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

111–120 of 175 posts

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

#111

Post by alistairSH »

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…

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.

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

#112

Post by [deleted] »

gamblor956 wrote: post #99
giantg2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can sue someone over growing their own wheat, they can sue over just about anything with even a tenuous link to commercial activity.

Filburn grew wheat for sale and in excess of the production controls, intending to profit from the wheat he sold while also maintaining his own supply. The connection to interstate commerce was based on the totality of the wheat he grew, not just the excess portion of it that he claimed wasn't part of interstate commerce. And notably, despite all FUD to the contrary, subsistence farming of wheat for personal/non-comm…

[deleted]

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #28
nequo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subscription services are a technology for carmakers to practice price discrimination.[1] Price discrimination reallocates consumer surplus to carmakers. It is not good for you unless you're a carmaker. Without subscription services, they only have the option of limiting heated seats to certain trims. If you want heated seats, you can buy one of those trims. But that trim probably comes with other features, too, that…

This is false. Price discrimination is good for consumers that opt out. In the absence of price discrimination the price ends up somewhere in between, which is worse for customers that would have paid less.

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by joeframbach »

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…

I think the next step is to spin off a separate company for FSD. Take media for example. Your Toyota may be compatible with SiriusXM, Pandora, Spotify, etc, but none of these are "built in". The solution to FSD is to "commoditize" the FSD service in the same way. Your new Tesla is "compatible" with the "third" party FSD service that just so happens to only be "compatible" with your Tesla. Nobody would reasonably expect a SiriusXM subscription to come for free for the lifetime of their vehicle, and if FSD is split off into a commoditized third party, it have the same expectation.

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

#115

Post by m463 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #56

I think this is great, and though I agree that determining whether there is an "on-going cost to the manufacturer" will be a gray area that automakers will try to game, I think that's a solvable problem. The heated seats example is a great one. There is no reason for this not be a one-time charge. On the other hand, I think it's fair to offer autopilot/"full self driving" on a subscription, or at least the upgrades a…

Maybe the wording should be ambiguous like "high crimes and misdemeanors" so manufacturers honor the intent of the law.

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

#116

Post by userbinator »

merely-unlikely wrote: post #52
bombcar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UNAUTHORIZED VOLTAGE DISCHARGE DETECTED SYSTEM SAFETY MECHANISMS ENGAGED car is now inoperable

Right to repair laws would help here.

Right to modify, which is slightly different from right to repair. The latter would only require it legal to restore the original, arguably user-hostile configuration.

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

#117

Post by [deleted] »

paxys wrote: post #110
travisporter wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first sentence is interesting. If government represents the will of the people then it would not be overreach.

If a government is acting beyond its constitutionally-mandated boundaries then it is absolutely overreach, regardless of whether 1% or 99% of people support its decisions.

[deleted]

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

#118

Post by userbinator »

fintechjock wrote: post #76
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #56

I think this is great, and though I agree that determining whether there is an "on-going cost to the manufacturer" will be a gray area that automakers will try to game, I think that's a solvable problem. The heated seats example is a great one. There is no reason for this not be a one-time charge. On the other hand, I think it's fair to offer autopilot/"full self driving" on a subscription, or at least the upgrades a…

> On the other hand, I think it's fair to offer autopilot/"full self driving" on a subscription, or at least the upgrades as a subscription. Agree with your overall point. However, this probably isn’t feasible considering most companies will follow Tesla’s FSD upgrade model. Autopilot / FSD upgrades are often more safety than feature related. Allowing people to opt out of upgrades but keep their older FSD just means…

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.

Post reply on HN