So anyway, I'm radicalized, rule : 196

[–] fidodo@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The monthly subscription model leaves me feeling so very conflicted. On one hand, it’s a way to get an important piece of safety equipment for less money up front, which is good—there’s certainly cheaper airbag vests, but there’s more expensive ones, too.

No, no, there's nothing conflicting here. If you need expensive safety equipment that you can't afford up front there's already a solution for that, it's called financing. There is no upside to this, it's just unethical, irresponsible, and dumb.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

IMO, for a safety system, anything sitting between the device's sensors (to say it's time to deploy the safety system, regardless of what it is), and the actual deployment of that safety system, is too many things sitting between those systems. There's should always be a direct and uninterrupted connection from the safety deployment sensors and the safety deployment system. Nothing in between so the delay in deployment is as close to zero as possible, with no complications that could, in any way, shape, or form, delay or otherwise interrupt the connection between those two systems.

I really wonder what the mechanism for this license model is, I'm sure their engineers are intelligent and there's no obvious issues, but say, for example, the sensors that trigger the airbag and the airbags deployment trigger, has something like a relay in between. The relay is controlled by a management computing device that has verified the license and so it closes the relay (so everything works). Say, for example, during a crash, one of the first things that happens is that you're struck with debris, and in that debris is a very small, very powerful magnet. It happens to land, right where that relay sits, and because of where it impacts, it causes the relay to open... Disabling the airbag. You get wrecked because you were hit with a magnet.

I'm sure that is not realistic and they're not using a magnetic based relay for something like this, but I think it demonstrates the point. Anything sitting between (detect) and (deploy) is a risk to life and limb. That includes, but is not limited to, lines of code, relays, disconnects, computers, electronic lockouts, switches, and buttons. Even significant lengths of wire, more than a few inches could be a problem due to induced current or the risk of them being pulled and/or broken. Ideally, the system for detecting that it should deploy and the deployment mechanisms trigger should be in the same, protected box or chassis on the vest, with nothing in-between to inhibit the signal. IMO, the only good way to do this kind of lockout is to control the arming/disarming of the system, where when the system arms (and therefore ready to be used and secure the life and limb of the user), it checks for the presence of a license, first locally (with a license that has been cached that informs when the subscription is set up expire, if that expiry is after now, then arm), and failing that (expiry is before now), check for a license via a link through the app to the web and/or service provider. Providing useful feedback to the user about the system and whether it has armed correctly and therefore ready to deploy.

Have they done it this way? I don't know. I don't trust that they have. I'd rather pay more for a safety system and not have it require a subscription than pay monthly to use the system and potentially have it fail a fucking license check when I need it the most. Bluntly, I don't trust them to get this right. So fuck this, fuck them, and fuck anyone who supports this with their money. Any company putting a financial condition on the safety of your life isn't a company that should continue to operate.

All of this is to say nothing of: what happens if the license servers fail? Can't check in for a new license at renewal time because the servers are fucked.... Well, good luck in that crash you're about to have. 🖕

Fucking idiotic to trust a subscription model with your life.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Imagine you are in an accident and the server go off and you get killed while paying for that?

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Or sn accident in a tunnel, where there isn't a connection.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Financing can have a higher interest. It is not this easy, but also not too hard.

[–] fidodo@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Having a never ending subscription has even higher interest.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

Safety equipment has a limited lifetime and you may only ride the motorcycle for a limited time.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It reportedly checks subscription upon putting the vest on and supposedly won’t turn off mid ride.

[–] Slotos@feddit.nl 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

And if there’s a bug in that code, you’re fucked.

Safety features should work if everything else fails. Their failure mode can’t be “fuck it, it didn’t work”. Which is directly opposite to the failure mode of a subscription based service.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My dad worked for AAA. Once he got a call because a lady’s car errored out and thought she didn’t have her seatbelt buckled mid-drive, so it shut the engine off. On the freeway.

Even without a subscription, failsafes should always fail safe.

[–] Slotos@feddit.nl 2 points 7 months ago

Thorium reactors have a cleverly dumb failsafe. If reactor control fails, there’s a plug that melts and drains the contents into a container that’s not fit for runoff neutron generation.

That’s an example of a failsafe that fits its purpose. It’s still possible to fuck it up, but it would take a lot of effort to do so.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

This is why:

The FTC needs to do its job and start outlawing all these obscene subscription business models for things that are rightfully products, not services. Where's my goddamned First Sale Doctrine, FTC?!
Software Engineers working on commercial products need to be professionally licensed, so that proper consequences can be applied for unethical "fail-deadly" designs like this one.

[–] Technus@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

As a software engineer, the thought of my code being responsible for someone's safety is fucking terrifying. Thankfully I'm not in that kind of position.

From experience though, I can tell you that most of the reasons software is shitty is because of middle or upper management, either forcing idiotic business requirements (like a subscription where it doesn't fucking belong!) or just not allocating time to button things up. I can guarantee that every engineer that worked on that thing hated it and thought it was fucking stupid.

Licensing would be overkill for most software as it's not usually life and death. I think in this case since it's safety equipment it really should have been rejected by NHTSA before it ever hit stores.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I can guarantee that every engineer that worked on that thing hated it and thought it was fucking stupid.

As a software engineer who was also a civil engineer-in-training before switching careers, I think one of the big overlooked benefits of being licensed is that it would give engineers leverage to push back on unethical demands by management.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 1 points 7 months ago

manager@evil.corp

Dear manager please clarify the specifications for product. From the discussions in the last design meeting i felt the specifications to potentially be ambigious about their compliance with critical safety regulation. Please reply with the clarified specifications.

[–] Technus@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Management can always just fire the engineering team and hire one overseas. It's not like it's even that difficult to do.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I don't think you understand what being licensed means. It means the state requires that people doing that job hold a license. Offshoring would become illegal.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is managements fault, not the engineers fault.

We have to implement the requirements we are given. If we don’t, we get fired and they hire someone else who will do it.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If we don’t, we get fired and they hire someone else who will do it.

If we were licensed, any replacement would be similarly ethically bound to refuse and that tactic wouldn't work.

[–] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 1 points 7 months ago

who's doing the licensing and do they share my ethics?

[–] KISSmyOS@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

And if there’s a bug in that code, you’re fucked.

If there's a bug in your car's airbag, you're also fucked.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The problem is the subscription, not how it was implemented

[–] apt_install_coffee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yes, but also from an implementation perspective: if I'm making code that might kill somebody if it fails, I want it to be as deterministic and simple as possible. Under no circumstances do I want it:

checking an external authentication service.
connected to the internet in any way.
have multiple services which interact over an API. Hell, even FFIs would be in the "only if I have to" bucket.

[–] Psaldorn@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If the customer is dead, they definitely can't renew.

Who wouldn't tout your service if it saved them?

But also.. why the fuck does this require a sub?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

But also… why the fuck does this require a sub?

Because "fuck you, we're rent-seeking and you can't do anything about it," that's why.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The argument the company makes is that it allows them to sell the device for cheaper upfront, which means that more people can afford to have one. They sell them for $400. But also fuck them, nobody ever died from HP disabling printers.

[–] poppy@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Also, if they genuinely wanted to make it more affordable up front in order to get the safety device in more hands, they could charge a chunk initially and then a regular payment plan for so many months. Not paying in perpetuity or we disable it.

[–] smitten@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It checks the service when booting up before a ride. After that it doesn’t connect to the internet. If you’ve gone past your grace period of 60 days it won’t boot up at all, and it will alert you that the device isn’t active.

Don’t get me wrong, I hate the idea of the subscription but it’s important to have accurate information. Did you even read the product page?

[–] apt_install_coffee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That information changes none of my issues; if you don't see the plethora of potential implementation bugs involved, either you don't code professionally or you shouldn't be.

[–] smitten@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I code professionally, specifically I develop very resilient medical software. From a software perspective, as long as the developers are competent I have no issues with the device. There are so many other things you could take issue with when it comes to the vest, but I’m telling you software just isn’t one of them.

[–] apt_install_coffee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

I'm sure the developers are competent, but the reason I care about the design decisions is the same reason the electric brakes on cars don't interface with its infotainment system; the interface inherently creates opportunities for out of spec behaviour and even if the introduced risk is tiny, the consequence is so bad that it's worth avoiding.

If you have to have an airbag be controlled by software (ideally the mechanism is physical, like a pull tab), it should be an isolated real time device with monitoring your accelerometer and triggering the airbag be it's only jobs. If it's also waiting to hear back from another device about whether your subscription ran out before it starts checking, the risk of failure also has to consider that triggering device.

It can be done perfectly, but it's software so of course it has bugs.

[–] replicat@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Honestly the fact that it has code that says "under condition X, don't save the user" is concerning in and of itself. I wouldn't trust this thing in the first place.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

First law of robotics:

Money up front.

[–] LucasWaffyWaf@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I was hoping that the future would be like Star Trek, a beautiful high tech paradise where we worked our problems out and live in a post-scarcity world. Instead we're getting Deus Ex, minus the shades and trench coats.

[–] Incandemon@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

Remember that the star trek era was preceded by a nuclear ww3, and the eugenics wars. We still seem to be on track.

[–] x2XS2L0U@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

I use a 350€ manual airbag vest that was tested quite well

[–] DuckOverload@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Uh, or just don't get one? This is a stand-alone product with an unconventional business model. It's not like they're forcing it on anyone.

[–] TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Uh, that's not really the point? If you're making a product that aims to promote safety and save lives, then you shouldn't be able to cancel it at the will of the company. It would be like waking up in the middle of a surgery and the doctor telling you "Hey, looks like your anesthesia subscription expired, so unless you've got an extra $20 in your pocket right now, then we're just going in raw." If you absolutely NEED the extra money as part of your business model or whatever, then just charge them AFTER the service is used. Don't just fucking turn the airbag off with no warning because they're behind on a payment

[–] androogee@midwest.social 1 points 7 months ago

Nobody really likes the implementation of the insurance model of healthcare, but... You do at least asunderstand the idea behind it, right?

Insurance charges a much lower rate than the actual price, but everyone pays even when they don't need it. That way the people who aren't using it cover the people who are. It doesn't work if you only get charged when you use it.

That's all this is. You pay a subscription that is much lower than the price of the product. If it gets used, they send you another one.

The cost is fixed, and you don't have to worry about going without an important piece of safety equipment or incurring further costs after needing to use it.

If you have enough money to buy one directly, nobody is stopping you. This is actually aimed at people who can't afford that and would not have access to this technology at all otherwise.

[–] stevestevesteve@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)

This gets posted occasionally and while I agree, the subscription for an airbag is one of the dumbest things ever, it's not the only way to buy the thing.

It's available as a one-time purchase instead, which obviously is what everyone here would choose, but it's a fairly high price, and their argument for offering a subscription model is that they want the price barrier for safety equipment to be lower. There are other ways to do it, but the option of a subscription is fine IMO as long as the one time purchase remains as well.

[–] hexortor@lemmy.zip 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the context but

I feel like price for the one time purchase is set deliberately high because they want people to actually pay for the subscription instead. If their goal really was to make their products more accessible, just allow people to pay in installments and take some recurring interest fees for the financing.

And, in any case, the product should work no matter whether I'm late with the monthly fee or not. That's just bullshit.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Also, do you need a persistent internet connection at all times so it can check if you're subscribed at any moment it may need to in case of a crash? In a fast-moving vehicle? What an awful idea.

[–] KISSmyOS@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

It checks status when you switch it on before your ride, and warns you with LEDs if it can't activate.
It won't ever switch off during your ride unless it runs out of battery.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why would you want computerized airbags? I don't trust the software to not have bugs

[–] bob_lemon@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Uhhh... Every single airbag is computerized. There is always some software involved in the evaluation of the acceleration data.

And noone trusts the software to not have bugs. That's why testing exists on many development levels.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Accelerometer -> Big acceleration -> software(is acceleration >threshold: toggle airbag) is a much easier and reliabel process than:

Accelerometer -> Big acceleration -> software(is there an internet connection? is the subscription verified? is acceleration > threshold: toggle airbag)

[–] bob_lemon@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes. Which is why the latter is not happening.

I'm not defending the subscription model, but that check is very obviously not done during the crash, but during startup, when a couple of seconds delay is not fatal. And if it fails I assume the entire thing just turns off completely.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So you stop for gas in the middle of fucking nowhere, the vest doesn't get an internet conenction for veryfying your subscription and you are fucked, even as a paying customer.

It still boils down to a complex and much easier failing system, that could deny you critical safety features. I mean this also adds an entirely new dimension of hackability. Someone could hack into the server for the subcription verification and deliberately mess it up, or depending how poorly it is coded, could even access the vests of customers during their ride and disable them.

The system to trigger the airbag should never ever have a remote connection of any sort.

[–] KISSmyOS@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Once it's activated, it won't turn off for any reason, except if you turn it off or it runs out of battery.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

That is bullshit. If they want to lower the price by renting it out, they could perfectly well licencese local dealers to rent it out, who can go after the customer in the same way, like they could for people who rented vehicles and didnt pay/return them.

The subscription based model instead proves that the production costs cannot be that high, that in case of a run out subscription, they'd rather lose the product.

Also the development costs of the subscription and the technical equipment to validate subscriptions, including running the servers etc. are a significant cost factor, without which they could lower the price of the product.