A pirated car would just be a more free way to access the $10k/yr pay wall you live your life behind. Car-dominant infrastructure is vendor lock in.
Edit: fixed picture
If this isn’t a lease then it will never hold up in any state court, John Deere and Apple already tried something similar to this over right to repair and lost miserably in every state it was tried in. I’m actually surprised they tried this after the epic payout John Deere had to make after the class action lawsuit against them.
Everything is crackable, I bet the software in the car is as cheaply made as everything else
this subscription involves a mobile plan and access to a backend service though
Worse, generally. Car manufacturers are completely awful with privacy and also very bad at security.
Hell yeah! Fuck car dependent infrastructure!
These are things that need a subscription, though… These are remote features that require internet connectivity and application serving. Things that don’t just come with a one-time fee. These are actual services being provided by Kia or Hyundai. This isn’t the same as putting a hardware feature of your car behind an arbitrary pay wall.
Then I should be able to self-host these softwares.
You wouldn’t be able to communicate with the car at a distance though.
How do car manufacture communicate with these cars?
4g most likely
Then if the manufacture is just communicating with the car using standard internet, what is stopping self-hosted software communicating with the car?
Yeah on second thought it likely has to be satellite or something.
Otherwise roadside assistance would be shit haha
What it boils down to is why would a company spend money so a small percentage of tech enthusiasts who buy their cars can use advanced features for free.
We always forget we’re a tiny percentage of any market.
Otherwise roadside assistance would be shit haha
If I have to guess, I think they are probably on different systems. As roadside assistance pre-dates smart cars, and satellite in general has pretty bad receptions under a roof.
What it boils down to is why would a company spend money so a small percentage of tech enthusiasts who buy their cars can use advanced features for free.
Because “laws”.
Of course, there is no way to let corporate do good on its own. Corporates will never respects its user, the environment, and basic consumer rights; if they are left to operate on their own.
If the EU can force apple to care a little bit about the environment and basic consumer rights, then they probably can let the car companies do the same.
149 to send a ping to locate a car? For an API call to lock unlock? How many API calls are worth 149 per year? In which world?
It’s kinda depressing to see bunch of people who support the subscription model in my post comments for something that you already paid & own
As they pointed out in your original post, it’s not, “the subscription model…for something that you already paid & own.” This isn’t subscription seat warmers, it’s paying for an additional service outside the car. You can argue it’s too expensive, but without their internet connection and servers, these features wouldn’t be possible.
There’s no need to host servers for 99% (maybe 100%) of this stuff. All the remote start features can be done through a direct connection between your phone and car. There’s no need for a third computer to be involved, except to check if you’ve paid for it. As long as your car has wifi access (or phone network access, which would need to be paid for) then it can communicate with other devices on the network/internet. Sure, you still have to pay for the internet, but that’s paid to the ISP, not the car company.
I’m not sure which direct connection you’re thinking of, but for most phones that would be limited to WiFi (probably WiFi Direct), Bluetooth, and maybe NFC. NFC range is tiny and Bluetooth’s is pretty small. WiFi’s range is approximately the same thing as an RF remote, which isn’t great.
Also, if we did have direct connection (which would be great for confirming the start worked, and the status of the car), why would we need internet??
By direct I meant routing to the car and user device, not through company servers. There’s no need for that. Both devices are computers. The only reason the company would need it routed through them first is to make sure you’ve paid up.
- That would mean the vehicle still needs an internet connection, presumably a cell connection, which is a service.
- Removing the manufacturer’s server would make the car the server, and would mean exposing your car to the whole internet. That’s a bad plan.
-
Yes, I mentioned that. However, the cell plan would be a lot cheaper. There shouldn’t be a lot of data coming through.
-
It would mean exposing it as much as any other device is exposed. It’d have a port open and listening for communication. Honestly, I’m pretty sure it’d be identical to how it is currently. It’s not like sending the communication from the company server is any different than from any other device. Its not connecting directly to the company’s servers. It’s a wireless service. Sure, it needs security measures, but it already needs that.
-
Remote start has been around for well over a decade and did not require internet or a subscription. If you just subscribe and use the feature then clearly the neccesary equipment for remote start is already installed and you paid for that equipment regardless if you use the subscription service.
@FireRetardant @n2burns Remote start can mean different things. I’d hope a subscription based one was via a server and works where normal direct RF fobs wouldn’t (like from another country).
If it is just direct RF based remote start that shouldn’t be a subscription.
Why would anyone need to start a car from another country?
So what happens when your car has no cell service? Or you don’t own a phone that supports the app? The only use case I can see is long distance remote start but I’m struggling to determine why someone would reasonably need that.
The only reasons they went away from RF is to justify subscriptions and further push the smart device trend where everything can connect to your phone.
Features like this really do require a subscription model. This isn’t enabling remote start by pressing a key on your fob. This is sending a request to a server, which connects to a cell tower to broadcast signal saying “turn on this car”. That stuff ain’t free. Someone has to pay AT&T for the data connection.
What BMW was (is?) doing is abhorrent. You’re buying a car with heated seats, and you have to subscribe to hit the button.
Features like this really do require a subscription model. This isn’t enabling remote start by pressing a key on your fob. This is sending a request to a server, which connects to a cell tower to broadcast signal saying “turn on this car”. That stuff ain’t free. Someone has to pay AT&T for the data connection.
Only because they unethically intentionally designed it that way, when they could’ve just as easily picked a different design that could’ve worked entirely locally. They are inventing excuses for rentiership.
I think a major reason for these models is that the more that the car becomes a computing device, the more that it’ll require regular patches and optimizations. Being connected to the servers and using services that route through it lets them gather usage data, offer some extra features that can functiom from anywhere, and update security and functionality (which would possibly involve full time developers I suppose).
It does seem greedy (way overpriced), but this isn’t the same as disabling hardware that you need to sub to activate (a la seat warmers). Plus it’s all still pretty cutting edge tech atm and I usually tell people that means you’re choosing to fund its early development (and being a beta tester) over using more standard and tested products.
Outside of self driving cars there isn’t a reason cars should become a computing device though.
If you want to end a car centric infrastructure in favor of bikes or velomobiles you would still want self driving cars that you only use for special tasks. Robotaxies or robo busses. Then it makes sense to not own a car.
I think e-cars are more computer-like as they’ll prioritize optimizing as much of the system as possible to maximize battery mileage; performance/riding experience as a live service; DRM; probably pretty hackable.
Driverless autonomy could also potentially turn pedestrian cars into part of the public transport system if people can have their idle cars work like taxis (not sure if this would involve things like smart contracts), but unfortunately it seems like the actual last piece of the puzzle that car companies aren’t gonna crack any time soon.
@LarmyOfLone @BR4 Safety aids can involve plenty of computing and getting those constantly improved can aid in keeping people alive.
So there is some good reason to go that way. (But that may not be what is driving car companies to do it)
