Ford Admits Its EVs Are Not Software-Defined — And They Are Worse for It | Taha Abbasi

In a rare moment of corporate honesty, Ford has publicly acknowledged what industry analysts have been saying for years: its current electric vehicles are not software-defined, and that architectural shortcoming is making them measurably worse products. Taha Abbasi examines what this admission means for the future of legacy automakers in the EV era.

The admission came during Ford’s latest investor communications and was quickly amplified across automotive media and Reddit’s r/electricvehicles community, where it generated over 300 comments and passionate debate. Ford executives conceded that the current Mustang Mach-E and F-150 Lightning, while competitive on paper, lack the deeply integrated software architecture that defines vehicles from Tesla, Rivian, and newer Chinese competitors.

What Does Software-Defined Mean?

A software-defined vehicle is one where the core vehicle functions — from powertrain management to infotainment, driver assistance, thermal management, and even suspension tuning — are controlled by a centralized computing platform that can be updated over the air. Tesla pioneered this approach with its custom hardware and neural network inference chips, allowing vehicles to receive significant capability improvements years after purchase.

In contrast, traditional automotive architecture relies on dozens or even hundreds of discrete electronic control units (ECUs) from different suppliers, each running its own firmware, communicating over legacy CAN bus networks. This distributed approach makes it extraordinarily difficult to push meaningful over-the-air updates because changes to one system can create cascading compatibility issues with others.

Ford’s admission essentially confirms that its current EVs still use this legacy architecture. While the company has added connectivity and some OTA update capability, the fundamental vehicle architecture prevents the kind of transformative software improvements that Tesla owners have come to expect.

Why This Matters for Ford Owners

The practical implications are significant. A Tesla Model Y purchased in 2024 has received dozens of meaningful updates since delivery — new Autopilot features, improved range through efficiency optimizations, enhanced climate control algorithms, new entertainment options, and even entirely new driving modes. The vehicle literally gets better over time.

A Ford Mustang Mach-E purchased in the same timeframe has received comparatively limited software updates. Bug fixes, yes. Minor infotainment improvements, occasionally. But the kind of fundamental capability additions that redefine the ownership experience? Those require new hardware, which means a new purchase.

This gap becomes even more critical as we enter the era of advanced driver assistance and eventually autonomous driving. Taha Abbasi has extensively tested Tesla FSD v14 and documented how rapidly the system improves through software updates alone. Ford’s BlueCruise system, constrained by its hardware architecture, cannot evolve at the same pace.

The Competitive Reality

Ford is not alone in facing this challenge. General Motors, Stellantis, and most European legacy automakers share similar architectural constraints. But what makes Ford’s admission notable is the candor. Most automakers prefer to market their current offerings as cutting-edge rather than acknowledge the gap.

The companies that have solved this problem — Tesla, Rivian, and increasingly Chinese manufacturers like BYD and NIO — share a common trait: they built their vehicle architectures from scratch for the electric and software-defined era, rather than trying to retrofit software capabilities onto platforms designed for internal combustion.

Rivian’s R1 platform, for instance, uses a centralized compute architecture that enables features like off-road driving modes that can be added entirely through software. The upcoming Rivian R2 is expected to push this even further with a purpose-built computing platform designed for the mass market.

Ford’s Path Forward

To Ford’s credit, the company has acknowledged the problem and outlined a plan to address it. The next generation of Ford EVs, expected to begin arriving in 2027-2028, will reportedly feature a new centralized architecture developed in partnership with technology suppliers. Ford has also been investing heavily in software engineering talent, including poaching engineers from Silicon Valley companies.

However, as Taha Abbasi sees it, the timeline presents a serious competitive risk. By 2028, Tesla will likely be on its next-generation vehicle platform with even more advanced compute capabilities. Rivian R2 will be in full production. Chinese competitors will have several years of additional software platform refinement. Ford’s next-generation architecture will be competing not against today’s competition but against where the competition will be in two years.

The Broader Industry Lesson

Ford’s admission highlights a fundamental truth about the automotive industry’s transition: building a competitive EV is not just about putting a battery and electric motors in a vehicle. It requires rethinking the entire vehicle architecture from the ground up, including the software platform, the computing hardware, the data pipeline, and the organizational structure needed to develop and deploy software at scale.

This is why Tesla’s advantage extends far beyond its battery technology or manufacturing efficiency. The company’s true moat is its software platform and the data flywheel it creates — every Tesla on the road generates data that improves the fleet, which attracts more customers, which generates more data. Legacy automakers cannot replicate this advantage by bolting software onto existing architectures.

What This Means for Buyers

For consumers considering an EV purchase in 2026, Ford’s admission should be a factor in the decision. A Mustang Mach-E or F-150 Lightning is still a capable and enjoyable vehicle, but buyers should understand that the ownership experience will be relatively static compared to vehicles with software-defined architectures.

If the ability to receive meaningful improvements over time — new features, better efficiency, enhanced driver assistance — is important to you, the current crop of legacy automaker EVs may disappoint. The vehicles that deliver on the software-defined promise today are primarily from manufacturers who designed their platforms for it from day one.

Taha Abbasi believes Ford’s honesty is ultimately a positive sign. Acknowledging the problem is the first step toward solving it. But the road from acknowledgment to competitive software-defined vehicles is long, expensive, and uncertain — and legacy automakers cannot afford to be late.

---

About the Author: Taha Abbasi is a technology executive, CTO, and applied frontier tech builder. Read more on Grokpedia | YouTube: The Brown Cowboy | tahaabbasi.com