3 ms·
First off, I don't think that's true. I bought a new GM car with on star and I wasn't required to get it. But they did turn it on by default, and it was compl
by cbanek 4y ago
First off, I don't think that's true. I bought a new GM car with on star and I wasn't required to get it. But they did turn it on by default, and it was completely useless. Never used it. Not once. I also asked if it had turn by turn directions with a map and was told, "yes". I ask them to prove it, and we go for a test drive and the map and directions don't work. When told this, the sales person assured me, it would work when I bought the car, because it just doesn't work because the system isn't active yet. All of this was bullshit. I wouldn't have spent the extra money for the screen and backup camera and all that from the dealer if it didn't have the turn by turn with a map. So basically, the free market isn't free, I couldn't know what I was buying, and I was duped by the dealer in a real free market way.
Second, even if true, I'm not sure it is legal? This kind of depends on FTC and anti trust law as well as contract terms. Did you know that onstar has curl in it? If you look in a GM manual, at the back they have all the licenses that contain all the licenses for free software they use. Who knows if they are actually following them. They could be running GPL for all we know and not sharing the code. That happens all the time, every day.
Third, even if it is legal, I'm not sure people will stand for that kind of hidden price increase on a car these days. Every consumer is getting squeezed. They will notice this, and all the other little inflation gotchas that the companies are doing to try to milk the US consumer a little harder. But it's proving that the consumer this time isn't going to do it. And getting shafted to do it for so long tends to lead to regulation, which is the second point again. When the consumer is squeezed, regulation is almost always missing.
From an economics perspective, they have the box in it tracking you the whole time if you buy it or not. So the cost of the box is really baked into the price of the car, not the subscription. If you turn off onstar they don't pull out the box or something. The box also has a sim card that is always active no matter what, so you can activate it again.
So in essence, you've already paid for it in terms of the actual real cost, and now you have to pay a lot more for what amounts to a cell phone that can call 911 itself. The subscription is twice as much as just a normal cell phone. Probably 20x what it honestly needs to be. It really should be included as a normal safety feature of every car. The ability to call 911 after an accident. Same for the ability for the cops to shut down a car remotely. If you think this doesn't happen or can't, you're wrong. It's done already. Cars have governors on the fuel injectors to keep their speed down, but not limit power. It's usually illegal to remove them, because that changes the HP, and usually requires retitling the car. Sometimes this means you get pushed into a different class of car based on the HP which means different taxes.
Now I believe that you should be able to modify your car how you want if you own it. It's yours. But we're heading into the car subscription model, where your car is basically going to cost you a dollar to turn it on soon just because we won't be able to stop it if all the car manufactures do it.
So if we're going with the subscription model, why can't we cancel the criminals subscriptions without needing to chase them down and run them off the road, causing unnecessary road deaths and police deaths?
Well, we just don't like it. Freedom, you know. But we're not free. We never really were. That's an illusion they give you, like a free lunch, where they charge you for the drinks.
- ncr100 4y agodisclaimer: I read just the top and the bottom of your note. Merely saying "freedom" I think is the mistake. We have very specific rights and corporations have very specific restrictions. Corporations profit by taking advantage of opportunities. That's kind of generally what power is all about. And so I'd be far more comfortable saying that we have the freedom to not buy something that GM is selling.
- cbanek 4y agoSo you're admitting you didn't read the whole thing but don't agree with me? I think that we do agree, I don't want to buy onstar either. But people like to say freedom like - right to work, which makes it sound like this magical thing. What it really means is that you can get fired at any time, and get nothing. Which is really the right to get fired. It's kind of like the right to die, it's not really a "right" so to speak. It's just the default. If it were illegal to die, then who would you punish? Look at the people that don't work under those laws. These are people with contracts for employment. Pro sports (NFL, NBA, etc), executives with golden parachutes, etc, etc. This is how Adam Neuman can be an idiot and run a company into the ground and then quit or get fired, then cash a billion dollar check on the way home while everyone else is stuck waiting for unemployment systems to be built so they can register for unemployment to hopefully maybe get some of the money that they are entitled to. This is also unions, unions work under contracts. This united auto workers. Teachers, police, etc. All of these people are being ground up into powder. Union busting is living its best life. IMHO it's a much better idea to read the entire post before replying. I did for you. If you have the time to reply you have the time to read?