this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
1298 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

59347 readers
4401 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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 334 points 1 month ago (19 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.

[–] [email protected] 128 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Nobody likes these

Shareholders love them

[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 month ago (8 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago

Shareholders love lootboxes too.

And one party autocracy.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago (15 children)

I think it's fair if Mazda has to operate a server to enable it, but I think Mazda should have to pay car owners to allow them to connect the car to a mobile network, especially for operating their spyware/telemetry.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

I think it's fair if Mazda has to operate a server to enable it

No. Either you support it for a predetermined few decades as part of the vheicle cost, or let the consumer switch to a different service.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Option 3 take the stop killing games approach and grant the user the server back end when they stop supporting it themselves so users can host it themselves

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago (2 children)

As long as they give me a way to run my own server for free, I agree with you.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 186 points 1 month ago (4 children)

An API is not copyrightable 🤔

[–] [email protected] 101 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Doesn't stop companies from sending bogus DMCA takedowns to sites like GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 94 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

it seems everything is copyrightable if you are rich enough

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 month ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Can't wait for the inevitable "You don't actually own the car, you just have a lifetime licence/lease to use the car"

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 111 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (35 children)

I was considering a Mazda for my next car. Now I’m not.

I get it but also Mazda is not the only one doing this. They all are. Your only option would be to buy an older car without connected services and hope that you never need another one.

load more comments (35 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 97 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"you wouldn't download a car" was prophetic

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 91 points 1 month ago (5 children)

"capitalism promotes healthy competition"

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Don’t forget innovation:

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago

One of the biggest lie of all time.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

But but, did you see the new "brand x brand x brand" product? The one where all the brands are owned by the same mega-corp and they just decided to smoosh their products together?

Innovation is dead and buried.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 77 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Having a car without internet connectivity would be a feature for privacy minded consumers

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Bets on which car company is going to be the first to EOL a server and brick a bunch of cars because some key feature is now "unsupported"?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago

Enel is currently doing exactly that with their electric car chargers (the Juicebox), they've decided to pull out from the North American market and just shut down the servers. Like WTF, at least open-source the thing...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

Services. Services!? What the actual fuck are you talking about!? Remote start isn't a fucking service, it's a feature, that they are trying to control through greed.

Edit: I will give a small concession to the remote remote start, as that does need an OTA service. The service of course shouldn't be any more complicated than a SMS setup, so $15 per year is the absolute most you'll be able to get out of me...

2nd edit: And you damn well better include free modem upgrades. None of this $50+ for a fucking map update shit the other companies are pulling. That shit should have been an OTA update, Christ knows the damn thing tries to find an open Wi-Fi...

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (11 children)

It's a service if the only way to remote start the car, from the factory, is via a third party like 5G or LTE.

How are all those 3G car services faring these days? There were cars as recent as M.Y. 2019 that have reduced functionality or no functionality that was originally paid for.

What will it look like when LTE and 5G are inevitably shutdown and replaced?

It's one thing to say I have to buy a new $1000 phone. They almost go obsolete in other ways, or suffer extensive physical damage before the cellular radios get turned off. It's another thing to say that a feature of an $80,000 car is gone forever. Even if it's just a creature-comfort like remote start or remote windows. It's bullshit.

And then what? A $1500 credit off my next car of the same make for my 'inconvenience'? Fuck right the fuck off. How much more does it cost to let a fob toggle it, from the factory floor?

And besides that who the fuck wants to dig out an app to start their car when you could just have a physical button right there on the key? Having voice assistants or routines start it for you is cool and all, but it is well known that those will be obsoleted long before the rest of the car.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 month ago (8 children)

I remember a time when these features were just "standard" and car makers ad campaigns all around features just being standard, making the car more enticing than their competitors.

Now I dread the idea of getting a vehicle in the future because of bull shit like this.

But fuck the consumer amirite?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 month ago (45 children)

There is no need for the internet to use remote start

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago

I just bought a new car and it has internet enabled remote start. The salesman touted the feature. My response: "oh so I can start the car in [one state] while I'm in [another state] so it's ready for me when I get back?" He didn't have a good response for that. Nice car, dumbass feature.

load more comments (44 replies)
[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 month ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Imagine a world where the laws are literally used to opress you!

Now open your eyes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 month ago (11 children)

So...who is making the open source car?

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Someone very rich who doesn't feel the need to get arbitrarily richer.

So no one.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This needs to be banned. In fact, “licenses” for things you buy should be outright banned entirely.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 month ago

Reason number 29474929273 why we should ban internet access on cars

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago

Paid subscriptions to use features of the car you bought should be illegal

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

Wait.... Even if users don't pay for this, their car still comes a WWAN module that is hardwired to their ignition. Yes, I realize it's more likely bolted on to the infotainment system and/or the car's RTOS, but it's still baked in.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›