A pirated car would just be a more free way to access the $10k/yr pay wall you live your life behind. Car-dominant infrastructure is vendor lock in.

Edit: fixed picture

  • @BR4
    1•11 months ago

    I think a major reason for these models is that the more that the car becomes a computing device, the more that it’ll require regular patches and optimizations. Being connected to the servers and using services that route through it lets them gather usage data, offer some extra features that can functiom from anywhere, and update security and functionality (which would possibly involve full time developers I suppose).

    It does seem greedy (way overpriced), but this isn’t the same as disabling hardware that you need to sub to activate (a la seat warmers). Plus it’s all still pretty cutting edge tech atm and I usually tell people that means you’re choosing to fund its early development (and being a beta tester) over using more standard and tested products.

    • @[email protected]
      1•11 months ago

      Outside of self driving cars there isn’t a reason cars should become a computing device though.

      If you want to end a car centric infrastructure in favor of bikes or velomobiles you would still want self driving cars that you only use for special tasks. Robotaxies or robo busses. Then it makes sense to not own a car.

      • @BR4
        2•9 months ago

        I think e-cars are more computer-like as they’ll prioritize optimizing as much of the system as possible to maximize battery mileage; performance/riding experience as a live service; DRM; probably pretty hackable.

        Driverless autonomy could also potentially turn pedestrian cars into part of the public transport system if people can have their idle cars work like taxis (not sure if this would involve things like smart contracts), but unfortunately it seems like the actual last piece of the puzzle that car companies aren’t gonna crack any time soon.