this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
733 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

58613 readers
4033 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

It’s important to clarify that there are two very different types of remote start we’re talking about here. The first type is the one many people are familiar with where you use the key fob to start the vehicle. The second method involves using another device like a smartphone to start the car. In the latter, connected services do the heavy lifting.

Transition to paid services

What is wild is that Mazda used to offer the first option on the fob. Now, it only offers the second kind, where one starts the car via phone through its connected services for a $10 monthly subscription, which comes to $120 a year. Rossmann points out that one individual, Brandon Rorthweiler, developed a workaround in 2023 to enable remote start without Mazda’s subscription fees.

However, according to Ars Technica, Mazda filed a DMCA takedown notice to kill that open-source project. The company claimed it contained code that violated “[Mazda’s] copyright ownership” and used “certain Mazda information, including proprietary API information.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] darkevilmac@lemmy.zip 244 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 71 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Nobody likes these

Shareholders love them

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 14 points 4 hours ago

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.

[–] abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 40 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

I think I can speak for most Americans (and as someone who owns stocks) fuck the shareholders.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I bought a bit of BP shortly after the oil spill.

I was hoping to lose it all, but had the feeling I'd end up making money. I did make money.

All those shareholders should have been fucked.

[–] Alk@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You are the reason they didn't lose it all.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, if not for me the government would have responded appropriately and bankrupted the company.

[–] Alk@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 hours ago

Exactly! I'm glad you understand.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee -1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You're the problem. You get that, right?

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 6 hours ago

how else are people supposed to avoid money losing value? bonds?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 hours ago

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.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 9 hours ago

Shareholders love lootboxes too.

And one party autocracy.

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 14 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yea, that is worse than eWaste, in my opinion. Hope EU does not let this slide for far longer.. It should be illegal to ask for subscriptions for something that is a one time cost for the manufacturer.

[–] SoGrumpy@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Hope EU does not let this slide for far longer..

You're out of luck with the remote start feature. Remote start is not allowed in the EU because it is unnecessary wear and tear on the engine, a waste of fuel and adds to air pollution.

Before my inbox explodes, I understand there are places that get unbelievably cold, and warming the car before the fragile human gets in is preferable, nevertheless, cars warm up faster and more economically when driven.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

None of those reasons apply to electric cars, though. What's their stance on that?

[–] SoGrumpy@lemmy.ml 1 points 14 minutes ago

I have no clue. However, turning a heater on is not the same as starting an engine.

[–] officermike@lemmy.world 11 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

The car itself should never come with something that will require recurring payments.

Cars already do. Satellite radio has been a thing for decades now. I've never used it. Never felt the desire to use it. I haven't even taken the free trial. I'm less annoyed that it exists, and more annoyed that I'm forever fated to receive unsolicited junk mail for this feature that I have to unceremoniously dump in the recycling bin every couple weeks.

As for the remote start, yeah, it's kinda bullshit that they've removed the more permanent, older version of a feature to replace it with something out of the owners' control. If anything, it should exist in parallel with the key fob button, not replace it entirely. I'm less concerned about the fact that it's a subscription than I am about the prospect of that feature dropping support down the road with no recourse for the owner.

[–] JWBananas@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

I haven't even taken the free trial.

  1. Download this app:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.siriusxm.dealer

  1. If you don't have the means of faking your location with root (not through developer settings), drive to, like, any nearby car dealership.

  2. Open the app, tap the "Enter Radio ID" button, and... do that.

  3. Profit!

No sign-up or account required. You will have full service for 3 months.

You can repeat this process indefinitely. It has worked for years. They do not care.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 30 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Your SiriusXM subscription doesn't go to the manufacturer of the car. This is what they referred to as aftermarket subscriptions in their comment. It isn't any different than if I subscribe to spotify Snr then connect my phone to the car to use it.

[–] IMALlama@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago

SiriusXM does revenue share with auto companies.) Old article, but I'm too lazy to dig through a financial report or find something newer.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I’m forever fated to receive unsolicited junk mail for this feature that I have to unceremoniously dump in the recycling bin every couple weeks.

Imagining a future in which I have to tell my YouTube integrated car company that I don't want to sign up for their music service every time I start my car.

[–] skeezix@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Imagine if you lived in a country where a simple note taped to your mailbox would eliminate all junk mail.

[–] Don_alForno 1 points 1 hour ago

Where would that be?