This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Subscription services or software restricted features for cars should just be outlawed entirely.
Nobody likes these, if someone is willing to deal with a subscription product then they can do that aftermarket. The car itself should never come with something that will require recurring payments.
Nobody likes these
Shareholders love them
I think I can speak for most Americans (and as someone who owns stocks) fuck the shareholders.
I'm conflicted. On one hand, I'm a shareholder due to broad market investments in my 401k. On the other hand, I'm a consumer.
On net, screw this nonsense, just make good products and the recurring revenue will happen due to happy customers.
Shareholders love lootboxes too.
And one party autocracy.
Should they though? The average lifespan of a car is 12 years. Even if they got someone to pay the subscription the entire time, that's like 5% of the value of the car, spread over a length of time that makes it almost worthless. They could more easily charge an extra 1500 for the car, which is more money and it's money they get now and isn't picked apart by inflation.
It's not especially good financially in the short or long term and is harmful to the brand image and customer loyalty.
I think it's fair if Mazda has to operate a server to enable it, but I think Mazda should have to pay car owners to allow them to connect the car to a mobile network, especially for operating their spyware/telemetry.
I think it's fair if Mazda has to operate a server to enable it
No. Either you support it for a predetermined few decades as part of the vheicle cost, or let the consumer switch to a different service.
Option 3 take the stop killing games approach and grant the user the server back end when they stop supporting it themselves so users can host it themselves
As long as they give me a way to run my own server for free, I agree with you.
An API is not copyrightable 🤔
Doesn't stop companies from sending bogus DMCA takedowns to sites like GitHub.
There are no penalties for filling a bogus DMCA takedown and the legal cost for restoring the content falls on the victim of such a takedown: the DMCA legislation was designed exactly for it to be used as Mazda and many other use it against individuals and small companies who can't spend thousands of dollars fighting bogus takedowns.
it seems everything is copyrightable if you are rich enough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.
When two very rich entities argued about it it was determined you can't copyright API.
And if they want to attack car owners for doing what they want with their own car let's go to court and see how fast their bullshit holds up.
Can't wait for the inevitable "You don't actually own the car, you just have a lifetime licence/lease to use the car"
I was considering a Mazda for my next car. Now I’m not.
I live in a place that gets fucking cold in the winter. If the normal fob option were always available and you get the option to pay for the convenience using an app, that would be one thing - though $10/month for that is ridiculous. But removing the fob option and locking this basic feature behind a subscription is exactly the sort of game I don’t want my vehicle to play with me.
Go ahead and sell roadside coverage, parts/repairs, batteries, get royalties from Sirius or whatever for extra cash flow. Make a great app that adds new convenient live-service features and is worth paying for, even. But fuck all these new subscription un-gimping games.
"capitalism promotes healthy competition"
One of the biggest lie of all time.
Having a car without internet connectivity would be a feature for privacy minded consumers
Bets on which car company is going to be the first to EOL a server and brick a bunch of cars because some key feature is now "unsupported"?
Enel is currently doing exactly that with their electric car chargers (the Juicebox), they've decided to pull out from the North American market and just shut down the servers. Like WTF, at least open-source the thing...
Mazda recently surprised customers by requiring them to sign up for a subscription in order to keep certain services. Now, notable right-to-repair advocate Louis Rossmann is calling out the brand.
Services. Services!? What the actual fuck are you talking about!? Remote start isn't a fucking service, it's a feature, that they are trying to control through greed.
Edit: I will give a small concession to the remote remote start, as that does need an OTA service. The service of course shouldn't be any more complicated than a SMS setup, so $15 per year is the absolute most you'll be able to get out of me...
2nd edit: And you damn well better include free modem upgrades. None of this $50+ for a fucking map update shit the other companies are pulling. That shit should have been an OTA update, Christ knows the damn thing tries to find an open Wi-Fi...
It's a service if the only way to remote start the car, from the factory, is via a third party like 5G or LTE.
How are all those 3G car services faring these days? There were cars as recent as M.Y. 2019 that have reduced functionality or no functionality that was originally paid for.
What will it look like when LTE and 5G are inevitably shutdown and replaced?
It's one thing to say I have to buy a new $1000 phone. They almost go obsolete in other ways, or suffer extensive physical damage before the cellular radios get turned off. It's another thing to say that a feature of an $80,000 car is gone forever. Even if it's just a creature-comfort like remote start or remote windows. It's bullshit.
And then what? A $1500 credit off my next car of the same make for my 'inconvenience'? Fuck right the fuck off. How much more does it cost to let a fob toggle it, from the factory floor?
And besides that who the fuck wants to dig out an app to start their car when you could just have a physical button right there on the key? Having voice assistants or routines start it for you is cool and all, but it is well known that those will be obsoleted long before the rest of the car.
Car manufacturers are being so blatant about this stuff. It goes to show that they know how slow regulation is and they can milk it for all its worth.
I remember a time when these features were just "standard" and car makers ad campaigns all around features just being standard, making the car more enticing than their competitors.
Now I dread the idea of getting a vehicle in the future because of bull shit like this.
But fuck the consumer amirite?
There is no need for the internet to use remote start
I just bought a new car and it has internet enabled remote start. The salesman touted the feature. My response: "oh so I can start the car in [one state] while I'm in [another state] so it's ready for me when I get back?" He didn't have a good response for that. Nice car, dumbass feature.
Why does the car need an internet connection? Rather get a car from 2005-2010 that doesn't connect to the internet, more have a stupid subscription.
Imagine a world where the laws are literally used to opress you!
Now open your eyes.
This needs to be banned. In fact, “licenses” for things you buy should be outright banned entirely.
So...who is making the open source car?
Someone very rich who doesn't feel the need to get arbitrarily richer.
So no one.
Well, crap! Was seriously looking at the CX50. I’m not paying monthly to use stuff that’s already equipped in the car. Just madness.
Reason number 29474929273 why we should ban internet access on cars
Paid subscriptions to use features of the car you bought should be illegal
Wait.... Even if users don't pay for this, their car still comes a WWAN module that is hardwired to their ignition. Yes, I realize it's more likely bolted on to the infotainment system and/or the car's RTOS, but it's still baked in.
