> Not only have a number of devices that used to be purely electro-mechanical been reworked to use microcontrollers (cars, everything in the kitchen),
Yup, and in most cases this not only did not improve them, but made them less useful and more fragile. Let's be honest: the software is there only because it can save on manufacturing costs, and sometimes can be used for extra marketing benefit. No attention is being given to providing value to the customer.
Car engines are vastly improved in both reliability, cleanliness, and efficiency by the introduction of computers into them. You might not like that when it goes wrong, but we all appreciate not breathing in pre-computerized car engine exhaust.
And that’s the rub. While shoddily written software shoehorned into cheap consumer goods obviously degrades the experience, there are tons of places where well written software has massively improved the quality of the goods that they’re added into. Objectively car engines are just better for the addition of software both in design and in operation. They’re smaller, more powerful, more reliable, cleaner burning, and more efficient than they were before we computerized them.
Yes but at the same time the auto makers let another team make Electron apps for the dashboard. Engine ECUs are nice and decoupled. Maybe the hard realtime requirements is what saves them and keep all the novell crap out?
And that’s why this is hard. There are cases where software drastically improves the objective quality of things (car engines), cases where well done software makes items significantly more enjoyable (some car infotainment), and cases where software makes things worse (everything in the kitchen). Separating them out is hard.
I have to disagree in the case of car engines. When I was a kid my dad and uncles spent hours each month fixing minor problems with their purely electro-mechanical cars. I don't miss carburetors or mechanical ignition timing one bit. Electronically controlled engine functions are much better both in terms of efficiency and consistency.
That's true. I don't have that much experience with car repair so I might be wrong in perceiving the 90s and the 2000s models as the optimum in terms of car reliability - the stuff mostly works without funky issues, parts are cheap, repairs can be made by anyone who spent some time with a wrench, and you don't have to visit a shop with a license for poking around car's computer over every minor issue. That is to say: advances in computer control don't have to go hand in hand with making the cars expensive to service and not end-user repairable. But they do, because greed.
Yup, and in most cases this not only did not improve them, but made them less useful and more fragile. Let's be honest: the software is there only because it can save on manufacturing costs, and sometimes can be used for extra marketing benefit. No attention is being given to providing value to the customer.