13 ms·

Subaru, Kia shut off some car features rather than adhere to 'right to repair'

260 points by davidclark22 5y ago

trasz 5y ago
“ Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.ksdk.com/article/news/nation-world/some-car-features-shut-down-rather-than-adhere-to-right-to-repair-law/507-490590e2-aef7-4d1d-acc2-11414b48786d http://www.ksdk.com/article/news/nation-world/some-car-featu..." on this server.”
- glogla 5y ago
  Maybe they shut it off to prevent right to repair? (More likely slimy profiling stalkers not wanting to deal with GDPR.)
- 7steps2much 5y ago
  Same over here. Might be a ban so they don't have to deal with GDPR?
stevecalifornia 5y ago
I have yet to see how this thread will go but I imagine there will be some population that sees this as a malicious attack on 'right to repair'. My take from behind the scenes on these kind of things is that this is likely 'until we have the tools and processes to handle the work stream originating from this one state in this one country, we should disable the feature'.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  Well if that's the case they really should have considered the optics better. Also, "who cares it's just one small state in one country" is not a very nice thing for a company to express either. Either way it's a bit of a middle finger to the affected customers IMO.
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    It’s not a middle finger necessarily. While I have no automotive industry experience I’ve definitely been in situations where I was prohibited from being able to provide customer value adding capabilities to systems due to compliance issues, either lack of clarity of the requirements, added compliance costs making the feature untenable or compliance mandated deadlines not meeting estimated delivery times. It feels terrible to do but there isn’t much choice.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  I think, in this particular situation, it's more that Subaru themselves don't really know how to approach fixing these safety systems. From my experience these systems are fickle-beta-hot-garbage-heaps brand new. I bet they see right to repair bills as a way for the general public to gather evidence that they've known this all along. Of course, this doesn't really address the issue of people buying cars from out of state. But who knows, maybe we'll see "Massachusetts Cars" be a thing in the Subaru world for their lack of broken factory features.
  - anothernewdude 5y ago
    When it came to screwing the customers they weren't left waiting to figure out how.
- csours 5y ago
  Disclosure: I work for GM, everything expressed here is solely my own opinion. I think people see car companies as a huge monolith with nearly limitless resources. I can see where this comes from, but those resources are split into silos, and those silos have limited capacity. Especially for companies like Subaru, which is actually pretty small comparatively. They may have done a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the investment was not worth the money they get from selling those option packages. --- On a broader level, I think right to repair can be perceived as a feature, but many executives have a default negative stance on openness. I think of it like the GM LS engine. If you're at all familiar with car modification, you've heard of the LS Swap - people changing the engine that came with their car for a larger, more powerful, more versatile GM V8 engine. The LS swap ecosystem grew because the engines were relatively cheap, relatively easy to work on, and relatively reliable (your mileage may vary). Imagine if GM executives had tried to lock down the engine swap environment.
  - miohtama 5y ago
    The variation of ”right to repair” was also what started the freedom of software movement in 80s and later led to the creation of Linux. If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it.
    - nickff 5y ago
      >"If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it." Should you get the source code to all software running on it, along with all the relevant documentation and a right to modify it as you see fit? Without that, it's not really full control.
      - Mezzie 5y ago
        What you should have is the option to chose to only run software whose source code/documentation/etc meets your needs. Also that the devices' uses should be up to their owners, not their manufacturers. Devices are tools, not services.
      - pdonis 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
unethical_ban 5y ago
I don't know the details of the law, but the only argument that seems remotely sympathetic for automakers is a timeline for compliance. Certainly, there should be a pathway to compliance that gives makers a reasonable window to implement features. That said, any argument against sharing all telemetry generated with the owner of the vehicle and with shops they pay is disingenuous and immoral. I find it shameful that my 2014 vehicle cannot display all OBD data via the dashboard or the infotainment screen.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Can't you just buy an OBD2 scanner for like $20?
  - throwitawayfam 5y ago
    Not all CAN information flows to the OBD2 port
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.is/LZlNp https://archive.is/LZlNp
kingcharles 5y ago
I love how Subaru says it is "impossible" to comply. I think someone needs to school them on the meaning of that word. This statute goes right up against the provisions in the DMCA though that stop you playing with the inside of devices. How will that play out? Usually federal law wins out against state law, but it's complicated.
abruzzi 5y ago
What’s not clear to me from the article, initially what’s discussed are use land features, but with these changes are they also turning off access for dealer repair shops as well? Just so the don’t have to give access to third parties? Won’t this bite them by reducing the quality of first party repairs? Or am I misunderstanding?
sahaskatta 5y ago
I am the cofounder of https://Smartcar.com https://Smartcar.com. The talking point being used to suggest that "it's not possible to comply because such a solution doesn't exist" is just completely false. This is exactly what we've built at Smartcar over the past 5+ years. Thosuands of developers have built apps on our platform to let consumers access their own car data and bring it into the apps of their choice.
- redm 5y ago
  Unless I'm missing something, you have your own API, SDK, Service Fees/Pricing, and overall business. Certainly it's good for you if people standardize on your platform, but I'm not sure thats realistic. It's also not exactly the same as an open standard that can be applied globally. i.e. an extension of ODB-II access to the CAN bus I guess? That standard will probably need to come from the manufacturers themselves.
- amscanne 5y ago
  Smartcar.com is super cool, but I don't think it meets the requirements -- which is a standardized, open data-sharing platform. Do such open standards exist?
julian_sark 5y ago
Alternate headline: Web site at www.kdsk.com seemingly shuts out European visitors with http/403 instead of dealing with EU data protection act.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Or just ignoring it, which seems like it would make more sense for a local news station?
- littlecranky67 5y ago
  I'd expect a least a better error code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451) or at least a message that would explain it. I just thought the site was hugged to death.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  “Website reporting on unintended consequences of added compliance costs dealing with same costs.” Film at 11.
  - olliej 5y ago
    Complying with the GDPR doesn't require extra money, it's just all these companies have become obsessed with providing surveillance for google, etc and would rather keep doing that than not. Which fine, it's their business, but saying this is because of "compliance costs" is nonsense.
    - bpodgursky 5y ago
      I don't believe you have ever worked on a GDPR compliance project. Our corporate expense SaaS didn't support GDPR for a long time, and we had to migrate. That cost both us and them time and money. It's not because they were sending all our data to Google nefariously, it's because it's a huge compliance burden they did not bother to undertake.
    - kasey_junk 5y ago
protomyth 5y ago
Automakers argue that independent shops can already get the data they need, with permission — but making it automatically accessible by third parties is dangerous. Yeah, this is just further BS in a long line of BS. This continuing quest to build vehicles that cannot be serviced by anybody but a dealer is just a tactic to make more money off the misery of customers. I dearly wish they just banned the sale of any auto that couldn't comply. We honestly need to deal with this company throws a hissy-fit culture (e.g. Apple and the App Store) every time society says it wants all companies in a sector to act in a certain way. This rent seeking is just getting out of hand. Also, statements like its "impossible" should be brought to a court to ascertain the truth value and fine the heck out of liars.
- nickff 5y ago
  >"Yeah, this is just further BS in a long line of BS. This continuing quest to build vehicles that cannot be serviced by anybody but a dealer is just a tactic to make more money off the misery of customers." It's not BS. The fact is that it's much cheaper and easier to design cars to be serviced by people who focus on a few models, and have a full suite of tools specifically made for those vehicles. This is especially true when the vehicles must comply with complex rules and regulations which constrain the design.
  - avs733 5y ago
    Obfuscating (because that’s what they are doing not encrypting for security). Revisiting releasing documentation is more effort than posting it on a damn website. Takes time and money. Writing code, developing tools, and creating repair manuals has to be done either way. How in gods name is making something accessible more expensive when you are already doing these things for your internal technicians.
    - nickff 5y ago
      >" Obfuscating (because that’s what they are doing not encrypting for security). Revisiting releasing documentation is more effort than posting it on a damn website." There is a great deal of encryption on modern vehicles; most new models have encrypted communications backbones. >"Takes time and money. Writing code, developing tools, and creating repair manuals has to be done either way." What takes time and money? Obfuscation, or creating open tools? I think you may be surprised to learn how poorly the 'design-side' supports the 'service-side' in automotive and other vehicular industries. >"How in gods name is making something accessible more expensive when you are already doing these things for your internal technicians." The automakers do a lot of ad-hoc stuff, and they're often inconsistent between models and platforms. Making things uniformly accessible is different from their normal modus operandi, and likely more expensive.
rootsudo 5y ago
Call me silly, but I'd like to buy one of those cars w/o telemetry. " So it was a surprise to Subaru fans when Massachusetts dealerships started selling its line of 2022 vehicles without a key ingredient: the in-car wireless technology that connects drivers to music, navigation, roadside assistance and crash-avoiding sensors. “The dealer didn’t bring it up,” said Joy Tewksbury-Pabst, who bought a new Subaru Ascent without realizing she'd be missing out on the remote start and locking features she had before trading in her 2019 model. She also lost the ability to check wiper fluid levels, tire pressure and mileage from her phone. " I want that, I don't want my car to be connected to a 3g/4g/5g modem sending telemetry wherever I go. I don't find value in checking out my car fluid on my phone, I find value in popping the hood and visually confirming it. The car stops what, every 400 miles for fuel? Not that much more to pop the hood and see what fluid levels are. I find value in not letting the auto companies be able to track, measure, analyze my car usage.
- runnerup 5y ago
  AIUI that may not be legal anymore, I think some degree of crash 911 assistance is mandated by NHSTA now. I may be wrong. I believe things are moving more towards that direction as well: https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/13/13936342/wireless-vehicle-to-vehicle-communication-v2v-v2i-dot-nhtsa https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/13/13936342/wireless-vehicl...
- ezfe 5y ago
  This quote mentions "crash-avoiding sensors" but doesn't go into more detail. I don't think this is at all effected.
jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
Buy a car from a company that makes their items easy to repair.
- wiseleo 5y ago
  I drive an ‘05 Chrysler town and country. I can replace its engine for $220, which I’ve done. It is super cheap to repair. :)
kevwil 5y ago
I'm struggling to find nuance in what seems like a black/white issue. If you buy the vehicle, you can do whatever the @#$% you want with it. If you can't do what you want, it's a subscription model and the maker is responsible for all maintenance and insurance. I fail to see how the latter is a good option for car makers, so I find this whole issue to be total BS. "Next on CNN, Kia and Subaru vehicle 'owners' have amassed over 50,000 vehicles in a field in Kansas and will be lighting them on fire momentarily. Let's watch."
- yowlingcat 5y ago
  You jest but I believe a Finn did this very thing [1] with a Tesla in a very similar protest: https://jalopnik.com/watch-a-finn-blow-up-his-tesla-model-s-with-dynamite-1848261076 https://jalopnik.com/watch-a-finn-blow-up-his-tesla-model-s-...
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  Examples of nuance: You buy a Widget. WidgetCorp says you may repair it or do whatever you want with it. However WidgetCorp will not sell you any parts, or any schematics. WidgetCorp sues any third parties that try to make their own replacement parts. WidgetCorp engineers added complexity into Widget solely to make it impossible or harder to repair Widget (anti tamper screws, DRM on batteries). WidgetCorp will refuse to repair the flux capacitor under warranty because you have a modified fusion drive, even though no causal link can be postulated between the two. WidgetCorp will cripple Widgets that have 3rd party parts via software updates. All of the above regularly occur with the likes of Apple, John Deere, Dell, Lenovo, Tesla, etc.
spike021 5y ago
I have a Subaru BRZ and it is probably the most analog car of their fleet. There's zero connectivity to the internet, the headunit is replaceable, etc. Everything works from the ECU, wiring harness, etc. In some ways it's too bad that it takes a car being a niche sports car to qualify for having a (mostly) analog setup. The rest of the fleet should be this way, but then fancy features like EyeSight and such probably wouldn't work as well.
- ezfe 5y ago
  My 2020 Crosstrek is connected to the internet, but it only affects the infotainment system and remote start/stop/monitoring. The rest of the car is completely offline, that includes Eyesight.
  - dogman144 5y ago
    Fwiw there's enough intermingling between how the head unit (infotainment) operates wrt to the CAN bus that your car is essentially online. https://github.com/sgayou/subaru-starlink-research/blob/master/doc/README.md https://github.com/sgayou/subaru-starlink-research/blob/mast...
    - magikaram 5y ago
      Not parent, but thank you for sharing this, as is quite the read.
      - dogman144 5y ago
        Sure thing! Cool read. It links into a very stellar 90 page report that kicked off much of the hacking cars research
    - logbiscuitswave 5y ago
      That was a great read. Thanks for posting. I’ve been dabbling in reverse engineering embedded devices in my spare time. I find these kind of detailed reports on how someone solved a reverse engineering challenge to be fascinating.
fartcannon 5y ago
Time for a FOSS car.
- coolso 5y ago
  "Oh, you think this faulty part or counterintuitive feature needs improvement? It's open source... instead of complaining, why don't you just fix it yourself? :)"
  - fartcannon 5y ago
    'Either fix it myself or lose access? Thanks, I'll fix it myself.' I don't understand your comment.
    - Barrin92 5y ago
      the amount of people who are able to fix anything non-trivial on their car is miniscule. Producing cars is so prohibitively expensive that it only makes sense at industrial scale. Hence there will not be a FOSS car.
      - fartcannon 5y ago
        We'll see.
    - coolso 5y ago
      > I don't understand your comment. If you've never heard at least one variation of "stop complaining, it's FOSS, we're not paid, we're all volunteers, maybe try downloading the source and fixing it yourself" then you've not interacted with the FOSS community long enough. It's a very common trope unfortunately, so much so that's it's become a point of mockery by those outside of the community.
      - fartcannon 5y ago
        If this free, unpaid, but otherwise fantastic software doesn't meet your needs, you should probably either provide a fix or... go pay someone to fix it? Again, I don't understand your comment. Edit: That's not true, I actually do understand your comment. I just think you could use a more grounded outlook on the value of FOSS. But hey, everyone's got their own path.
olliej 5y ago
I'm still unclear, if I buy. car with some features, and then the car maker retroactively removes those features, shouldn't I be able to return the car for the amount I paid? They weren't legally prevented from having the feature (e.g. they didn't turn off the feature for public safety reasons), so they made the choice to remove the feature I paid for.
jrockway 5y ago
This all sounds fine to me. The car with no "smart" functionality sounds better than one with it! No way to nag you with subscriptions or a mobile app that sends you loud ads at 3AM. And, the market will solve this problem. Ford will figure out how to sell whizbang bluefi features, and then Subaru will lose sales until they do the same. I think Subaru must be hoping that they can get people in Massachusetts to say "ok, fine, we don't want the right to repair if it means we can't check fluid levels from our phone" and lobby for the repeal of the law, but I think Subaru is going to lose that standoff.
- redtexture 5y ago
  Repeal not likely. Citizens of that state fought for this law for a decade
- crimthrw2022 5y ago
  The situation is murky. Note that AFAIK, none of the other manufacturers are/can be 'compliant' either. Honda, Toyota and the big 3 can fight a protracted legal battle with a state government (see, California EVs in the 90s). Subaru cannot. (Can't speak for hyundai/kia)
- jreese 5y ago
  > a mobile app that sends you loud ads at 3AM. Oh, I hope there's a good story for this
  - jrockway 5y ago
    Oh, that's just where my mind goes when I hear of a mobile app that goes with some piece of physical hardware. I don't know of this actually happening.
- kop316 5y ago
  Heh, I was just thinking the same thing. A car with all of that "functionality" off? That sounds pretty good to me!
sjg007 5y ago
Seems like you could supply an aftermarket part to resume the wireless connectivity if that is all it is. If they removed the sensors etc... then not a lot you can do. https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/04/supreme-court-allows-auto-aftermarket-to-access-apis/ https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/04/supreme-court-allo...
gunapologist99 5y ago
> " only carmakers and their dealers have access to the real-time diagnostics that cars now transmit wirelessly." Real-time access to driving while the vehicle is in motion?! What a privacy nightmare! Is this common with newer cars? When did this happen?
wiseleo 5y ago
I own Snapon diagnostic equipment capable of servicing anything up to 2016 model year and by extension a few more years unofficially if the model line continues. It is very expensive but became reasonably priced after Snapon declared it unsupported and stopped making updates available. The security excuse is not valid because there are many people like me who have electronics background, are willing to invest into right tools, and can fix anything but who have little desire to operate a shop. My tool can reprogram keys, modify airbag parameters, troubleshoot anti-lock brakes and so on. All of that is safety systems.
- octoberfranklin 5y ago
  Can you share the product name / model number of this device? I'm in a similar situation. All my vehicles are pre-2010ish but I'm getting close to being forced to buy something newer. I don't mind spending 10% of the car's cost on a diagnostic tools if it gives me total visibility.
Proven 5y ago
egberts1 5y ago
First Toyota, now Suburu and Kia: less dealership lots to visit to deal with less bullshitting.

260 points by davidclark22 5y ago

“ Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.ksdk.com/article/news/nation-world/some-car-features-shut-down-rather-than-adhere-to-right-to-repair-law/507-490590e2-aef7-4d1d-acc2-11414b48786d http://www.ksdk.com/article/news/nation-world/some-car-featu..." on this server.”

glogla 5y ago
Maybe they shut it off to prevent right to repair? (More likely slimy profiling stalkers not wanting to deal with GDPR.)
7steps2much 5y ago
Same over here. Might be a ban so they don't have to deal with GDPR?

stevecalifornia 5y ago

I have yet to see how this thread will go but I imagine there will be some population that sees this as a malicious attack on 'right to repair'. My take from behind the scenes on these kind of things is that this is likely 'until we have the tools and processes to handle the work stream originating from this one state in this one country, we should disable the feature'.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
Well if that's the case they really should have considered the optics better. Also, "who cares it's just one small state in one country" is not a very nice thing for a company to express either. Either way it's a bit of a middle finger to the affected customers IMO.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  It’s not a middle finger necessarily. While I have no automotive industry experience I’ve definitely been in situations where I was prohibited from being able to provide customer value adding capabilities to systems due to compliance issues, either lack of clarity of the requirements, added compliance costs making the feature untenable or compliance mandated deadlines not meeting estimated delivery times. It feels terrible to do but there isn’t much choice.
mywittyname 5y ago
I think, in this particular situation, it's more that Subaru themselves don't really know how to approach fixing these safety systems. From my experience these systems are fickle-beta-hot-garbage-heaps brand new. I bet they see right to repair bills as a way for the general public to gather evidence that they've known this all along. Of course, this doesn't really address the issue of people buying cars from out of state. But who knows, maybe we'll see "Massachusetts Cars" be a thing in the Subaru world for their lack of broken factory features.
- anothernewdude 5y ago
  When it came to screwing the customers they weren't left waiting to figure out how.
csours 5y ago
Disclosure: I work for GM, everything expressed here is solely my own opinion. I think people see car companies as a huge monolith with nearly limitless resources. I can see where this comes from, but those resources are split into silos, and those silos have limited capacity. Especially for companies like Subaru, which is actually pretty small comparatively. They may have done a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the investment was not worth the money they get from selling those option packages. --- On a broader level, I think right to repair can be perceived as a feature, but many executives have a default negative stance on openness. I think of it like the GM LS engine. If you're at all familiar with car modification, you've heard of the LS Swap - people changing the engine that came with their car for a larger, more powerful, more versatile GM V8 engine. The LS swap ecosystem grew because the engines were relatively cheap, relatively easy to work on, and relatively reliable (your mileage may vary). Imagine if GM executives had tried to lock down the engine swap environment.
- miohtama 5y ago
  The variation of ”right to repair” was also what started the freedom of software movement in 80s and later led to the creation of Linux. If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it." Should you get the source code to all software running on it, along with all the relevant documentation and a right to modify it as you see fit? Without that, it's not really full control.
    - Mezzie 5y ago
      What you should have is the option to chose to only run software whose source code/documentation/etc meets your needs. Also that the devices' uses should be up to their owners, not their manufacturers. Devices are tools, not services.
    - pdonis 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

unethical_ban 5y ago

I don't know the details of the law, but the only argument that seems remotely sympathetic for automakers is a timeline for compliance. Certainly, there should be a pathway to compliance that gives makers a reasonable window to implement features. That said, any argument against sharing all telemetry generated with the owner of the vehicle and with shops they pay is disingenuous and immoral. I find it shameful that my 2014 vehicle cannot display all OBD data via the dashboard or the infotainment screen.

oh_sigh 5y ago
Can't you just buy an OBD2 scanner for like $20?
- throwitawayfam 5y ago
  Not all CAN information flows to the OBD2 port

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.is/LZlNp https://archive.is/LZlNp

kingcharles 5y ago

I love how Subaru says it is "impossible" to comply. I think someone needs to school them on the meaning of that word. This statute goes right up against the provisions in the DMCA though that stop you playing with the inside of devices. How will that play out? Usually federal law wins out against state law, but it's complicated.

abruzzi 5y ago

What’s not clear to me from the article, initially what’s discussed are use land features, but with these changes are they also turning off access for dealer repair shops as well? Just so the don’t have to give access to third parties? Won’t this bite them by reducing the quality of first party repairs? Or am I misunderstanding?

sahaskatta 5y ago

I am the cofounder of https://Smartcar.com https://Smartcar.com. The talking point being used to suggest that "it's not possible to comply because such a solution doesn't exist" is just completely false. This is exactly what we've built at Smartcar over the past 5+ years. Thosuands of developers have built apps on our platform to let consumers access their own car data and bring it into the apps of their choice.

redm 5y ago
Unless I'm missing something, you have your own API, SDK, Service Fees/Pricing, and overall business. Certainly it's good for you if people standardize on your platform, but I'm not sure thats realistic. It's also not exactly the same as an open standard that can be applied globally. i.e. an extension of ODB-II access to the CAN bus I guess? That standard will probably need to come from the manufacturers themselves.
amscanne 5y ago
Smartcar.com is super cool, but I don't think it meets the requirements -- which is a standardized, open data-sharing platform. Do such open standards exist?

julian_sark 5y ago

Alternate headline: Web site at www.kdsk.com seemingly shuts out European visitors with http/403 instead of dealing with EU data protection act.

stickfigure 5y ago
Or just ignoring it, which seems like it would make more sense for a local news station?
littlecranky67 5y ago
I'd expect a least a better error code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451) or at least a message that would explain it. I just thought the site was hugged to death.
kasey_junk 5y ago
“Website reporting on unintended consequences of added compliance costs dealing with same costs.” Film at 11.
- olliej 5y ago
  Complying with the GDPR doesn't require extra money, it's just all these companies have become obsessed with providing surveillance for google, etc and would rather keep doing that than not. Which fine, it's their business, but saying this is because of "compliance costs" is nonsense.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    I don't believe you have ever worked on a GDPR compliance project. Our corporate expense SaaS didn't support GDPR for a long time, and we had to migrate. That cost both us and them time and money. It's not because they were sending all our data to Google nefariously, it's because it's a huge compliance burden they did not bother to undertake.
  - kasey_junk 5y ago

protomyth 5y ago

Automakers argue that independent shops can already get the data they need, with permission — but making it automatically accessible by third parties is dangerous. Yeah, this is just further BS in a long line of BS. This continuing quest to build vehicles that cannot be serviced by anybody but a dealer is just a tactic to make more money off the misery of customers. I dearly wish they just banned the sale of any auto that couldn't comply. We honestly need to deal with this company throws a hissy-fit culture (e.g. Apple and the App Store) every time society says it wants all companies in a sector to act in a certain way. This rent seeking is just getting out of hand. Also, statements like its "impossible" should be brought to a court to ascertain the truth value and fine the heck out of liars.

nickff 5y ago
>"Yeah, this is just further BS in a long line of BS. This continuing quest to build vehicles that cannot be serviced by anybody but a dealer is just a tactic to make more money off the misery of customers." It's not BS. The fact is that it's much cheaper and easier to design cars to be serviced by people who focus on a few models, and have a full suite of tools specifically made for those vehicles. This is especially true when the vehicles must comply with complex rules and regulations which constrain the design.
- avs733 5y ago
  Obfuscating (because that’s what they are doing not encrypting for security). Revisiting releasing documentation is more effort than posting it on a damn website. Takes time and money. Writing code, developing tools, and creating repair manuals has to be done either way. How in gods name is making something accessible more expensive when you are already doing these things for your internal technicians.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >" Obfuscating (because that’s what they are doing not encrypting for security). Revisiting releasing documentation is more effort than posting it on a damn website." There is a great deal of encryption on modern vehicles; most new models have encrypted communications backbones. >"Takes time and money. Writing code, developing tools, and creating repair manuals has to be done either way." What takes time and money? Obfuscation, or creating open tools? I think you may be surprised to learn how poorly the 'design-side' supports the 'service-side' in automotive and other vehicular industries. >"How in gods name is making something accessible more expensive when you are already doing these things for your internal technicians." The automakers do a lot of ad-hoc stuff, and they're often inconsistent between models and platforms. Making things uniformly accessible is different from their normal modus operandi, and likely more expensive.

rootsudo 5y ago

Call me silly, but I'd like to buy one of those cars w/o telemetry. " So it was a surprise to Subaru fans when Massachusetts dealerships started selling its line of 2022 vehicles without a key ingredient: the in-car wireless technology that connects drivers to music, navigation, roadside assistance and crash-avoiding sensors. “The dealer didn’t bring it up,” said Joy Tewksbury-Pabst, who bought a new Subaru Ascent without realizing she'd be missing out on the remote start and locking features she had before trading in her 2019 model. She also lost the ability to check wiper fluid levels, tire pressure and mileage from her phone. " I want that, I don't want my car to be connected to a 3g/4g/5g modem sending telemetry wherever I go. I don't find value in checking out my car fluid on my phone, I find value in popping the hood and visually confirming it. The car stops what, every 400 miles for fuel? Not that much more to pop the hood and see what fluid levels are. I find value in not letting the auto companies be able to track, measure, analyze my car usage.

runnerup 5y ago
AIUI that may not be legal anymore, I think some degree of crash 911 assistance is mandated by NHSTA now. I may be wrong. I believe things are moving more towards that direction as well: https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/13/13936342/wireless-vehicle-to-vehicle-communication-v2v-v2i-dot-nhtsa https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/13/13936342/wireless-vehicl...
ezfe 5y ago
This quote mentions "crash-avoiding sensors" but doesn't go into more detail. I don't think this is at all effected.

jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago

Buy a car from a company that makes their items easy to repair.

wiseleo 5y ago
I drive an ‘05 Chrysler town and country. I can replace its engine for $220, which I’ve done. It is super cheap to repair. :)

kevwil 5y ago

I'm struggling to find nuance in what seems like a black/white issue. If you buy the vehicle, you can do whatever the @#$% you want with it. If you can't do what you want, it's a subscription model and the maker is responsible for all maintenance and insurance. I fail to see how the latter is a good option for car makers, so I find this whole issue to be total BS. "Next on CNN, Kia and Subaru vehicle 'owners' have amassed over 50,000 vehicles in a field in Kansas and will be lighting them on fire momentarily. Let's watch."

yowlingcat 5y ago
You jest but I believe a Finn did this very thing [1] with a Tesla in a very similar protest: https://jalopnik.com/watch-a-finn-blow-up-his-tesla-model-s-with-dynamite-1848261076 https://jalopnik.com/watch-a-finn-blow-up-his-tesla-model-s-...
gameswithgo 5y ago
Examples of nuance: You buy a Widget. WidgetCorp says you may repair it or do whatever you want with it. However WidgetCorp will not sell you any parts, or any schematics. WidgetCorp sues any third parties that try to make their own replacement parts. WidgetCorp engineers added complexity into Widget solely to make it impossible or harder to repair Widget (anti tamper screws, DRM on batteries). WidgetCorp will refuse to repair the flux capacitor under warranty because you have a modified fusion drive, even though no causal link can be postulated between the two. WidgetCorp will cripple Widgets that have 3rd party parts via software updates. All of the above regularly occur with the likes of Apple, John Deere, Dell, Lenovo, Tesla, etc.

spike021 5y ago

I have a Subaru BRZ and it is probably the most analog car of their fleet. There's zero connectivity to the internet, the headunit is replaceable, etc. Everything works from the ECU, wiring harness, etc. In some ways it's too bad that it takes a car being a niche sports car to qualify for having a (mostly) analog setup. The rest of the fleet should be this way, but then fancy features like EyeSight and such probably wouldn't work as well.

ezfe 5y ago
My 2020 Crosstrek is connected to the internet, but it only affects the infotainment system and remote start/stop/monitoring. The rest of the car is completely offline, that includes Eyesight.
- dogman144 5y ago
  Fwiw there's enough intermingling between how the head unit (infotainment) operates wrt to the CAN bus that your car is essentially online. https://github.com/sgayou/subaru-starlink-research/blob/master/doc/README.md https://github.com/sgayou/subaru-starlink-research/blob/mast...
  - magikaram 5y ago
    Not parent, but thank you for sharing this, as is quite the read.
    - dogman144 5y ago
      Sure thing! Cool read. It links into a very stellar 90 page report that kicked off much of the hacking cars research
  - logbiscuitswave 5y ago
    That was a great read. Thanks for posting. I’ve been dabbling in reverse engineering embedded devices in my spare time. I find these kind of detailed reports on how someone solved a reverse engineering challenge to be fascinating.

fartcannon 5y ago

Time for a FOSS car.

coolso 5y ago
"Oh, you think this faulty part or counterintuitive feature needs improvement? It's open source... instead of complaining, why don't you just fix it yourself? :)"
- fartcannon 5y ago
  'Either fix it myself or lose access? Thanks, I'll fix it myself.' I don't understand your comment.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    the amount of people who are able to fix anything non-trivial on their car is miniscule. Producing cars is so prohibitively expensive that it only makes sense at industrial scale. Hence there will not be a FOSS car.
    - fartcannon 5y ago
      We'll see.
  - coolso 5y ago
    > I don't understand your comment. If you've never heard at least one variation of "stop complaining, it's FOSS, we're not paid, we're all volunteers, maybe try downloading the source and fixing it yourself" then you've not interacted with the FOSS community long enough. It's a very common trope unfortunately, so much so that's it's become a point of mockery by those outside of the community.
    - fartcannon 5y ago
      If this free, unpaid, but otherwise fantastic software doesn't meet your needs, you should probably either provide a fix or... go pay someone to fix it? Again, I don't understand your comment. Edit: That's not true, I actually do understand your comment. I just think you could use a more grounded outlook on the value of FOSS. But hey, everyone's got their own path.

olliej 5y ago

I'm still unclear, if I buy. car with some features, and then the car maker retroactively removes those features, shouldn't I be able to return the car for the amount I paid? They weren't legally prevented from having the feature (e.g. they didn't turn off the feature for public safety reasons), so they made the choice to remove the feature I paid for.

jrockway 5y ago

This all sounds fine to me. The car with no "smart" functionality sounds better than one with it! No way to nag you with subscriptions or a mobile app that sends you loud ads at 3AM. And, the market will solve this problem. Ford will figure out how to sell whizbang bluefi features, and then Subaru will lose sales until they do the same. I think Subaru must be hoping that they can get people in Massachusetts to say "ok, fine, we don't want the right to repair if it means we can't check fluid levels from our phone" and lobby for the repeal of the law, but I think Subaru is going to lose that standoff.

redtexture 5y ago
Repeal not likely. Citizens of that state fought for this law for a decade
crimthrw2022 5y ago
The situation is murky. Note that AFAIK, none of the other manufacturers are/can be 'compliant' either. Honda, Toyota and the big 3 can fight a protracted legal battle with a state government (see, California EVs in the 90s). Subaru cannot. (Can't speak for hyundai/kia)
jreese 5y ago
> a mobile app that sends you loud ads at 3AM. Oh, I hope there's a good story for this
- jrockway 5y ago
  Oh, that's just where my mind goes when I hear of a mobile app that goes with some piece of physical hardware. I don't know of this actually happening.
kop316 5y ago
Heh, I was just thinking the same thing. A car with all of that "functionality" off? That sounds pretty good to me!

sjg007 5y ago

Seems like you could supply an aftermarket part to resume the wireless connectivity if that is all it is. If they removed the sensors etc... then not a lot you can do. https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/04/supreme-court-allows-auto-aftermarket-to-access-apis/ https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/04/supreme-court-allo...

gunapologist99 5y ago

> " only carmakers and their dealers have access to the real-time diagnostics that cars now transmit wirelessly." Real-time access to driving while the vehicle is in motion?! What a privacy nightmare! Is this common with newer cars? When did this happen?

wiseleo 5y ago

I own Snapon diagnostic equipment capable of servicing anything up to 2016 model year and by extension a few more years unofficially if the model line continues. It is very expensive but became reasonably priced after Snapon declared it unsupported and stopped making updates available. The security excuse is not valid because there are many people like me who have electronics background, are willing to invest into right tools, and can fix anything but who have little desire to operate a shop. My tool can reprogram keys, modify airbag parameters, troubleshoot anti-lock brakes and so on. All of that is safety systems.

octoberfranklin 5y ago
Can you share the product name / model number of this device? I'm in a similar situation. All my vehicles are pre-2010ish but I'm getting close to being forced to buy something newer. I don't mind spending 10% of the car's cost on a diagnostic tools if it gives me total visibility.

Proven 5y ago

egberts1 5y ago

First Toyota, now Suburu and Kia: less dealership lots to visit to deal with less bullshitting.