is some JavaScript to go along with it. I don't see the point of using HTML5 in a system like this. There is no server interaction as it's all on the client. There is a reason MIcrosoft's old .hta concept didn't take off (and I built a couple of them). There are just so many more efficient ways of doing things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) Ideal architecture should be: Kernel > Device Drivers/APIs > Application > Application APIs (for 3rd party developers) CUE appears to be: Kernel > Device Drivers/APIs > Browser > Application > Application APIs(?) You've got an extra layer in there, and that extra layer is an HTML rendering engine, and those things are--------not efficient. I think browsers still lag Flash in graphics rendering, and (I think) Ford has ditched Flash for rendering. CUE may allow 3rd party developers direct access to the browser, but that seems like it could cause serious stability issues through the multiplication of webkit instances, especially if you don't exit apps by navigating out of them. Edited August 29, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 You've got an extra layer in there, and that extra layer is an HTML rendering engine, and those things are--------not efficient. I think browsers still lag Flash in graphics rendering, and (I think) Ford has ditched Flash for rendering. I thought they were still using flash but they enabled hardware acceleration for faster graphics. At least for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I thought they were still using flash but they enabled hardware acceleration for faster graphics. At least for now. I thought they were still using Flash too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I thought they were still using Flash too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 That's the problem...4 instances of Flash running simultaneously will kill ANY system! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 That's the problem...4 instances of Flash running simultaneously will kill ANY system! Especially when one is Sheldon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) Yes, because I'm sure Ford would have simply ignored the problems if CR didn't come to the rescue of the helpless consumer. :rolleyes: I'm sure that having Consumer Reports publicize the problems encouraged Ford to address them more quickly. Much like the magazine's negative review of the 2012 Civic encouraged Honda to rush a revamped version into production for the 2013 model year. Let's be realistic - that never would have happened if the magazine had said nothing, or kept the Civic on its "recommended" list. At best, Honda would have released a slightly revamped Civic for the 2015 model year. Like it or not, the magazine has considerable influence with a significant segment of the car-buying public, and Ford, Honda and other manufacturers are foolish to ignore that fact. Remember when the magazine gave a negative review to the Chevrolet Cobalt, and the GM employee who was responsible for the car lambasted the magazine in a nasty, widely publicized letter? How well that that one work out for GM? So let's give the magazine some credit for highlighting the problems, and Ford credit for addressing them. As someone who will probably buy a new Ford within the next 12-18 months, I'm VERY interested in potential improvements to MFT. Edited August 29, 2012 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.