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

Technology

59358 readers
4278 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
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
1298
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 ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
272 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 128 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Nobody likes these

Shareholders love them

[–] abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 68 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 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.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I bought a bit of BP shortly after the oil spill.

I was hoping to lose it all, but had the feeling I'd end up making money. I did make money.

All those shareholders should have been fucked.

[–] Alk@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You are the reason they didn't lose it all.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, if not for me the government would have responded appropriately and bankrupted the company.

[–] Alk@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

Exactly! I'm glad you understand.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're the problem. You get that, right?

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

how else are people supposed to avoid money losing value? bonds?

[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 1 month ago

There's socially responsible ETFs that track stock indexes but exclude companies like oil and gas companies. The return isn't as high, but at least you're not giving money to Big Oil.

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

Shareholders love lootboxes too.

And one party autocracy.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

It's a revenue stream you can collect after the vehicle is sold. Continuous cash flow means long term revenue stability for the business.

And its the introduction of a model that can scale. Once you've got someone's account information, you can sell them more shit (or just sell their data to advertisers). This is just the tip of the spear. Tesla, BMW, and Mercedes are all experimenting with Vehicle as a Service product models.

Investors love the possibility of revenue growth, and these programs promise the possibility of high margin after market sales for the life of the vehicle.

harmful to the brand image and customer loyalty

Not when everyone is doing it

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Shareholders can get fucked. They’re making the world a worse place daily.