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.”
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.
Nobody likes these
Shareholders love them
Shareholders love lootboxes too.
And one party autocracy.
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.
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.
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
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.
I don’t want anything smart in my car. I want a(n electric) engine that starts with a goddamned physical key that turns in a physical ignition. I want a volume knob that turns with a 1:1 ratio to the volume, ditto for climate control fan speed and temperature. The only thing I want my phone to do in conjunction with my cLilar is display the GPS.
So true… for me personally, I’d love to have a battery EV vehicle, but i just want a regular vehicle with a battery powerplant. I don’t want a mobile IOT advertising surveillance DRM non-repairable planned-olsolescence mobile which is how so many new vehicles are designed.
I feel like this is what we all signed up for vs what they delivered.
Reason number 29474929273 why we should ban internet access on cars
“capitalism promotes healthy competition”
Don’t forget innovation:
Hilariously, due to the teardrop shape, cars like this would be more aerodynamic if the shell was reversed.
Car companies do not want to innovate, because aerodynamic cars are “lame”, “soy”, etc.
People seem to have a low tolerance for what is considered weird when it comes to cars. That’s why most cars look the same. (Likely due to marketing and peer pressure)
Bar Atera, Ariel and a couple of other “unconventional” designs, and a handful of other concept cars. (Fuck the cybercrap, it’s the opposite of innovation)
TL;DR: cars could be way more aerodynamically efficient, but they aren’t, because people are peopleing.
Interesting and strange that there really as a car “uncanny valley”.
There’s an empty spot at the bottom of that list and the author – who by the way is a monster – could have easily included Subaru.
One of the biggest lie of all time.
But but, did you see the new “brand x brand x brand” product? The one where all the brands are owned by the same mega-corp and they just decided to smoosh their products together?
Innovation is dead and buried.
And Communism does so much “better”:
Why don’t you go to Cuba and ask how they’ve been able to do it for ~100 years. Those people have self-reliance down to a fucking science at this point, and the cars they have been keeping running for 60+ years are a perfect example of it. Imagine if they were actually allowed to participate in global commerce.
Having a car without internet connectivity would be a feature for privacy minded consumers
Everything is becoming public and opt-out. Privacy is beyond dead.
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”?
Fisker, due to going bankrupt, arguably is the worst version of this right now
Nissan EOL’ed all their remote services blaming the 3G turn off. But yet my Leaf still connects to their services to report my driving location and driving style to them. They just turned off any features I could use. The 3G network in the UK will be up for quite a long time still and the 2G network will be around for longer, but they decided it’s a good excuse to save some server money on cars that are less than 10 years old.
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?
When did customers become consumers?
I’m more concerned with the transformations from customers to product.
“Hey, buy our expensive shit but also give us all your data so we can also sell it to other companies.”
Consumer means an individual person customer who’s not a company. Otherwise customers can also be other companies.
I don’t think unlocking or starting your car from an app was ever standard
Y’know you’re likely correct and that’s totally my bad. I got confused about the remote start from the key fob. I can understand the remote start from the app being a paid thing for sure, like OnStar or specifically in my case the myChevrolet app.
I can understand the remote start from the app being a paid thing for sure.
But why would it need to be? The connectivity from the app is there already, it takes the manufacturer very little to handle the occasional web request. Especially if it can be done for free through third party software.
“you wouldn’t download a car” was prophetic
“Of course I would” has always been the response though.
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.
This needs to be banned. In fact, “licenses” for things you buy should be outright banned entirely.
Yeah. Feel this is a slippery slope. First it’s supposedly luxury extras like heated seats and remote starts. Next something more critical when folks are habituated to the practice? Enpoopification all around.
Paid subscriptions to use features of the car you bought should be illegal
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…
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.
We need to get a big group together and make an open source car. The company that bought Fiskers leftover vehicles can’t use them because Fiskers supposedly can’t transfer the servers to them.
An API is not copyrightable 🤔
deleted by creator
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.
Why is there no big alternative hosted outside of the US where your DMCA does not apply?
There are other centralised code hosting services, for example Codeberg, but they are equally scared of any legal action even when it doesn’t directly apply.
It’s intent is harassment.
it seems everything is copyrightable if you are rich enough
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.
Sure, but if you’re not rich and they sue you, you loose. No matter what, you’ll run out of money before successfully using that case.
And if they want to attack car owners for doing what they want with their own car let’s go to court and see how fast their bullshit holds up.
Can’t wait for the inevitable “You don’t actually own the car, you just have a lifetime licence/lease to use the car”
That’s being normalized right now with video games. It’ll happen with other things soon enough too.
