this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
1293 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

58801 readers
4291 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
[–] darkevilmac@lemmy.zip 334 points 1 week 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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 128 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Nobody likes these

Shareholders love them

[–] abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 68 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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

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)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 week ago

Shareholders love lootboxes too.

And one party autocracy.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] imposedsensation@lemmynsfw.com 32 points 1 week ago (17 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.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 46 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 week 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)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 184 points 1 week ago (9 children)

An API is not copyrightable 🤔

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 101 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] boogiebored@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

It’s intent is harassment.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 94 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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)
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

it seems everything is copyrightable if you are rich enough

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 40 points 1 week 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)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Fester@lemm.ee 111 points 1 week 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.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 25 points 1 week 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)
[–] a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com 96 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"you wouldn't download a car" was prophetic

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] boogiebored@lemmy.world 91 points 1 week ago (5 children)

"capitalism promotes healthy competition"

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Don’t forget innovation:

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 week ago

One of the biggest lie of all time.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 77 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] boogiebored@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Everything is becoming public and opt-out. Privacy is beyond dead.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 69 points 1 week 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"?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] shyguyblue@lemmy.world 63 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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...

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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)
[–] Fizz 62 points 1 week 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.

[–] Evil_Opossum@lemmy.ca 60 points 1 week 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)
[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 58 points 1 week ago (45 children)

There is no need for the internet to use remote start

load more comments (45 replies)
[–] firepenny@lemmy.world 48 points 1 week 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)
[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 46 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

Now open your eyes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 45 points 1 week ago (11 children)

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

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 48 points 1 week 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)
[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 45 points 1 week 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)
[–] Tygr@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week 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)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago

Reason number 29474929273 why we should ban internet access on cars

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›