This should be illegal on products this large. We shouldn't be throwing out entire cars. Imagine if your spark plugs had DRM
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
195 points (98.5% liked)
Electric Vehicles
3094 readers
445 users here now
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No self-promotion
- No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
- No trolling
- Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This should be illegal ~~on products this large.~~
FTFY
Yes
Careful, don't give automakers more ideas!
They'd DRM gas if they could. And Tesla already did DRM fast electrons
I think we've got a company man downvoting us
Imagine if your engine had drm and refused to run without the original spark plugs unless the OEM installed new ones
Hell
A few month ago i saw a video where a guy dented his rivian on the rear left. A classic dent for a utility car, especially when you use trailers. The body shop they went to suggested it's a 40k repair job because how the car was build. This shit is absolutely fucked
That seems ridiculous even with the design though.
I saw that too. That made me die a little inside.
I don't get why the article mentions this as some smart savvy business move. They are putting artificial limiters in place to squeeze money out of people. That is so anti-consumer.
What makes you think savvy business moves are supposed to be pro-consumer? They're intended to make money, not provide a quality product.
Yeah I get that. But why is a consumer focused magazine claiming that is a smart move. They are supposed to bat for the consumer not the business.
I would assume because they're not as consumer focused as they claim.
Savvy business is squeezing money out of people.
Thats why capitalism is a scourge on our society
Yeah I get that. But why is a consumer focused magazine claiming that is a smart move. They are supposed to bat for the consumer not the business.
Now you know they’re not consumer focused. Just because someone says they’re something doesn’t mean that they are that thing. Watch what people and organisations do. Don’t listen to what they say. Best advice I ever got.
At this point, society has given capitalism enough rope to hang itself, and it has done so so.
People refuse to see the rotting corpse it left, they will keep sending more rope to the address listed on the subscription until the credit card declines payment.
Anti-consumer practices by an Amazon-owned company⁉️⁉️😱
They have many owners. Amazon has 18%, and a big Saudi firm is next in line at 13%. They are not a subsidiary of Amazon.
I think you mean American owned. Amazon is only a partial owner, whereas anti-consumerism is incredibly American.
DRM batteries? WTF?
Countries should start passing laws that say customers should have access to the full capacity and or speed of a consumer product without having to pay.
Only exception for throttling should be, like with CPU manufacturing, if a product off of the manufacturing line is incapable of achieving targeted peak performance.
CPUs have been sold limited to market demand, not their actual capabilities for ages. Back when I had a Phenom II X3 I could actually unlock the fourth core and therefore make it into a X4 without any problem. There was no defect, it was just deactivated because the market demanded more X3s than X4s. It also happens, albeit much less often, with hard disks.
Many car manufacturers actually put in more capacity than is advertised. Not for later upsell opportunities, but to increase battery longevity. Where do we draw the line? Is 5% ok, or 15% or 30%? Or do we ban later „unlocking“ the reserve capacity for money?
As a prospective buyer I would be outraged if they made me haul a bigger battery for only their benefit of a later potential upsell. But it is not that easy. Even if they impose a charging limit the buyer would still be getting a much larger reserve capacity and with it a longer battery life. That’s the reason I would actually prefer buying a car with a bigger, „locked“ battery compared to one with a battery at exactly the size I ordered.
Do note that not all cpus worked stable and reliably with unlocked cores. I remember trying it on my X3 and had crashes and bsods, so in that case it wasn't merely a product choice, but X4s that didn't pass qc, but with one core off they did. You just got lucky, as many did, but there was a reason it was sold as an X3.
congrats Rivian, you have now become the HP equivalent for cars🗑️
Uh. Tesla did this years ago.
They're the old HP of cars. Rivian is the new HP of cars.
They're Lexmark
man, I used to be interested in the pickup, not so much anymore. If I buy a car, it's mine to do whatever the F I want to do with it, I'll never buy any vehicle I don't own. (In this case no consumer ever owns a rivian)
The article talks about an optional HP upgrade. While that is anti-consumer, it certainly isn't a "software-locked battery".
Edit: NM, they just buried that info 20ish paragraphs in.
When are people gonna start jail breaking their cars?
They already did.
I mean, it all depends on the price
You're paying for the whole battery and drag it with you any where you drive, it's extra weight. It also means you don't own the car you bought
That depends, are you paying for the whole battery?
Just saying, it all depends on the price
If it's cheaper to just place the same battery in all the cars and charging less for less. Then ok.
I don't doubt the prices won't be great, but unless we know them, it's too early to hate
Apparently this could also mean better battery life for the cheaper option.
I'd be pretty surprised if it wasn't cheaper to offer the locked battery for less than it would be to produce an actual battery with less.
You need a certain volume to make the equation of offering a custom battery more profitable than software locking it. That also includes maintenance on the adjustable or separate line and maintaining supply for warranty service.
If you then factor in that you can get X% to purchase the locked portion, or unlock it after a trade in to sell it for a higher used value, that eats in further to the equation.
All the haters just wanna hate on something that's actually pro consumer by shouting it's anti consumer.
There are only so many people willing to buy a car for e.g $60,0000, there are more people willing to buy a $55,000 car and so on. Rivian can make both camps happy now instead of only one for cheaper than they could before.
It makes it cheaper for Rivian to get the car you want in your hands and Rivian only owes you what you pay for.
Rivian has to be upfront about the weight and efficiency of the car when they sell it. They aren't lying to you, you were happy with those numbers.
If you don't buy it, sure you might be carrying extra weight, but you also get a large buffer that will help keep your battery in better condition. That's a trade off and not a net negative thing.
That being said, I'm 100% against doing this and then charging a subscription to access it. Additionally, I don't want them selling a car with an intentional buffer meant to help battery life, and then selling that buffer to the detriment of the vehicle. If it's an intentional buffer they suddenly think they can monetize, that should be a free decision, not a paid decision IMO
Also, if you sell a software locked battery and someone figures out how to hack it and gain full access, my opinion is tough fucking luck for Rivian. You sold the vehicles, they now own it, and if they can bypass what you did that's your problem not their problem. We should be free to modify the vehicle however we want, and unless you can prove that modification harmed the vehicle, it should not impact the warranty. I get the laws may not support this last point, and we probably need legislation to address it.
Edit: and example of how hacking the vehicle might impact the warranty legitimately could be, say they offer a 70% / 150k km / 8y warranty. Because it's software locked if it goes below 70% to you, they can eat into the buffer keeping it above 70%. If you hack it and then starting doing heavy 100% - 0% cycles and it's under 70% of the hacked total, well that's not what was warrantied. You weren't supposed to reach 100%. The cheaper locked version includes a lower warranty cost because that extra battery is there to prevent it.