Comment on Hyundai car requires $2000, app & internet access to fix your brakes - what the actual f

• Zak@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  It is like paying to unlock satellite TV reception (even though we are receiving the signals the whole time).

  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 All the anticircumvention laws should be repealed.

  source

  • 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.

    source
• 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.

  source

  • 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.

    source

    • 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.

      source
  • 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.

    source

    • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

      source
• 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.

  source

  • 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?

    source

    • 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.

      source
    • x00z@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨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.

      source
    • shiftymccool@piefed.ca ⁨8⁩ ⁨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…)

      source

      • sqgl@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        OK I accept the analogies are not good equivalents.

        It is not necessarily true that everyone has already paid for the seat warmer hardware. The car may cost the same as if it didn’t have the hardware installed.

        The manufacturer may find it cheaper to just install it for everyone and wear the cost in the hope that enough people will pay for the warmer to be enabled.

        Of course it is possible that everyone pays for the hardware anyhow but it is not necessarily the case.

        source

        • -> View More Comments