Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 175 posts

Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions

#141

Post by [deleted] »

kriops wrote: post #130
celestialcheese wrote: post #80

This is a great step. Subscriptions errode first sale protections by subscription-gating physical objects, allowing OEMs a work-around to first-sale doctrine. If you buy something, you should own it, and be able to fix it, scrap it, re-sell it, whatever you want. It's interesting NJ included self-driving in the subscription ban. These require significant overhead in compute, engineering resources and greatly impact s…

> If you buy something, you should own it, and be able to fix it, scrap it, re-sell it, whatever you want. Why? If I have a car, and I enter into an agreement with you about the sale of the car, then the terms of the agreement are completely arbitrary, for the two of us to decide, and something both parties must consent to. If you don't want a car with optional subscriptions, don't buy a car with optional subscriptio…

[deleted]

Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions

#142

Post by userbinator »

kyleee wrote: post #135
userbinator wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing people to opt out of upgrades but keep their older FSD just means a bunch of vehicles on the road with depreciated safety features. ...which is perfectly fine and has been the status quo since the beginning of the automotive era --- vehicles only need to meet the safety requirements when they were manufactured.

Not perfectly fine in the context of “move fast and break things” software dev cycle used for safety critical things like auto pilot. Out of date auto pilot versions are going to have vulnerabilities and bugs (known and unknown) that will likely cause death, destruction, etc. on public roads

known and unknown) that will likely cause death, destruction, etc. on public roads

...and so do human brains...

As long as the driver is still liable, I don't see a problem.

Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions

#143

Post by hn_go_brrrrr »

49531 wrote: post #128
celestialcheese wrote: post #80

This is a great step. Subscriptions errode first sale protections by subscription-gating physical objects, allowing OEMs a work-around to first-sale doctrine. If you buy something, you should own it, and be able to fix it, scrap it, re-sell it, whatever you want. It's interesting NJ included self-driving in the subscription ban. These require significant overhead in compute, engineering resources and greatly impact s…

Do first sale protections apply to physical things? I thought first sale was an intellectual property / copyright thing.

It absolutely applies to physical things. If I buy a widget you sell, I can do anything I want with it, including resell it.

Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions

#144

Post by HWR_14 »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #73
AlexandrB wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now apply this argument to ads on smart TVs. Oh wait... Recurring revenue business models are really appealing and companies are happy to take a short term hit in sales in order to increase their recurring revenue. Add to that the fact that people choose cars for all kinds of irrational reasons and I cynically expect car subscriptions, including mandatory subscriptions, to become the norm within a decade.

>"Now apply this argument to ads on smart TVs." I'd love that. But sadly I can't vote with my wallet because virtually every television is a Smart TV nowadays. I would gladly pay more for a TV if I could find one that wasn't bundled with all the extraneous stuff. Especially one that isn't designed to be a sign in a fast food restaurant.

> sadly I can't vote with my wallet because virtually every television is a Smart TV nowadays

I think you missed the point. It was saying that subscriptions on car features will phase in from "optional" to "ubiquitous" just like Smart TVs did.

Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions

#145

Post by gbin »

teruakohatu wrote: post #137
alistairSH wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assistance systems like Honda, Subaru, Toyota and others offer have no ongoing costs. The systems are static - the only updates would be TSBs or recalls. An actual self-drove system should eventually get to that point. We only see frequent software updates today because the systems are barely more then public betas.

> The systems are static ... We only see frequent software updates today because the systems are barely more then public betas. No absolutely not. FSD models are going to need continuous updates. All real-world models exhibit "model drift". Over time most models perform less well. Real world models are monitored and retrained when needed. Example would be when a city, state or country changes a road sign or introduce…

Or simply the maps the car needs to rely on to find your route to your destination...

Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions

#146

Post by gadflyinyoureye »

w1nst0nsm1th wrote: post #74
leereeves wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in a nation where, on aggregate, their platform is unpopular Many polls report that the Republicans are more popular than the Democrats at the moment.[1] Sadly, refusing to acknowledge the existence of differing views seems to be rather common these days. 1: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-...

But FDR, with its New Deal, is still the prefered US President, and by a large margin : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_preside...

That’s because most people don’t realize that those policies started us down the path to authoritarianism we’re headed to now.

Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions

#147

Post by kriops »

mint2 wrote: post #131
kriops wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you buy something, you should own it, and be able to fix it, scrap it, re-sell it, whatever you want. Why? If I have a car, and I enter into an agreement with you about the sale of the car, then the terms of the agreement are completely arbitrary, for the two of us to decide, and something both parties must consent to. If you don't want a car with optional subscriptions, don't buy a car with optional subscriptio…

As if individual consumers have any ability to negotiate contracts. This is a main case for what government regulations are for. When the individual consumer doesn’t have ability to negotiate and companies are abusing something, then the individuals can only go to the their elected representatives to get it remedied. If the company doesn’t like the rules they can let some other company step in.

You have. You're just not willing to pay for it. You also have the option to walk away.

"This is a main case for what government regulations are for." - No. There is no cost to be internalized here.

Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions

#148

Post by sokoloff »

leetcrew wrote: post #89
kelnos wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you're still paying some subset of that $250-500 (in addition to the subscription fee), because in order to offer the subscription option to anyone, they have to include the hardware in every car, even if a particular owner decided not to buy the subscription. The carmaker has to defray that cost somehow, and that means every car gets a little bit more expensive up front, regardless of whether or…

I really doubt the per-unit hardware cost to install heated seats is anywhere near what they cost to option. it's not a complex technology, and plenty of cheap cars come with them standard. the manufacturer might even break even on the additional parts cost by only making one kind of seat. or they might make up for it by increasing the margin in some other option that you may or may not choose. who knows?

Supporting your point: Two-seat aftermarket kits are around $50. I installed one (driver’s side only) in our CR-V and it’s well-worth the time to do so in New England. (If your seat-floorpan bolts aren't too rusty, it was a leisurely 60-90 minute job and would be 30-45 minutes to do the second one.)

Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions

#149

Post by alistairSH »

teruakohatu wrote: post #137
alistairSH wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assistance systems like Honda, Subaru, Toyota and others offer have no ongoing costs. The systems are static - the only updates would be TSBs or recalls. An actual self-drove system should eventually get to that point. We only see frequent software updates today because the systems are barely more then public betas.

> The systems are static ... We only see frequent software updates today because the systems are barely more then public betas. No absolutely not. FSD models are going to need continuous updates. All real-world models exhibit "model drift". Over time most models perform less well. Real world models are monitored and retrained when needed. Example would be when a city, state or country changes a road sign or introduce…

Road sign designs don't change very often. No way consumers should be forced into a perpetual monthly subscription for something that probably needs updates every 5 years or so. Not sure how it should work long-term, but a monthly subscription for a mature system sounds wrong to me.

If the FSD relies on published maps to work, it's already doomed. Road layouts change way too frequently (sometimes temporary, for construction) for that to be a requirement.

Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions

#150

Post by kennend3 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #123
kennend3 wrote: post #55

Can we add XM radio to the list? I bought a new car and they keep calling and send mail to my house far too frequently. I've told them NO around a dozen times.. They are bordering on harassment. Just because you put some receiver in my car doesn't mean you can constantly contact me. I never asked for it and they should take no for an answer.

In 2016 I had bought a new car and it came with an XM Radio trial. I wanted to know what satellite radio was all about, even though I figured it was a dying technology getting replaced by music streaming. After deciding it wasn't going to be worth the money, I cancelled my trial. Yeah, it was a mistake. I was getting calls, but never answered them. I changed my number in my account and the calls stopped. But I was ge…

I have several problems with services like XM.

1) when i bought the car i don't recall consenting to have my contact information provided to XM??

2) They don't seem to take "NO" for an answer.

I'm located in Canada and eventually filed a report with the government and they finally stopped.

Post reply on HN