Ford sued over MFT

[wilsons66604]

Back in 2010 & 2011, I voiced my opinion that I felt Ford had decieved me with their bogus marketing claims. I was promptly chatissed by the Ford Fan Boys on this forum. I was told I should not speak my mind unless I agreed with the Fan Boy(s).

 

Well, a few years have past and several more people purchased Fords with MFT. Now there is a Class action law suit. The law suit alleges that MyFord Touch "has been an unmitigated disaster for Ford" and accuses the company of "unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices" and "failure to disclose defects in the MyFord Touch system" that led auto owners to "[suffer] losses in money and/or property."

 

Exactly what I was saying 3 years ago!!

 

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/18/4534786/ford-sued-over-myford-touch-system-glitches

 

[akirby]

And it's just as wrong now as it was 3 years ago. The lawsuit even mentions "MyMercuryTouch" which never existed. This is nothing more than ambulance chasing lawyers looking for a payday.

 

Nobody ever denied there were problems. But there was no deception and Ford has worked very hard the last 3 years to fix the problems. The current version in my 2013 Fusion has been virtually flawless with only a couple of very minor issues over the last 5 months and I believe most current owners on 3.5.1 or later are having similar results.

 

As Don Henley would say - GET OVER IT!

[wlepse]

New APIM this week with latest software...so far not so good. Nav lag is back, phone pairing is spotty and music on hard drive will play but if I try to browse it only lists one song...should be over 10k. I hope to mess with it this weekend to see if cycling power on mft & phones or master reset will help. But this is similar to my experience with 2.11. Others thought it was a big improvement but for me it was a step back. So this system is far from stable even after multiple revisions. I do think there is merit to this lawsuit even though I agree it is a money grab for the lawyers. I do think Ford and its dealer network have actively tried to down play the problems in order to maintain/increase sales. I will be more interested to see what the lawyers uncover in their review of Ford internal docs...wonder if they will find something that points to the real root cause of the failures...that would be helpful.

[jmacd27]

Mine works fine in my 2013, it is sometimes laggy to the touch but it does what it was advertised to do.

[akirby]

New APIM this week with latest software...so far not so good. Nav lag is back, phone pairing is spotty and music on hard drive will play but if I try to browse it only lists one song...should be over 10k. I hope to mess with it this weekend to see if cycling power on mft & phones or master reset will help. But this is similar to my experience with 2.11. Others thought it was a big improvement but for me it was a step back. So this system is far from stable even after multiple revisions. I do think there is merit to this lawsuit even though I agree it is a money grab for the lawyers. I do think Ford and its dealer network have actively tried to down play the problems in order to maintain/increase sales. I will be more interested to see what the lawyers uncover in their review of Ford internal docs...wonder if they will find something that points to the real root cause of the failures...that would be helpful.

 

The type of problem you're describing is rare - especially after replacing the APIM and getting the latest software. Almost has to be some other type of hardware problem.

 

And if one out of 1000 buyers are having the problem you're describing that's not a reason for a class action lawsuit. The other current problems are much more benign. E.g. sometimes mine is slow to ring the phone (about 5-6 seconds), it re-indexes the USB drive when it doesn't need to and the name of the caller doesn't show up in the right hand cluster screen. No problem playing music, making or receiving calls and texts (iphone 5), using the Nav or radio.

 

I do agree that if they can't fix your problems they should buy it back. But that's a case by case individual vehicle issue and not a class action lawsuit.

[akirby]

Mine works fine in my 2013, it is sometimes laggy to the touch but it does what it was advertised to do.

 

Thus my point.

[CARR142]

New APIM this week with latest software...so far not so good. Nav lag is back, phone pairing is spotty and music on hard drive will play but if I try to browse it only lists one song...should be over 10k. I hope to mess with it this weekend to see if cycling power on mft & phones or master reset will help. But this is similar to my experience with 2.11. Others thought it was a big improvement but for me it was a step back. So this system is far from stable even after multiple revisions. I do think there is merit to this lawsuit even though I agree it is a money grab for the lawyers. I do think Ford and its dealer network have actively tried to down play the problems in order to maintain/increase sales. I will be more interested to see what the lawyers uncover in their review of Ford internal docs...wonder if they will find something that points to the real root cause of the failures...that would be helpful.

+1

[wlepse]

I am not nor have I ever said everyone has these problems...but I think they are far more prevelant than 1 in 1000. If it were so low it would be cheaper for them to buy back all those vehicles than the tremendous cost to do rewrite after rewrite. Even if the incidence rate is as low as you say that doesn't negate the validity of the class action...it would just make the case smaller. At the end of the day the complaint is real and I seem to remember some saying there were internal emails prior to launch that said the system was flawed. They decided to role the dice and hope they could patch it. But all along the way they said problems were rare and most were due to user inexperience. This is complete nonsense and they know it.

[akirby]

Whatever. It's not worth trying to explain it for the 100th time.

[wlepse]

Especially when you are wrong...look no one does anything for free. Ford would never invest so much money in a good product if it were only a few bad eggs. Likewise lawyers are not going spend to spend their time on a lawsuit they don't think they can will and make lots of money on. If the numbers are as you say that so few are having problems then they would not take the case.

[Waldo]

But it's not as simple as having a problem or not. MFT will not operate perfectly for any customer, but neither will just about anything else in a car. The question is what is a problem severe enough to warrant class action settlement? Does only seeing one song from your hard disc cause you "to [suffer] losses in money and/or property"?

 

Ford puts brakes on every car it sells. But often times, those brakes fail to stop you in time to prevent an accident. Is Ford responsible for disclosing that sometimes the brakes won't be sufficient enough to do what you want them to do?

 

How do you draw the line between a defect and just poor performance?

Edited July 19, 2013 by Waldo

[akirby]

Especially when you are wrong...look no one does anything for free. Ford would never invest so much money in a good product if it were only a few bad eggs. Likewise lawyers are not going spend to spend their time on a lawsuit they don't think they can will and make lots of money on. If the numbers are as you say that so few are having problems then they would not take the case.

Lawyers file frivolous suits all the time. A successful CAL is a jackpot for the attorneys while the plaintiffs get pennies.

 

They continue to update MFT because it still has bugs. Your argument would be more valid if ford stopped updating it.

[JOEHIO]

My wife's '09 MKS has buttons & dials, that's how I like it. With my MKX, if I want to put the A/C seats on, I have to exit nav screen to put it on, among other functions. It's a lot easier with buttons & dials, so glad they are coming back. Don't get me wrong, I love the MKX, just 'old school' stuff better.

[wlepse]

Waldo...the big difference is ford knew the product didn't work before the release, then continued to pretend like the problems people had were user error. They also pushed the virtues of the system including the safety aspect but behind the scenes were busy trying to make it actually do what they said it could do. Now if they knowingly did that with a brake system I think Ford would be done. To your other question...no losing the ability to browse my music doesn't cost me money now but you can be sure it will affect my resale. The issues with the system are posted all over the web and in basically all magazine reviews so this will have a financial impact. Also some have had their vehicles at the dealer for extended periods, this too has a financial cost to the end user. But to take it further, Ford's biggest mistake was pushing this system as a safety feature....it is far from it. It is a constant source of distraction, things like hands free calling often doesn't work...hell for several months fords only fix for us was to unpair our phones and that didn't work. We had a period with no heat when it was well below freezing with a 1yo in the car which was completely unacceptable. Most recently the system completely died...though this time we could control hvac through cluster...I could go on and on about all the problems we have had but it just makes me too angry and my bp is high enough.

 

Akirby...I agree...lawyers often file frivolous lawsuits and a CAL won't benefit me in this case much. But what I do think they do to benefit me is to keep companies in check. Ford knew the system had problems but continued on. Then continued to misinform the buyers and blame anything and everything for their failure. I'll grant you they have tried and continue to try to make it better but they still sugar coat the problem. I also hope that by investigating this issue they may turn up what the real cause is. I have said before that it makes no sense that software is the root of the problem. I say this because in my case and others I have spoken to the performance of each revision varied greatly by each user. To me this points to a conflict in the hardware. For instance...2.7 was buggy but mostly annoying issues...replaced apim...no real change....2.11 was total garbage to the point we were afraid to change temp because it would cause reboots etc... then 3.?was ok until fairly recently when them apim died. What other explanation would there be to 2.11 being so bad then the same hardware being good with the upgrade? Especially when many fou d 2.11 to be pretty good.

[akirby]

You are such a drama queen that has no idea how companies or software operates and you refuse to listen to those who do.

[wlepse]

deleted due to fat fingers...full post below

Edited July 20, 2013 by wlepse

[wlepse]

Nice resort to name calling...very mature.

 

Fact is I have been involved in many software projects as a PM. Maybe not this software but many industrial applications. Part of that job was trying to find bugs in the software which we found plenty. But every software bug we found was repeatable because by nature the software does the same thing over and over. We did find other bugs that I think are more what people are experiencing here where a board component change would also cause failures but these were more random in nature. We could find scenarios that would/could cause it but they were not 100%. In our case it ended up being driver issues that were not practical to try to fix with our volume so we had to specify the chipsets. I think Ford may be in a similar position and they are busy trying to find a code fix that will make all variations of the board happy. I think this scenario explains why one software revision can work well for some but not all, it can also explain how in my case the apim functioned with 2.7 & 3.? but not with 2.11. This can also explain many of those cases where those who had their apim changed all of a sudden had a stable system.

 

Now this may be able to be fixed by software but my opinion is the root of the problem is the hardware spec.

[spongers]

Wlepse, your response makes no sense. How is Ford in a similar position to a software company that doesn't control what hardware their software is used on (in your own scenario)? Ford can tightly control the hardware they receive for the APIM (and other related parts, remember it isn't just the APIM) and can specify the hardware in that APIM to the highest degree. It is their part, and they are used just for their cars. They are used no where else. I am sorry, but your argument falls flat.

 

I completely agree with both of you really, but do think Ford has done a lot to make it right. While they may be sugar coating the problem, all companies do that, it is called good business (until that sugar coating gets you in trouble of course). I have said it on this forum a few times before. It is absolutely amazing that Ford has done ANYTHING for this system after it has been released. They have released continuous updates, and tried to fix the problems, to no avail in most cases of course, but that isn't the point. The point is they are trying. Using your brake scenario, when was the last time a car company has replaced your brakes for poor performance, and not because of a government mandated recall? Or when have they tried to improve your brake performance just becase, after the sale? The answer to both is NEVER. Car companies historically do not care about a car after it has been released. Instead the focus on improving the failures of the previous model by releasing a new model, and asking you to buy that new model if you want the new features. End of story. What Ford is doing with MFT is absolutely new ground for a car company, on many levels (software development first and foremost, but also trying to improve it after the sale).

 

Please keep this in mind: Ford owes you NOTHING for the failures or perceived failures of MFT. They are trying to improve the product for the benefit of current and future customers, while at the same time ensuring they stay on the good side of their customers.

[wilsons66604]

Back in 2010 & 2011, I voiced my opinion that I felt Ford had decieved me with their bogus marketing claims. I was promptly chatissed by the Ford Fan Boys on this forum. I was told I should not speak my mind unless I agreed with the Fan Boy(s).

 

Well, a few years have past and several more people purchased Fords with MFT. Now there is a Class action law suit. The law suit alleges that MyFord Touch "has been an unmitigated disaster for Ford" and accuses the company of "unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices" and "failure to disclose defects in the MyFord Touch system" that led auto owners to "[suffer] losses in money and/or property."

 

Exactly what I was saying 3 years ago!!

 

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/18/4534786/ford-sued-over-myford-touch-system-glitches

 

The point I tried to make in the initial post..

I was not alone in my feelings of being decieved with the intial claims by Ford.

 

The moderator of this forum argues with me for reasons that escape me. That is why I have not been visiting this AD SUPPORTED forum on a regular basis.

[RJG]

I believe some of the problem is the stuff hooked up to the car. Was having some phone paring problems after installing 3.5. After reset didn't fix problem, decided it was my phone. So went to he phone store and almost bought another phone, when a sales person there asked me if I had cleaned out my phone's cache? Told him I didn't know what that meant. And how do you do that? He said on my simple phone, just take out the battery for a few seconds. Other phones have a different method. I did as he said, and phone paired right up with both our Edge and our Honda CRV. So it seems it was my equipment, not Fords problem. Yet I had complained about my MFT for a while, even on here. Point is....I bet not all the complaints are legitimate MFT problems. I still have some GPS routing issues at certain locations, but that's probably not Ford's doing.

[wlepse]

spongers...in my scenario we weren't a software company either. We were in a very similar position to Ford. We were an OEM that used a Microsoft based product for an HMI. We did spec the hardware down to the motherboard but what we didn't realize initially was this wasn't enough. The mfg of the board was changing chipsets based on price/availability availability and this was giving us problems. So while it is true that it is in Fords control to spec the apim and mating hardware I don't think they knew enough at the start of the project to do this thoroughly especially since they are not a software company.

 

As for the brake issue this was initially mentioned by another poster. What I was saying was thatsome here have mentioned Ford knew the system was bad before release....if they had knowingly done that with a brake system I think Ford would be just about out of business.

 

I have never said Ford wasn't trying to fixthe problem...only pointing out they are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They know in vehicle tech is a big selling point and not having it means a lot of sales would be gone. Also they realize they have a large amount of these in the field...if tbey don't fix it they are likely to lose those customers on the next purchase...but also lose the next owner of the vehicle when they move on. Again I just take issue to the i.pression some have that they are somehow an angelic company that really wants to help me.

 

To your comment that Ford owesme nothing...I respectfully disagree. They sold me a system that doesn't do what they said it would do. There have been many cases over the years of mfgs having to make good on such claims...most recently would be kia and hyundai with mpg ratings...but I believe thers were also cases made about power ratings. At the end of the day I paid extra for this system with nav and can rarely use much of it because it is either rebooting or just non responsive.

[wlepse]

RJG...not a phone issue. On 2.11 we were asked to no longer use any device connected and it still couldn't function. For us the rewrite was much more stable until recently. Now 3.5.1 is feeling more like 2.11. It has stabilized a bit but keeps randomly changing input to AV...on 2.11 that was a precusor to it really crapping out...just hoping this time it is different.

[akirby]

Nobody was deceived about anything. The software was crap and they had no real choice but to try and fix it ASAP. That's not deception.

The fact that it took so long to stabilize it is unfortunate but again, not deception and not worthy of a lawsuit.

 

Don't forget there are owners who have had almost no problems even on the initial version. Of course you two essentially said they were lying which was both rude and incorrect. And we're not going down that road again.

 

If you're having problems they should be fixed. At this point the software is stable. It's either bad hardware, a bad phone or some incompatibility.

[wlepse]

I agree they should fix it and would be quite happy if they could but it seems they don't know what to do.

 

As far as deception goes...look back to early reports of failures and glitches. Fords PR tried to spin it as user error due to complexity. I am probably not alone in buying into that and having confidence I wouldn't find it an isssue thinking those with issues were probably people like my parents.

[Waldo]

 

To your comment that Ford owesme nothing...I respectfully disagree. They sold me a system that doesn't do what they said it would do. There have been many cases over the years of mfgs having to make good on such claims...most recently would be kia and hyundai with mpg ratings...but I believe thers were also cases made about power ratings. At the end of the day I paid extra for this system with nav and can rarely use much of it because it is either rebooting or just non responsive.

 

From a customer satisfaction point of view, all your points are very valid. But from a legal (lawsuit) point of view, how do you defend the comment that it "doesn't do what they said it would do"? In the case of MPG and power ratings, those are clearly defined tests that can be reapeated and proven and have legally defined variation. Did Ford say your system would never reboot? Did they say the response would always be within x.x seconds? There just aren't any industry/legal specifications out there yet that a legal team could use against Ford to say the system is "defective". All they can use is customer complaints, and Ford could easily whip out enough statistics to say that the vast majority of customers are satisfied with the system. From a legal point of view, I just don't see how a claim of "deception" is going to work.