837
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] 4am@lemmy.world 183 points 1 year ago

Heated seats you have to pay to unlock (but regardless have to pay to haul around) is the most late stage capitalist brainworm bullshit.

It should be illegal, and/or it should NOT be illegal to hack around the paywall if you purchase the car.

[-] El_Gryphon@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

You wouldn't download a car

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Send me a link and watch what happens!

And yes I know you are joking too :)

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago

It's fucking wasteful. A sign of absolutely deranged capitalism.

[-] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 year ago

most late stage capitalist

I mean, whatever you call it, opposition to this particular phenomenon would unite the militia and sovereign citizen kinds of people in USA (of what I've heard about) and ancoms and ansyns and ancaps everywhere and "citizens of the USSR" in the ex-USSR and reichsbuergers in Germany and I can go on.

Selling the same thing which differs in price and whether the same functionality is locked is something universally dishonest for everybody who is not in love with the organization doing this.

[-] Sketchpad01@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Wouldn't it not be illegal to hack it? Since you own the hardware?

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

You can hack the hardware but you can't hack the software if they tried to stop you.

The dmca is a disaster.

[-] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

If you own a computer it doesn't mean you have full control over the software on it. It's not legal to download a trial version of Microsoft office then hack it to remove the trial timer and turn it into the full product that costs money.

[-] kewjo@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

imo its a bit different as they are using physical resources and then artificially limiting access. a better comparison would be getting a motherboard and having to pay extra to use some of the usb ports.

I think eventually there should be laws against wasting physical resources for monetary gain. if they want two models, make it such that they either don't meet manufacturing requirements and are hard disabled (similar to cpu yield) or produce one with and one without.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

You hype to never own anything again? Corporations have realized that they're essentially immortal and that the more stuff they have for rent, the less likely it is they'll ever have to sell any of it. I wish I could stick around for three or four more generations because I'll bet that eventually not only will regular people just never expect to own a home, but they'll all be so marketed-to by the landlords that it'll be considered common sense that buying a home is a bad idea.

[-] verysoft@kbin.social 83 points 1 year ago

EU needs to start targeting this DLC for cars bullshit.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

I will never buy a car that pulls this kind of crap. Ever.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I'd sooner move to a more bikable city.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Bigmouse@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Good luck on that. The EU has an incredibly powerful Automobile lobby. Many companies, particularly in germany, are eyeing "DLC cars" hungrily.

[-] induna_crewneck@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Doesn't BMW also do the heated seats DLC?

[-] ShadowZone@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah. And adaptive cruise control is something you have to pay 900 Euro extra via the in car shop on some models. Models you already paid 50k Euro and more for.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 77 points 1 year ago

The feature isn't worth $15,000. They charge you that much to send a small, very specific sequence of bits to your car. That's what you're paying for because the feature's already built in.

[-] realbaconator@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Yeah anyone who’s familiar with the “software upgrade” know’s it’s just overpaying to be a beta tester for their self-driving. What’s more; people who don’t buy it still get auto-steer (lane maintain, car pacing & cruise control) which is what most would use self-driving for anyways. Aside from that, if it runs on code there will always be a way to beat it. People have been ripping .DLL files for enterprise software for decades that cost as much or more than this overpriced “feature.”

[-] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 13 points 1 year ago

I feel a bit conflicted on this. On the one hand, charging for heated seats that are already there and which is a purely hardware feature is bullshit.

Other things like Full Self Driving aren’t as black and white. Sure, the sensors are there but those are relatively cheap. A massive part of FSD is the software, and developing this kind of software is extremely expensive.

Should everyone get a copy of Windows and Office for free because it’s ‘just some bits’ and the hardware is already there?

[-] Neato@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago

Calling it Full Self Driving is fraud, anyways.

I don't think licenses and/or subscriptions should be allowable on cars. Selling the car means it might not transfer and there's little way to ensure it has the software you need.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

It should be illegal to sell someone something they do not own. In your windows/office example, I'd say it should be illegal to crack/copy the software, but it should also be illegal to sell the software without an offline method of permanent and irrevocable activation (think offline cd keys), and it should be illegal for a company to put any barriers in front of use (vm, laptop, server, cpu cores, memory limits, etc) and illegal to put any barriers in front of resale. Selling a windows update, or a subscription model to updates seems completely reasonable (and probably should do online blacklists for shared keys) but the fundamentals of ownership shouldn't be eroded in law.

In the tesla example, your car should be your car. If you can modify the software to give you more features that's your car. If tesla wants to sell a subscription to incremental upgrades on their self-driving algorithms that's fine, but they should be liable for any faults in older revisions if they paywall updates. That incentivizes them to do the software equivalent of a recall when something is egregiously or dangerously broken, and also incentivizes innovation because they can't sell you an update if it doesn't contain anything valuable.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The windows analogy is almost there.

It's more like, you pay for windows home edition, which would take up 24gb in your 128gb hard drive. But nope, it's actually taking up 89gb. Why? Because it has all the features of Windows Ultimate edition, all locked away, taking up precious space in a hard drive that you've paid for.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] billbasher@lemmy.world 76 points 1 year ago

If you buy the hardware you should be able to turn it on. Jail breaking is fully moral in that situation.

The self driving is software that uses the hardware so should be paid for IMO. You should also be able to use your own software that’s open source on the hardware you own

[-] cley_faye@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Running your own software to control the automotive part of a car is probably not legal, since I assume the process of making a car street legal should requires an audit of said system.

Hmm, well, I hope it is the case, anyway.

[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Any software that passes whatever local safety standard should be installable (or software that doesn't pass if the car is not being used on public roads).

Otherwise the car is not being sold, it's being rented, and all the advertising that says anything about buying is fraud.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] Noah@lemmy.federated.club 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's ridiculous how nowadays a lot of hardware car features are locked behind a simple software switch. Feels like both a massive waste of resources for people that don't buy the upgrades, and like having to pay for a feature that is already physically present in your car. Software-only upgrades like full self driving are understandable, hardware upgrades locked behind a software gate aren't.

[-] girlfreddy@mastodon.social 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@Noah @MicroWave

Cory Doctorow calls it autoenshittification and wrote about it here ... https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/

edit spelling

[-] starlinguk@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

It's cheaper to build identical cars than it is to add certain features to some and not to others.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago

If it's cheaper then they should include it. It's like being cheaper to make a more powerful engine then software limiting the car to only go to so many RPMs or speed. It's that John Deere bullshit all over again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ArtificialLink@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

Doesn't make it any less scummy. Its just an artificial inflation of price.

[-] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 year ago

That will hold true until the manufacturers realize that there will always be someone smart enough to break their software lock, and on a car, there’s always ample incentive to do so.

Literally begging for people to hack your shit

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Coreidan@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago

If you buy a Tesla you’re encouraging and supporting these practices.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 6 points 1 year ago

Until the other manufacturers implement it, then it'll be unavoidable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] zipzoopaboop@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The price of everything, the value of nothing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] alphacyberranger@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

So they downloaded a car from a car?

[-] Simplesyrup@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

"Music starts playing"

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 28 points 1 year ago

Yes Hollywood. I absolutely fucking would download a car.

[-] Burninator05@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

... paying or subscribing to a service are becoming increasingly popular in the auto industry.

No paying or subscribing to a service (of which I would argue none of the thing paywalled in a car are a sevice) are becoming increasingly popular for auto makers. I don't know of anyone who is interested in paying for features forever.

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

In before Elmo threatens with a lawsuit

[-] AstralWeekends@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Wow, surprised that I hadn't heard of THIS vulnerability that previously existed: https://electrek.co/2020/08/27/tesla-hack-control-over-entire-fleet/

Pretty wild stuff, and that was 6 years ago!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
837 points (99.2% liked)

News

23311 readers
1300 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS