- 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
As someone who never had a car with remote start, why would I want that? Sounds like useless fluff in practice.
If you live somewhere with cold winters you’d remote start to get the heat going.
I remember Peugeot 405 had this shit as an aftermarket addon (Magikar)
And now Mazda asks for 10 bucks a month for it lmfao
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
“Felony contempt of business model”
Bunch of cucking funts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
