Comment on Hyundai car requires $2000, app & internet access to fix your brakes - what the actual f
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
And that’s when I switched a while ago from a modern Bentley to an “ancient” mechanical car from a past long forgotten. Every electrical gadget is local, and it just has android auto (dedicated isolated phone just for the car) with a fake google account for navigation. Everyone thinks we’re broke lol, but I’m so fed with this shit. Even a silly backlight went from 5 bucks for a replacement-bulb to 1500 bucks for the whole led-package. Parts alone, add the mechanic and the many hours needed.
Heard that all brands do this shit though. Like even disabling things remotely that are there but you didn’t subscribe to. This is bonkers.
sqgl@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
I don’t understand the consumer outrage about that though. It is like paying to unlock satellite TV reception (even though we are receiving the signals the whole time).
Zak@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
It’s reasonable to charge for this because the value is in copyrighted content and a service that costs the provider money to operate. The same would apply for satellite radio in a car or an internet-based streaming service. It is not reasonable to charge for access to the adaptive suspension or seat warmers that are already in a car a customer bought. That breaks the traditional model of ownership.
An interesting middle ground might be to allow the owner to install arbitrary software on the car, and charge for the OEM adaptive suspension app. I think I would like a world where things work like that; OEMs would whine about security to no end.
I think it should be legal to attempt to decrypt satellite signals without paying; if the satellite service is designed well, it won’t be possible. All the anticircumvention laws should be repealed.
ITGuyLevi@programming.dev 5 hours ago
I’d argue that I bought the car, if they are maintaining a cellular connection to the vehicle to collect telemetry data, I should be allowed to access it as well (I own the car), alternatively they could let me pay for the data connection and not collect stuff.
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
Because, it’s already built into my car, i already paid for the car, the whole transaction is concluded. Paying in hindsight for a part of it, that is already there, is not really justified at all. If they built the car without one, and would have to add it later, then it would make sense. So if it would be more expensive to have my car explicitly built without this feature, why does it suddenly cost money when i decide i want it later?
The signal-broadcast all around everywhere and just YOU paying is simply for the fact they they can’t route them specifically to just YOUR house. It might sound equally unfair but it’s a clear distinction based on technical impossibility.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
The right to first sale should mean that the owner owns and controls all services installed in the product. And any DRM in the way of that, or that obstructs the right of repair, should be illegal, and the manufacturer held liable for including it in a product.
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 5 hours ago
Absolutely. But, as usual, we all let it happen, it will happen more, and in the end it’s the total default for everything. Capitalism always wins over ignorance or apathy.
UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
And your vehicle’s features weren’t lock behind a paywall in the pass because of enshitification. You know consumer rights and so on. If Rich people like you like paying then drive your rolls royce and Bentley, there are more poor people like us. Soon I’ll have to pay to masterbate my fucking cock somehow for the cooperate overlords.
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 5 hours ago
Why the attack? I’m against this. I might benefit from capitalism but i must not like it. And I do not. It’s a shitty pyramid-scheme resulting in exactly shit like this. Many brands (that i know of…) do not put physically already existing hardware behind a paywall. Yet. But in the end, they all will do, because people don’t care, or worse: don’t see the implications it does and just accept.
PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 10 hours ago
The best (worst) example I’ve seen in recent memory has been seat warmers. BMW and other manufacturers tried forcing a subscription on people just to use the seat warmers that are (1) already present in the car, (2) already wired up with buttons in place, and (3) cause no additional outlay of effort on the part of the manufacturer once they’re installed. There’s no valid reason to charge a subscription for something like that beyond straight greed.
sqgl@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
It is like having a grandstand at a football stadium which costs extra to use. Do you resent that?
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
You don’t own the stadium, and you don’t own the satellite. So they’re really not the same as a car, which you do (nominally) own.
x00z@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Satellite TV is a service that requires constant upkeep by the companies which costs money.
And your football stadium is a bad analogy.
shiftymccool@piefed.ca 9 hours ago
I resent that the cost to the car company to install seat warmers is the actual installation of the seat warmers. Running them costs ME money in electricity generated by gasoline I bought. It costs them nothing to run them but i have to pay a subscription to use them on top of paying to power them?
The football grandstand continues to cost the owners in maintenance and space that they own. You pay for the privilege of using something that is not yours. I bought my car, I shouldn’t have to continue to pay for the privilege of using something I already own since the equipment is already there and doesn’t require any interaction with a remote service that would make sense to charge for (navigation, satellite radio, etc…)