Mazda recently surprised customers by requiring them to sign up for a subscription in order to keep certain services. Now, notable right-to-repair advocate Louis Rossmann is calling out the brand.
It’s important to clarify that there are two very different types of remote start we’re talking about here. The first type is the one many people are familiar with where you use the key fob to start the vehicle. The second method involves using another device like a smartphone to start the car. In the latter, connected services do the heavy lifting.
Transition to paid services
What is wild is that Mazda used to offer the first option on the fob. Now, it only offers the second kind, where one starts the car via phone through its connected services for a $10 monthly subscription, which comes to $120 a year. Rossmann points out that one individual, Brandon Rorthweiler, developed a workaround in 2023 to enable remote start without Mazda’s subscription fees.
However, according to Ars Technica, Mazda filed a DMCA takedown notice to kill that open-source project. The company claimed it contained code that violated “[Mazda’s] copyright ownership” and used “certain Mazda information, including proprietary API information.”
Subscription services or software restricted features for cars should just be outlawed entirely.
Nobody likes these, if someone is willing to deal with a subscription product then they can do that aftermarket. The car itself should never come with something that will require recurring payments.
I think I can speak for most Americans (and as someone who owns stocks) fuck the shareholders.
I bought a bit of BP shortly after the oil spill.
I was hoping to lose it all, but had the feeling I’d end up making money. I did make money.
All those shareholders should have been fucked.
Should they though? The average lifespan of a car is 12 years. Even if they got someone to pay the subscription the entire time, that’s like 5% of the value of the car, spread over a length of time that makes it almost worthless. They could more easily charge an extra 1500 for the car, which is more money and it’s money they get now and isn’t picked apart by inflation.
It’s not especially good financially in the short or long term and is harmful to the brand image and customer loyalty.
Even if they got someone to pay the subscription the entire time, that’s like 5% of the value of the car, spread over a length of time that makes it almost worthless.
It’s a revenue stream you can collect after the vehicle is sold. Continuous cash flow means long term revenue stability for the business.
And its the introduction of a model that can scale. Once you’ve got someone’s account information, you can sell them more shit (or just sell their data to advertisers). This is just the tip of the spear. Tesla, BMW, and Mercedes are all experimenting with Vehicle as a Service product models.
Investors love the possibility of revenue growth, and these programs promise the possibility of high margin after market sales for the life of the vehicle.
harmful to the brand image and customer loyalty
Not when everyone is doing it
Yea, that is worse than eWaste, in my opinion. Hope EU does not let this slide for far longer… It should be illegal to ask for subscriptions for something that is a one time cost for the manufacturer.
Hope EU does not let this slide for far longer…
You’re out of luck with the remote start feature. Remote start is not allowed in the EU because it is unnecessary wear and tear on the engine, a waste of fuel and adds to air pollution.
Before my inbox explodes, I understand there are places that get unbelievably cold, and warming the car before the fragile human gets in is preferable, nevertheless, cars warm up faster and more economically when driven.
None of those reasons apply to electric cars, though. What’s their stance on that?
The car itself should never come with something that will require recurring payments.
Cars already do. Satellite radio has been a thing for decades now. I’ve never used it. Never felt the desire to use it. I haven’t even taken the free trial. I’m less annoyed that it exists, and more annoyed that I’m forever fated to receive unsolicited junk mail for this feature that I have to unceremoniously dump in the recycling bin every couple weeks.
As for the remote start, yeah, it’s kinda bullshit that they’ve removed the more permanent, older version of a feature to replace it with something out of the owners’ control. If anything, it should exist in parallel with the key fob button, not replace it entirely. I’m less concerned about the fact that it’s a subscription than I am about the prospect of that feature dropping support down the road with no recourse for the owner.
Your SiriusXM subscription doesn’t go to the manufacturer of the car. This is what they referred to as aftermarket subscriptions in their comment. It isn’t any different than if I subscribe to spotify Snr then connect my phone to the car to use it.
SiriusXM does revenue share with auto companies.) Old article, but I’m too lazy to dig through a financial report or find something newer.
I haven’t even taken the free trial.
- Download this app:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.siriusxm.dealer
-
If you don’t have the means of faking your location with root (not through developer settings), drive to, like, any nearby car dealership.
-
Open the app, tap the “Enter Radio ID” button, and… do that.
-
Profit!
No sign-up or account required. You will have full service for 3 months.
You can repeat this process indefinitely. It has worked for years. They do not care.
I’m forever fated to receive unsolicited junk mail for this feature that I have to unceremoniously dump in the recycling bin every couple weeks.
Imagining a future in which I have to tell my YouTube integrated car company that I don’t want to sign up for their music service every time I start my car.
Imagine if you lived in a country where a simple note taped to your mailbox would eliminate all junk mail.
Paid subscriptions to use features of the car you bought should be illegal
I remember a time when these features were just “standard” and car makers ad campaigns all around features just being standard, making the car more enticing than their competitors.
Now I dread the idea of getting a vehicle in the future because of bull shit like this.
But fuck the consumer amirite?
I don’t think unlocking or starting your car from an app was ever standard
Y’know you’re likely correct and that’s totally my bad. I got confused about the remote start from the key fob. I can understand the remote start from the app being a paid thing for sure, like OnStar or specifically in my case the myChevrolet app.
I can understand the remote start from the app being a paid thing for sure.
But why would it need to be? The connectivity from the app is there already, it takes the manufacturer very little to handle the occasional web request. Especially if it can be done for free through third party software.
Reason number 29474929273 why we should ban internet access on cars
“capitalism promotes healthy competition”
Hilariously, due to the teardrop shape, cars like this would be more aerodynamic if the shell was reversed.
Car companies do not want to innovate, because aerodynamic cars are “lame”, “soy”, etc.
People seem to have a low tolerance for what is considered weird when it comes to cars. That’s why most cars look the same. (Likely due to marketing and peer pressure)
Bar Atera, Ariel and a couple of other “unconventional” designs, and a handful of other concept cars. (Fuck the cybercrap, it’s the opposite of innovation)
TL;DR: cars could be way more aerodynamically efficient, but they aren’t, because people are peopleing.
Why don’t you go to Cuba and ask how they’ve been able to do it for ~100 years. Those people have self-reliance down to a fucking science at this point, and the cars they have been keeping running for 60+ years are a perfect example of it. Imagine if they were actually allowed to participate in global commerce.
