this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024

191 points (100.0% liked)

Internet of Shit

443 readers

1 users here now

Rules:

1. What to post?

"Smart" features that stupid, unnecessary, or even harmful.
Devices that are (bad kind of) internet-dependent, harvest data, are a security risk, and such.

2. Behave.

Act like a nice human being.

founded 9 months ago

MODERATORS

Bezier@suppo.fi

191

Mazda's $10 subscription for remote start sparks backlash after killing open source workaround via DMCA takedown (www.carscoops.com)

submitted 1 month ago by Bezier@suppo.fi to c/internetofshit@suppo.fi

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Step 1: Kill a free open-source app with a bogus DMCA takedown
Step 2: Sell the same feature as a $10/mo. subscription.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/20749171

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Welp, there goes any chances of buying a mazda. They think I'm going to go verify if a given model has this, or expect them not to slip it in eventually.

Fuck these car companies

[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sometimes i think to start a blacklist of car brands, for whenever i end up buying my next car, but i fear it would simply amount to "all of them" in the end.

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

But that's the thing we need to work to determine which brands don't do this and give them business not just resign that they all do it

[–] montar@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

My bet is that there will be a point where only russian cars (looking at UAZ) and cars made for busieness (delivery VANs and buses) would be only ones left.

[–] methods286@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

“Felony contempt of business model”

[–] str82L@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

Bunch of cucking funts.

[–] magikmw@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As someone who never had a car with remote start, why would I want that? Sounds like useless fluff in practice.

[–] czech@lemm.ee 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If you live somewhere with cold winters you'd remote start to get the heat going.

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago

Or hot summers so you don't sear yourself getting into your car.

[–] Vivendi@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I remember Peugeot 405 had this shit as an aftermarket addon (Magikar)

And now Mazda asks for 10 bucks a month for it lmfao

[+] ramble81@lemm.ee -34 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Okay, so then who or how are you supposed to pay for the infrastructure for the remote start command to reach the car? The “free” option was using a Mazda developed API, on Mazda owned servers, with a cellular connection (again 3rd party has to pay for the infrastructure) to reach your car.

Yes it was an asshole move to remove the remote start from the key fob, but charging for the remote app is not an incredulous action since you have to pay for that infrastructure.

You can choose not to pay it, not use the anpp features and your car still perfectly functions as a car. If you think all that infrastructure should be included free, all that will cause is an across the board price hike for everyone’s car as they bake that maintenance cost into the price of the car, even if you don’t use the app.

[–] sinceasdf@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The key fob remote start would be fine and for free. Or you could use local wifi instead of the open internet which is a security risk. This is anti consumer bullshit made to get a subscription where one is not required.

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s the part I said was an asshole move. Removing it from the key fob. WiFi really isn’t feasible anywhere outside of your house, and even then only if it’s close enough to the house. How would you connect if you’re at work, in a parking garage or the far end of a parking lot?

[–] sinceasdf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The car can put out its own ad hoc wifi network or be added to your work network. Fobs have decent enough range too and so global access to my car via the internet is only marginally more convenient at best (and not sure I want it to be connected at all for security reasons tbh).

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee -3 points 1 month ago

“Added to your work network”. Tell me you work at a mom and pop shop.

I work somewhere where my car is easily 2-300 yards away through multiple building and support structures in a garage. Adhoc WiFi isn’t reaching that far.

And for anyone in an apartment, there’s a good possibility they’re not near their car either. Or when they’re out shopping, or after a movie, etc.

There’s a multitude of places where BT or WiFi just doesn’t have the range, and you want to start your car early enough to warm it up or cool it down in more than the 20 steps line-of-sight that a fob, or one of those technologies can do it in. But ultimately it’s all a #firstworldproblem that we’ve created anyway.

[–] Bezier@suppo.fi 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I have two issues with Mazda here:

using a Mazda developed API

You cannot copyright an API. They took down a foss project by using false copyright pretenses.

If you think all that infrastructure should be included free

That one I actually agree with, almost. Demanding infrastructure for free is unreasonable. It's just that the feature is artificially locked to said infrastructure. It didn't need it in the past.

[–] metaStatic@kbin.earth 12 points 1 month ago

Also that infrastructure is already being used to steal all you data anyway. Not paying the subscription doesn't disconnect it.

[–] Technologist@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Easy, do it all locally using local WiFi. It doesn't need cellular to work, unless they wanted to charge for this. Major companies often get cellular for pennies anyways for mass deployments, and seeing their profits they could handle that.

[+] ramble81@lemm.ee -7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How in the world would you use “local WiFi” outside of your house? What about all those people in apartments where their car isn’t near their house. Or at work in a parking garage? Would you expect it to get to connect to a randomly open access point?

That’s why I said removing it from the fob was the asshole move, but any app based version is going to most likely require a cellular connection for the car, which costs money to maintain

[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Then those can pay the $10/mo for the cellular based version. Or even then, one could just... provide their own SIM, if only they'd let you. Most carriers let you have an extra data only SIM to your line for fairly cheap for iPads and laptops, why not for your car?

The thing was deliberately engineer such that paying them is the only option. And those servers will inevitably get shut down at some point, making it all useless anyway.

[–] homesnatch@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A lot of cars have cell service.. I'm not aware of any that allow for BYO SIM. It's a great idea, though.

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

My Audi used to back in 2013. Open the front panel and there were three slots. Two for SD cards (one nav, one music) and a SIM slot where you could bring your own. There were no connected services that you could use an app with, but it could access Google Maps, Yelp and have an in-car hotspot.

[–] PixelTron@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You bought the car for how ever many tens of thousands, which should be priced in with this sort of thing in mind if they want to offer it as a feature in the first place.

The cost to run the api service is minuscule compared to the size of their overall business.

Maybe I could see it as a valid upsell at time of purchase as a one off upfront fee, so it’s at least up to the buyer from the start. Although I personally do not like that approach, at least you can decide if you like that companies ethics before committing to them with that approach.

Perhaps resale of the vehicle complicates this a little, & might warrant a small transfer fee, but I also dislike that idea.

There’s plenty of options for more local communication technologies that could support this feature without the need of a remote server & ongoing service. But then there’s no lock in & ongoing revenue which nearly all car companies seem to be going for these days, as if they haven’t already been super profitable for many decades before…

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah I don't get this at all. It's like asking "who's going to pay for all the shipping costs for the materials", you. It's baked into the price. A super light API call is fractions of a cent. They are getting bonuses in the millions, they can swing it.

[–] BurningRiver@beehaw.org 8 points 1 month ago

Yes it was an asshole move to remove the remote start from the key fob…

You could have just stopped there. With remote start on the key fob, the infrastructure investment isn’t needed at all, and you go back to remote start being bundled into an option package like it always has been.

These fucking corporations with their nickel and dime subscription bullshit has to end, and the only way that happens is if more people say “fuck you, I’m not buying that car because you’re trying to subscribe people for technology already built into the car”.