4 ms·

> if an automaker or other associated party can prove that it costs money to maintain the feature and/or service in question, then it'd be legally allowed. This

> if an automaker or other associated party can prove that it costs money to maintain the feature and/or service in question, then it'd be legally allowed. This would include services like OnStar and such. While I don't disagree with the exception here, I think they should outlaw mandatory subscriptions... like OnStar, which GM has started to add to most of their cars. It's not in the MSRP, but it's a required cost at the dealer.

Arrath 4y ago
> I think they should outlaw mandatory subscriptions Agreed! Mandatory subscriptions are outrageous.
devrand 4y ago
I think it still works for that. In the OnStar case you have the option to decline the service, but you still need to pay for it. That would likely run afoul of the requirement that it has ongoing costs to support the service. So I think this law would force automakers to either back-off or include it in the MSRP.
- neogodless 4y ago
  > you have the option to decline the service, but you still need to pay for it That's not how "declining a service" should work. How about I don't pay for it and then I don't get the service!
zeroonetwothree 4y ago
No one is forcing you to buy that car mode. Many cars don’t have mandatory subscriptions.
- neogodless 4y ago
  No one is forced to buy any car, including ones with subscriptions for heated seats. That isn't really a useful argument. Mandatory subscriptions take what might be the "ideal" car for a particular consumer, and add in an extra (in this case) $1500 cost for something you do not want. It should 100% be the buyer's choice if they want to prepay 3 years worth of an "optional" subscription. It's better for consumers of something that external like an internet service is not forced upon you when buying a vehicle. There's no downside to consumers if it's optional - but it makes otherwise good options for vehicles worse.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  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.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    >"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.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      > 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.
diebeforei485 4y ago
> if an automaker [...] can prove What is the standard of proof? And how is maintenance defined? If you haven't released an update in over a year, is that acceptable?

Arrath 4y ago

> I think they should outlaw mandatory subscriptions Agreed! Mandatory subscriptions are outrageous.

devrand 4y ago

I think it still works for that. In the OnStar case you have the option to decline the service, but you still need to pay for it. That would likely run afoul of the requirement that it has ongoing costs to support the service. So I think this law would force automakers to either back-off or include it in the MSRP.

neogodless 4y ago
> you have the option to decline the service, but you still need to pay for it That's not how "declining a service" should work. How about I don't pay for it and then I don't get the service!

zeroonetwothree 4y ago

No one is forcing you to buy that car mode. Many cars don’t have mandatory subscriptions.

neogodless 4y ago
No one is forced to buy any car, including ones with subscriptions for heated seats. That isn't really a useful argument. Mandatory subscriptions take what might be the "ideal" car for a particular consumer, and add in an extra (in this case) $1500 cost for something you do not want. It should 100% be the buyer's choice if they want to prepay 3 years worth of an "optional" subscription. It's better for consumers of something that external like an internet service is not forced upon you when buying a vehicle. There's no downside to consumers if it's optional - but it makes otherwise good options for vehicles worse.
AlexandrB 4y ago
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.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >"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.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    > 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.

diebeforei485 4y ago

> if an automaker [...] can prove What is the standard of proof? And how is maintenance defined? If you haven't released an update in over a year, is that acceptable?