4 ms·
To your first point, fair enough. To your second point, surely they’ve considered the hit to their relationship with their customers before selling for $1/car.
by Slow_Hand 14d ago
To your first point, fair enough.
To your second point, surely they’ve considered the hit to their relationship with their customers before selling for $1/car. Surely the trust between them and their buyers is worth far, far more than that.
Even assuming maximum greed, is every car manufacturer really so short-sighted as to break that trust for so small of a return?
- dguest 13d agoI oversimplified this, and actually it's a lot closer to what happens with any digital service. Rather than saying "give us 1$ and we'll sell you a customer's data" it was more like "provide the navigation software and we'll let you keep the data". It probably seems like an elegant solution: as long as the driver needs navigation they "pay" for it with their data. It's really no different from how gmail or facebook works.
- citizenpaul 11d agoWe need to start thinking more like the average evil C-suite. We live in the golden age of fraud. Not my words. There's probably some sort of circular deal where the people that enacted this data sharing personally benefit in some massive financial way. The low financial benefit from the parent company side is probably to avoid regulatory eyeballs. something around 50% of Uber's profits now come from their "private" owned insurance Company. That, of course, does not have to disclose how they are making money. Even though Uber is their only customer. There is probably some sort of similar deal happening here.