this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
514 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
59300 readers
4481 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think that that can be generalized to:
"When shuts down, will their still work?"
Cars are a particularly problematic example, because they have a long life and are expensive, but generally-speaking, I think that when someone buys a cloud-connected device, it's a good idea to think "what exactly is going to happen if this company goes under and stops providing online services, or just discontinues service at some point" at the outset.
Might be cars or smartwatches or live service video games. They all run into similar issues.
Yup, that's why I don't buy that crap. I would love an EV, but they all seem to spy on their drivers and I'm concerned that all that spyware isn't properly protected anyway.
An EV really shouldn't be all that complicated, and there's zero reason for it to connect to the outside world. All it needs to do is:
None of that requires power, and that whole process is much simpler than my ICE car, which doesn't have any external communication either. Give me an EV without all the smart crap and I'll probably buy it.
That's not an EV issue that's a modern car issue.
One of the worst privacy risks was Buick who didn't even make EVs.
I feel like it largely started with EVs though, since they came with all of the smart crap out of the gate.
That's just when you noticed. High end models of cars had that since OnStar.
Sure, but OnStar is largely limited to GM vehicles and, as you said, certain high-end models as an option. Also, remote start was an option on a number of vehicles going years back.
The change with EVs is that the smart crap is in the base models, so you can't get a model that doesn't phone home. With OnStar, it's usually as simple as removing the infotainment screen and disconnecting a cable to disable it, whereas newer cars are a lot more complicated to disable the phone home features, and may not work without them.
I blame EVs for normalizing it, as well as making it more difficult to disable that crap.
Maybe it's both of our bias but I stopped seeing new cars without an integrated head unit in 2010, the Tesla model s came out in 2012. Yes the base models didn't have the informant system but I will die on the hill that it's not the EV that brought it to the masses. Longer loan options so people could get a higher end car and pay on it for 7years. Along with people wanting gps in their cars, play music, and hands free laws, it was easier to just get a car that you could tap a button to answer your phone.
The integrated head unit isn't the problem, my 2007 Prius has one and it doesn't have any way to phone home (no navigation built-in, for example).
I don't know about the rest of the industry, but at least with Toyota Prius, navigation/internet access became standard around 2020. All of that is standard on most EVs, except maybe the base Leaf (it's standard on Chevy Bolt though). EVs certainly didn't create the option, but it became standard soon after EVs shipped with those features as standard.
Ahh I gotcha. Yeah, I like my EV but with the reports coming out that they are selling data to insurance providers I would love to disconnect my connection to the Internet but I believe it has a esim from Verizon.
Yeah, and digging that out could be a huge pain, as it's usually buried beneath the dashboard, so it would probably take an hour or two to get to, even if it is user-removable.
I'm not going to buy any vehicle that I cannot block from accessing the internet, so my search for a car is a bit complicated. Instead of just looking at price and specs, now I also have to look for what kind of spyware it has and if it can be easily disabled.
correlation doesn't prove causation - this was going to happen even if EVs never took off.
Maybe, but it requires someone to move first, so I think EVs accelerated it.
Why do you think that? What exactly about the motor spinning from electrons instead of hydrocarbons makes any difference?
It's a new product on the market, so it's an opportunity to really shake up customer expectations. Tesla lead the charge with that and essentially set the standard for the rest of the EV market.
do you also blame EVs for the same shit happening outside the auto industry?
I'm trying to get across that this stuff would have happened even if Tesla never existed.
Yes, it probably would've happened eventually, but not as quickly as it did.
But the stuff happening throughout the industry all stems from the same core issue: people are putting up with it. If people stopped paying for predatory products and services, products and services would become less predatory. I don't know what the solution here is, but it seems a large number of people are okay with companies charging subscriptions for things that used to be products. I personally reject it, but I'm just one person.
There are no alternatives. Everything is predatory. Blaming consumers is ignorant.
Believe what you want.
I personally like to look at what I can do as an individual, and what others can do as individuals. Blaming companies doesn't get us anywhere, informing the public about issues can move us toward change. So that's what I'm going to do. But we need enough people to change behavior before companies will change theirs, that's just how these things work.
nah I really think you got it wrong.
big companies spend obscene amounts of money and effort researching how to manipulate and influence people effectively so they can make the most profit they can get away with.
a catchy jingle is an obvious example. not really nefarious (i have strong nostalgia for local business jingles and slogans) tho.
dark patterns on websites are a better example. like how it's really easy to sign up for amazon prime, but canceling amazon prime is impossible to do without having to use a search engine to find the obscure link to the cancellation page.
if you think people influence companies more than the other way wrong, I really gotta urge you to consider another angle.
Eh, I've done it 2-3 times, it's really not hard. In fact, I usually just get their free trial 2x/year, once before Christmas, and once at the start of summer.
I get the general point though, and I do try to avoid companies like Amazon that manipulate people (e.g. I refuse to let my kids play Fortnite).
I look at what I can do and what I can't do. I can avoid abusive companies, education others around me, etc. I can't change those companies' practices. I can vote for politicians I believe will hold companies accountable. I can't make those politicians vote the way I want. And so on. Avoiding bad companies is something I can do, whining about it doesn't get anything done.
I got bad news about ICE cars made in the past decade.
Yeah, we're looking to upgrade our car, and unfortunately one of my requirement now needs to be "has a YouTube video detailing how to disable internet features." I just want a simple, easy to maintain car that doesn't spy on me, why is that so big of an ask?
Yeah, this is why I'm not new car shopping. Like, ever. I'm done. I'll drive my Crosstrek until the engine falls out, and then I'll replace said engine with an EV powertrain and drive it some more.
Because of capitalism. Good luck.
Sounds like a copout. I blame consumers who bought this trash when it launched, and continue buying this trash today. Car companies build what consumers claim to want, and then they monetize it as much as they can. People responded favorably to SW unlocks early on, so now car manufacturers are seeing what they can get away with. They're getting pushback, which is great, but the proper time to push back was 10 years ago.
10 years ago we didn't even know they were doing it. And now it's way too late to push back unless you feel like starting a car company.
That depends on your definition of "we." As soon as there's anything that phones home, that's when alarm bells should be going off. I wasn't in the market when this started being a thing, but I do recall talking about it with those who were, and I wasn't happy about cars phoning home. I'd be very surprised if I'm alone in this.
I'm sure you're not alone, but the level of awareness that is was even a thing was so low that most of us never even had a chance to object. So yes, "we".
Yep, and precisely why I refuse to buy anything that requires an internet connection to work. I'm even wary of services that lock me in for longer than maybe 6 months. The only annual subscription I have is for my VPN.
An actual device/machine that I plan to use for years? Hell no. Offline only is a must have.
A car is also difficult to ignore, compared to something smaller.
A small expensive device that stopped working because the company shut it down is annoying, but you can at least put it to the side and ignore it.
You can't really do that to a car that has functionally become a paperweight because the parent company has gone under.
This was really thrown into sharp focus for me a couple of years back, when I read an article about how people with ocular implants are being left to go blind again because the company who made their implant has been bought by another company who doesn't want to continue support.
I just can't think about how callous that is, and if a company doesn't give a shit about that, why would they give a shit about a car?
Sounds like this
Yep, that’s the one. Utter shithouses.
Never heard about it but it sounds crazy.
I really hope some massive EV startup goes under and bricks thousands of cars. It might be the last straw that forces lawmakers to regulate services shutting down (keep providing the service or open source all your code so that some else can keep providing that service)
One thing is the risk that your device might become a paperweight with $300 smartwatches or home automation systems, another is to have them with $30,000 cars.
The problem is not that there is a risk, the problem is how the magnitude of the potential loss from that kind of risk when the risk applies to cars.
Rationally there should be a lot more consumer protection rules on things were people have to work many months or even years to earn enough to buy them than in things that cost the income of a few days or weeks of work, at the very least the kind of information forcing the full disclosure upfront to customers of such risks and their consequences (if a brand's electric car will literaly become a paper-weight once support from the manufacturer ends, that should be shown in every advert for that product using a very large font).
The current combination having such risks associated with massive potential losses whilst the manufacturers actually hide that from customers and do little or nothing to reduce the impact of such risks, is unnacceptable.
Not as long as it could be and that's intentional. My '97 piece of crap will outlive most EVs anv even most new ICEs.
Evs will outlast ice cars as there are less moving parts. All we need now is 3rd party car battery replacement as a standard.
The VW Beetle, among many others, would like a word.
EV batteries aren't as easy to make as most ICE parts.
The first telas batteries were 18650s, the same ones that the diy vapes used. As more EVs are bought the more of a market there will be to support them. People are already refurbishing EV battery packs.