3 ms·

Somehow this feels like it could backfire spectacularly. “Sorry, we can’t ‘sell’ our cars anymore. The law says we have to call them a ‘lease’ and that’ll be b

Somehow this feels like it could backfire spectacularly. “Sorry, we can’t ‘sell’ our cars anymore. The law says we have to call them a ‘lease’ and that’ll be be $X,XXX/year”

chipdart 2y ago
> “Sorry, we can’t ‘sell’ our cars anymore. The law says we have to call them a ‘lease’ and that’ll be be $X,XXX/year” Wouldn't that be enough reason to take your business elsewhere?
- dceddia 2y ago
  I mean, that assumes there's anywhere else to go that's doing it differently. It feels like market forces can push things in either of 2 directions: (a) People hate practice X, so they shun companies that do it, and enough go to companies who don't do X, which leads to fewer companies doing X (b) One company gets away with doing X, and despite some complaints, they do just fine – and other companies realize they can get away doing X too, and soon every company is doing it
  - diffeomorphism 2y ago
    (c) some companies get away with it because they have a fan base who will lease it anyway. Most companies don't. People always jump to 0% vs 100%. That almost never happens but rather you get some percentage and that is often enough for a law to be considered successful.
- rvba 2y ago
  There arent that many console manufacturers / tractor manufacturers / car manufacturers / phone manufacturers / (and unrelated: banks). Some specialized equipment has few manufacturers. Arguably this allready happened with computer games.
happymellon 2y ago
Considering the number of cars I've owned over the decades that couldn't have the entertainment system disabled remotely, I would be fine having those companies with hostile practices exposed.
onlypassingthru 2y ago
Or, you know, actually design the systems to be handed off at some point. Instead of the Internet Archive we could have the EV Archive.
beAbU 2y ago
That's exactly what we want. Companies to stop selling me shit I can't own. If they are only willing to lease the car to me, I will happily take my money elsewhere.
- imglorp 2y ago
  Maybe lease is a good idea in this case? Especially if the lease had a "fit for purpose" clause like apartment leases have, that means if the car quits working it's their problem and you quit paying.
mppm 2y ago
Same as with cookie banners. Much as I appreciate the intent of the law, any regulation based on disclosure / consent / name-and-shame is bound to fail or make things worse when enshittification is already the standard rather than the exception. There is simply nowhere for customers to take their dollars instead, when manufacturers start rubbing their dark patterns in their customer's faces, as per legal requirement.
Roark66 2y ago
At least it will be honest then. They should also be forced to disclose how they are stealing all your personal info and data as you're driving around. People would think twice before buying any of these cars. The result? They will not sell any. There is enough old cars around to sustain the transportation needs of the population for quite a while (certainly until someone decides to make new cars without all this crap).
- brokenmachine 2y ago
  >The result? They will not sell any. Citation needed. People just don't care enough about their privacy to change their behaviour. It's been proven over and over unfortunately. A person who wants the new shiny thing is not going to buy an old secondhand car just because of some abstract privacy concern. I would though... because even though I love technology, I'm a luddite because modern technology doesn't have innovation, only cheap touchscreens, beta testing by users, and rent-seeking.

Somehow this feels like it could backfire spectacularly. “Sorry, we can’t ‘sell’ our cars anymore. The law says we have to call them a ‘lease’ and that’ll be be $X,XXX/year”

chipdart 2y ago

> “Sorry, we can’t ‘sell’ our cars anymore. The law says we have to call them a ‘lease’ and that’ll be be $X,XXX/year” Wouldn't that be enough reason to take your business elsewhere?

dceddia 2y ago
I mean, that assumes there's anywhere else to go that's doing it differently. It feels like market forces can push things in either of 2 directions: (a) People hate practice X, so they shun companies that do it, and enough go to companies who don't do X, which leads to fewer companies doing X (b) One company gets away with doing X, and despite some complaints, they do just fine – and other companies realize they can get away doing X too, and soon every company is doing it
- diffeomorphism 2y ago
  (c) some companies get away with it because they have a fan base who will lease it anyway. Most companies don't. People always jump to 0% vs 100%. That almost never happens but rather you get some percentage and that is often enough for a law to be considered successful.
rvba 2y ago
There arent that many console manufacturers / tractor manufacturers / car manufacturers / phone manufacturers / (and unrelated: banks). Some specialized equipment has few manufacturers. Arguably this allready happened with computer games.

happymellon 2y ago

Considering the number of cars I've owned over the decades that couldn't have the entertainment system disabled remotely, I would be fine having those companies with hostile practices exposed.

onlypassingthru 2y ago

Or, you know, actually design the systems to be handed off at some point. Instead of the Internet Archive we could have the EV Archive.

beAbU 2y ago

That's exactly what we want. Companies to stop selling me shit I can't own. If they are only willing to lease the car to me, I will happily take my money elsewhere.

imglorp 2y ago
Maybe lease is a good idea in this case? Especially if the lease had a "fit for purpose" clause like apartment leases have, that means if the car quits working it's their problem and you quit paying.

mppm 2y ago

Same as with cookie banners. Much as I appreciate the intent of the law, any regulation based on disclosure / consent / name-and-shame is bound to fail or make things worse when enshittification is already the standard rather than the exception. There is simply nowhere for customers to take their dollars instead, when manufacturers start rubbing their dark patterns in their customer's faces, as per legal requirement.

Roark66 2y ago

At least it will be honest then. They should also be forced to disclose how they are stealing all your personal info and data as you're driving around. People would think twice before buying any of these cars. The result? They will not sell any. There is enough old cars around to sustain the transportation needs of the population for quite a while (certainly until someone decides to make new cars without all this crap).

brokenmachine 2y ago
>The result? They will not sell any. Citation needed. People just don't care enough about their privacy to change their behaviour. It's been proven over and over unfortunately. A person who wants the new shiny thing is not going to buy an old secondhand car just because of some abstract privacy concern. I would though... because even though I love technology, I'm a luddite because modern technology doesn't have innovation, only cheap touchscreens, beta testing by users, and rent-seeking.