There is no need for the internet to use remote start
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
663 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
58593 readers
4023 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Having a car without internet connectivity would be a feature for privacy minded consumers
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.
Preach. Got a benz from 2009 that has all the features I want (heated seats, automatic climate control, rain sensor, etc) and none of the things I don't want (remote connectivity, spyware, subscriptions).
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.
nope nope nope.
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.
An API is not copyrightable 🤔
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"
That's being normalized right now with video games. It'll happen with other things soon enough too.
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.
Why is there no big alternative hosted outside of the US where your DMCA does not apply?
There are other centralised code hosting services, for example Codeberg, but they are equally scared of any legal action even when it doesn't directly apply.
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
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.
Shareholders love lootboxes too.
And one party autocracy.
I think I can speak for most Americans (and as someone who owns stocks) fuck the shareholders.
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.
You are the reason they didn't lose it all.
Yeah, if not for me the government would have responded appropriately and bankrupted the company.
Exactly! I'm glad you understand.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
load more comments
(23 replies)
view more: next ›