Mazda's $10 subscription for remote start sparks backlash after killing open source workaround via DMCA takedown
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.
Shareholders love them
I think I can speak for most Americans (and as someone who owns stocks) fuck the shareholders.
I'm conflicted. On one hand, I'm a shareholder due to broad market investments in my 401k. On the other hand, I'm a consumer.
On net, screw this nonsense, just make good products and the recurring revenue will happen due to happy customers.
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.
You are the reason they didn't lose it all.
Yeah, if not for me the government would have responded appropriately and bankrupted the company.
Exactly! I'm glad you understand.
You're the problem. You get that, right?
how else are people supposed to avoid money losing value? bonds?
There's socially responsible ETFs that track stock indexes but exclude companies like oil and gas companies. The return isn't as high, but at least you're not giving money to Big Oil.
Shareholders love lootboxes too.
And one party autocracy.
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.
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.
Not when everyone is doing it
Shareholders can get fucked. They’re making the world a worse place daily.
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.
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?
I have no clue. However, turning a heater on is not the same as starting an engine.
I can start the heater (and AC) remotely on my dacia spring within EU 😂✌🏻
But how got the conversation there? 😂😅
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.
Fair enough but I still view it differently than being locked out of using actual OEM features of the car. I do find this unsurprising though based on the metric fuckton of spam you get from SiriusXM after buying any new or used car from a legit dealer.
Totally agree!
I've always wondered how much this costs relative to the number of takers they pull in.
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.
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.
Where would that be?
The Netherlands, at least.
Does it work out for you? I'm German, and in theory the sticker has to be respected here too, but in my experience a lot of junk mail bets on me being too lazy to sue them.
It seems to be working pretty well. There's the occasional transgression, but by and large we only get spam that is actually addressed to us.
An API is not copyrightable 🤔
Doesn't stop companies from sending bogus DMCA takedowns to sites like GitHub.
There are no penalties for filling a bogus DMCA takedown and the legal cost for restoring the content falls on the victim of such a takedown: the DMCA legislation was designed exactly for it to be used as Mazda and many other use it against individuals and small companies who can't spend thousands of dollars fighting bogus takedowns.
Why is there no big alternative hosted outside of the US where your DMCA does not apply?
There are other centralised code hosting services, for example Codeberg, but they are equally scared of any legal action even when it doesn't directly apply.
There are penalties. They require proof of intent, however. So there are no penalties.
It’s intent is harassment.
it seems everything is copyrightable if you are rich enough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.
When two very rich entities argued about it it was determined you can't copyright API.
Sure, but if you're not rich and they sue you, you loose. No matter what, you'll run out of money before successfully using that case.
I wasn't disagreeing.
Where are the EFF fighting this?
You're assuming the law matters when a company can hire a team of lawyers and a solo dev can't
I'm saying that when both sides have "infinite money" the "truth" can be found lol.
And if they want to attack car owners for doing what they want with their own car let's go to court and see how fast their bullshit holds up.
Can't wait for the inevitable "You don't actually own the car, you just have a lifetime licence/lease to use the car"
That's being normalized right now with video games. It'll happen with other things soon enough too.
Frankly, for a lot of places, I don't know that would be such a bad idea.
Now doing the same for land, that would be bad...
It could make sense if the price were reflecting of not owning the car. But we know damn well that you would pay full price as if the car was yours, but you just wouldn't own it.
Oh well, "if buying isn't owning..." Time to watch some Lockpicking Lawyer and trundle down to the car licensing lot and indulge in a little piracy >;-)
I was considering a Mazda for my next car. Now I’m not.
I live in a place that gets fucking cold in the winter. If the normal fob option were always available and you get the option to pay for the convenience using an app, that would be one thing - though $10/month for that is ridiculous. But removing the fob option and locking this basic feature behind a subscription is exactly the sort of game I don’t want my vehicle to play with me.
Go ahead and sell roadside coverage, parts/repairs, batteries, get royalties from Sirius or whatever for extra cash flow. Make a great app that adds new convenient live-service features and is worth paying for, even. But fuck all these new subscription un-gimping games.
The subscriptions is free for the first few years so if you plan on trading it in definitely still worth it. While this does piss me off I still really like my mazda 2020
That's called giving the drugs for free then taking it away so the addiction kicks in. Fuck that noise. Stop justifying it because it's 'free for now'
ISPs do this too..go look for new service, it's a royal pain in the cock trying to find the actual cost before bullshit sales that can be taken away with minutes.
Im not justifying it. In fact, I said that I didn't agree with it. All I'm saying is that in some situations, this shouldn't affect your decision if the car feels right for you. Like other commenters have pointed out, most major manufacturers are pulling the same BS (Which obviously doesn't make it OK) But the free 3 year trial makes it less of a sore spot for some.
Also, there are plenty of aftermarket remote start systems that you could install if you dont want to deal with the expensive OEM solution. This is the case for the majority of additions anyway.
Again, it's not okay, I think it's absolute BS that you have to pay any sort of subscription on a 5-figure purchase, but thinking pragmatically, there are plenty of situations where this is irrelevant.
"you wouldn't download a car" was prophetic
“Of course I would” has always been the response though.
"capitalism promotes healthy competition"
Don’t forget innovation:
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.
Interesting and strange that there really as a car “uncanny valley”.
There's an empty spot at the bottom of that list and the author -- who by the way is a monster -- could have easily included Subaru.
One of the biggest lie of all time.
But but, did you see the new "brand x brand x brand" product? The one where all the brands are owned by the same mega-corp and they just decided to smoosh their products together?
Innovation is dead and buried.
And Communism does so much "better":
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.
Having a car without internet connectivity would be a feature for privacy minded consumers
Usually this stuff is aftermarket. Sounds like a good business plan
Everything is becoming public and opt-out. Privacy is beyond dead.
Bets on which car company is going to be the first to EOL a server and brick a bunch of cars because some key feature is now "unsupported"?
Enel is currently doing exactly that with their electric car chargers (the Juicebox), they've decided to pull out from the North American market and just shut down the servers. Like WTF, at least open-source the thing...
Nissan EOL’ed all their remote services blaming the 3G turn off. But yet my Leaf still connects to their services to report my driving location and driving style to them. They just turned off any features I could use. The 3G network in the UK will be up for quite a long time still and the 2G network will be around for longer, but they decided it’s a good excuse to save some server money on cars that are less than 10 years old.
Something similar already happened when bicycle manufacturer VanMoof went under. I believe there was a workaround if you extracted your bike's crypto keys before the servers went down but otherwise you were practically screwed.
Fisker, due to going bankrupt, arguably is the worst version of this right now
It's going to be Tesla, no question.
Services. Services!? What the actual fuck are you talking about!? Remote start isn't a fucking service, it's a feature, that they are trying to control through greed.
Edit: I will give a small concession to the remote remote start, as that does need an OTA service. The service of course shouldn't be any more complicated than a SMS setup, so $15 per year is the absolute most you'll be able to get out of me...
2nd edit: And you damn well better include free modem upgrades. None of this $50+ for a fucking map update shit the other companies are pulling. That shit should have been an OTA update, Christ knows the damn thing tries to find an open Wi-Fi...
It's a service if the only way to remote start the car, from the factory, is via a third party like 5G or LTE.
How are all those 3G car services faring these days? There were cars as recent as M.Y. 2019 that have reduced functionality or no functionality that was originally paid for.
What will it look like when LTE and 5G are inevitably shutdown and replaced?
It's one thing to say I have to buy a new $1000 phone. They almost go obsolete in other ways, or suffer extensive physical damage before the cellular radios get turned off. It's another thing to say that a feature of an $80,000 car is gone forever. Even if it's just a creature-comfort like remote start or remote windows. It's bullshit.
And then what? A $1500 credit off my next car of the same make for my 'inconvenience'? Fuck right the fuck off. How much more does it cost to let a fob toggle it, from the factory floor?
And besides that who the fuck wants to dig out an app to start their car when you could just have a physical button right there on the key? Having voice assistants or routines start it for you is cool and all, but it is well known that those will be obsoleted long before the rest of the car.
Small correction here:
These services have nothing to do with 3g, 5g or wifi. All those are just communication protocols that phones use to connect to the internet, and neither your phone, nor their apps nor their servers will care a dime about those. Of 6g comes out or 5g disappears, nothing changes.
As long as the provider keeps their servers for your services up, the service is there. And that's where the problem lies. It's not the cost. A single 100 dollar / month server could easily cover all remote starts world wide, it really doesn't require that much.
Decisions to take down these services and screw over paying customers are typically made my middle and upper management, to force people to buy their new crap
Yeah, it's still crap. I'm not trying to defend these products requiring paid services, it's shite and I would only use open sourced services, I'm just saying that the technology is a little different than you said
The problem is the cell modem in the car, which is hard to replace. Cars last a lot longer than phones do. When whatever network that the car uses shuts down, then you can't remote start your car. That's a marginal cost that the car company has to pay for.
I was wondering, what makes the modem that hard to replace?
I get that the embedded systems in cars are complex works of engineering, but I don't see why there can't be some sort of standardized physical interface akin to OBDII to be used to 'upgrade' the modem.
Nothing, except right-to-repair, or rather the lack of it.
It could just use a standard USB or mini pci-e modem and make it super easy to replace. If the were concerned about unauthorized use, they could easily make it so that a key stored in the cars TPM is necessary for the modem to connect to the tower, making the modem a commodity field replaceable part.
But they choose not to. They choose to make a proprietary part that only works in their cars and is only manufactured by them. They make it so the car won't recognize it if it isn't activated by a dealer shop computer.
Then, when the technology it's based on is obsoleted, either they decide to make a proprietary part to sell you and only they can install...or they say "Wow that sucks. I guess we could knock a few hundred off a new car for you then?". More than likely, it's the latter. You probably already had your car for a few years and the honeymoon phase is long past. You don't even care if it gets a little ding or scratch anymore. They know that.
Or...now hear me out...they could've just been using RF fobs for remote start that's point-to-point, instead of enshittifying fucking remote start by making it rely on a third-party.
But then they wouldn't need you to install an app that needs a million fucking permissions. To start your car remotely. Something that a postage-stamp sized PCB has been doing since ET was in theaters the first time.
Support right-to-repair when it's on your ballot. Auto manufacturers put a lot of money into lobbying against it every time. And it's usually fear-based propaganda that isn't grounded in reality at all. The fact is, they made the system this way, on purpose, to protect profits and for no other reason. Fuck them. Fuck them right in the tushie.
There's another angle to this, too. If the cellular modem is easy to replace, it would also be easy to remove, cutting off one of the big reasons why the car manufacturers want it there: data that they can sell.
Which makes this whole topic even more frustrating because that connection is worthwhile for them to have even without the customer paying for the cellular subscription because they are selling the data but Mazda is still greedy enough to want an extra $120 a year for something that could have been included as an afterthought.
You just reminded me that's it's illegal to have a tracking device on someone's car without their knowledge. If you buy a car second hand and they are tracking you , then that's probably against the law.
The main benefit of having a remote start app is that you can use it from far away like when you're inside of your workplace where a fob won't work.
And while that's very convenient, I'm sure that's the reason the app always wants to know my precise location. So it can remind me that the train I'm on isn't at the station my car is parked at. As if I'm unaware.
It's possible, but it costs money to design the hardware so it's accessible, it has to use a connector which has to be robust against vibrations (is m.2 robust?), then there needs to be a standardized protocol to communicate with the card. Does the car computer need to know how to authenticate against the cell network or does the card? Is it industry standardized or specific to the manufacturer? All kinds of things need to be designed and car manufacturers have no reason to invest in they.
Cellular generations will last as long as most people will even keep their car. That's not really a concern. My A4 has the 3G antennae replacement as a recall they're doing for free. What a company has to pay for is planned on implementation. Bonus niche perks used to be a reason why you went with one company over another company. Now everything into a subscription because it's free income.
If the car uses 5g, ang 5g is no longer available, how do you connect to a server
Car manufacturers are being so blatant about this stuff. It goes to show that they know how slow regulation is and they can milk it for all its worth.
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?
When did customers become consumers?
I'm more concerned with the transformations from customers to product.
"Hey, buy our expensive shit but also give us all your data so we can also sell it to other companies."
Consumer means an individual person customer who's not a company. Otherwise customers can also be other companies.
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.
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.
I mean, if the car needs a cellular subscription.
If it does then I wonder how a free tool could do it.
And if you do, indeed, need to pay for the car's cellular then I hope features such as these are included.
There is no need for the internet to use remote start
I just bought a new car and it has internet enabled remote start. The salesman touted the feature. My response: "oh so I can start the car in [one state] while I'm in [another state] so it's ready for me when I get back?" He didn't have a good response for that. Nice car, dumbass feature.
I use mine all the time. I have about a 1/4 mile walk to get to my car, I like to start it in winter to heat up, or summer to cool down before I get to it.
It’s a luxury, but one I enjoy.
Lora and other RF based communication protocols exist and are much better ideas than using the internet. If someone is starting their car they are probably less than a mile away and the benefits of having something that works regardless of cell towers probably outweigh the benefits of being able to use it through bunker doors and across the globe.
add that an internet connected car is not something we want, we want our remotes which we already have to do this
I’m not familiar with Lora or other RF systems. Can they adjust temperatures too?
My other vehicle is from 1976… I love it and I love the ability for me to fix it without plugging a computer in.
Walking a 1/4 mile in cold wind to a warm car that’s already defrosted is pretty amazing though. And I’m vehemently against subscriptions where possible, so I get the hatred towards connected cars as well.
Lora is mostly intended for small packets of information (like sensors), temperature could be sent in base 1 and still be sendable over it.
Maybe if you don't live where it gets cold or you work in an office within range of your car.
Some people live in these tall things that are called, "not a single family house" and so starting the car from up there you would need some way to communicate to the car, keyfob ranges are limited.
It's a good thing we invented remote start at the same time as the car itself, I can't imagine the horror of only operating a motor vehicle I'm next to (let alone touching)
What are you talking about?
Remote start of any kind is a luxury and it's wild to me that someone would defend internet car controls as any way important or even desirable. That's what I'm talking about. Physical keys work totally fine and add like two seconds of time to the process.
Who said it was not?
YOu know except for the fucking case I described where you don't live in a house so the keyfob might not reach so you need some other way to connect to the car to be able to remote start it.
not my fault you struggle with social skills and can't relate to other people
I mean, his point is still valid. Take the 2-3 mins it takes to go down and start the car.
We managed before so let's not pretend that wireless fob are necessary.
And then what genius? Should I sit in the cold car or stand next to the cold car while it heats up?
The point of the remote start is to avoid this, are you all some brain damaged kind that doesn't understand user experience?
I agree with your entire premise on the usefulness of remote start for cold winters. I live in Canada, though I do not have remote start.
All that being said, I think it’s wild that you accuse others of lacking “social skills” while calling everyone “brain damaged” because they didn’t immediately agree with you.
I have low tolerance for fools who cannot understand something after it was explained 3 times.
I live in Canada dickwad, I know what cold winters are, so cut your whining.
Remote start is a great QoL, and that's why scummy companies hide it behind a paywall.
If enough people pay for the subscription, companies will keep doing it.
So the first step is push back and stop buying from companies that does that.
Second step is to not pay for the subscription when all the companies will be doing it, because let's be real, all car manufacturers will follow suit.
So you will have to either stay in your car, which sucks, or find a workaround like a second key or , in my case, a code on the door.
It will inconvenience a lot of people and car manufacturers are counting on that to keep pushing that shit
A little sensitive aren't you? Taking offense for something clearly not aimed at you, lol.
Why should that use the internet though? There's low-power wireless communication technologies like Wifi HaLow that have a range of around 1km (0.6 miles), which would be totally fine for this use case. No internet needed.
Is that ubiquitous and does it go through walls? And what's the cost of that compared to existing solutions?
HaLow is sub-1Ghz so it goes through walls pretty well. Not sure about cost or how widespread it is yet.
Do you usually start the car from your bedroom?
In the winter I would, yes, if my car had it, sitting into a cold car in the morning fucking sucks, starting it 10 minutes before take off and have it defrost, and turn on seat/steering wheel heating would be the fucking tits, and I don't live in a house so might not even have a line of sight on my car so keyfob wouldn't be enough
Huh, TIL.
Nice for you to live somewhere mild enough your car doesn't need to pre-heat but some people live in Chicago and other places where it still snows and pre-heating the car is a must 3 months of the year.
I live in a snowy climate and we did just fine before the invention of wireless starters. My car does not have one and we manage just fine.
That is a great QoL, but let's not pretend this is necessary.
My main point is fuck subscription for every fucking thing to try and squeeze more money, even worst by removing features and putting them back behind a paywall.
However, we need to stop saying that things are necessary when most of the time they are convenient.
Because that is how they get us to pay. Every little inconvenience is treated as if it absolutely needs to be adressed.
Then, we can say fuck off to these companies and live with the inconveniences they left on purpose to sell a subscription.
But until, companies will push these hardware subscriptions because it nets them more money.
Yes, but we have had remote start without the internet for decades. It's nothing but a cash grab. That's what people are upset about here I think.
They took a feature that did not require the internet, then made it require the internet, for literally no purpose except:
It's one thing to withhold a feature. It's another thing to overcomplicate a feature for the purpose of withholding it.
I agree with you all the way. But we can kick and scream all we want, but if enough people buy the subscription, car manufacturers will keep hiding features behind paywalls.
When I was like 20 or so and needed to drive every morning and it was -25C or colder outside, I'd go outside in my t-shirt, start the engine, remove the key (because the ignition lock was so worn, I could remove it), lock the car, go back inside
Woke me right up and afterwards when I went outside with proper winter clothing, I didn't feel the least bit cold. Plus the car had a nice big gasoline V6 as opposed to the diesels I mostly drive nowadays, so it actually did manage to defrost the windshield in <10 minutes no problem.
I don't believe you've lived anywhere cold for very long. Cold places existed long before remote start. The car warms up while you finish shoveling and brushing off the car. You're warm from shoveling, and the car is ready to go. If it's just cold and you're late to whatever, you sit your shivering ass down behind the wheel and drive away anyways...
The issue isn't "I don't want to be cold." The problem is when it's below 20F/-7C, you need to wait long enough for the coolant to warm enough to evaporate the moisture in the defrost vents and the inside of the windshield. Otherwise the inside of the windshield frosts over and you can't see well enough to drive safely. And the colder it gets, the longer it takes.
Do you need remote start? Nope. I don't have it on my vehicles. But you will need to wait long enough to keep the windshield defrosted.
Where I come from, we just scrape off enough ice to see where you're going, and crack a window to keep it dry enough the interior doesn't freeze. But, hey, if you know how to leave early enough to get to places on time in a warm cabin, more power to you 😉
You ain't likely to want to do that at -20F at highway speeds.
By the time you hit the highway you’re usually warm enough that things have defrosted.
Remote start is a fine feature. It just shouldn't need internet access.
In truly cold weather, starting and idling your car doesn't properly warm it up in any sane amount of time and can even be bad for the engine. What you want is an auxiliary heater like Webasto or Ebersprächer (sp?)
Remote start would be nice with with mild weather or on a hot summer day when you need AC though.
I promise you that there are plenty of people in Chicago without the ability to preheat their car and they're surviving just fine lol
As a Midwesterner, pre heating is a luxury. It’s often a nice and affordable one, but I park outside and just wear my coat in the car.
Why does the car need an internet connection? Rather get a car from 2005-2010 that doesn't connect to the internet, more have a stupid subscription.
Yep, I got a very basic trim 2010-2015 car. I think it's about as new as you can get without really bad enshitification. The upper trims even had some of the gimmicks and techy stuff. I loath to think if the day this car dies. I may only ride my bike from that point on.
If you do get an e bike later know that some brands are very bad with reliability and support so you can end up with a $2000 brick on wheels. Case in point: Rad Power Bikes, their batteries can die just a year after purchase even with good maintenance and their support will simply ignore you if you try to claim a warranty repair/replacement.
Imagine a world where the laws are literally used to opress you!
Now open your eyes.
Narrator:
So...who is making the open source car?
Someone very rich who doesn't feel the need to get arbitrarily richer.
So no one.
An ethical billionaire?
Yea, no one is right.
I’d be cool with starting a car company for as little as $1M salary; I don’t even need equity, just a couple hundred mil to get it started
I don't think 2mil is enough to make a factory capable of making cars that can compete economically with mass-produced cars. More of a hobby project, I imagine. But if you can do it, even on a small scale - go ahead! That'd be great! Make the world a better place one bit at a time.
Also to some of us (myself included) 1M salary and 2M equity is already through-the-roof rich!
There are definitely open source-ish options. Google locost 7
I don't think "ish" is a thing. Either the sources are provided openly under a libre license, or they are not.
What license does the locost 7 release their designs under?
Locost 7 is a generic name for replica Lotus/Caterham 7 type cars that are built by people in garages, there's no centralised body beyond "The Book" the original design came from. As far as I'm aware the book's author has defended the design in court as being too generic to be protectable (which presumably precludes their design being used as a basis to prosecute anyone building something similar).
Most of the cars are built custom to the donor vehicle, taking the original design as a basis, there's 100s of variations online with drawings - none of them are going to be protectable and no-one's really tried in the 30 odd years since the book came out. No-one's published anything with a libre license, I'm not sure if there'd be any point.
If the author licenses the book under a creative commons or other libre license, its open source. If not, its not open source hardware.
If the author would just announce that the book is licensed openly, then it would liberate lots of other orgs to be able to include his work in their work. Otherwise this is a dead end for other open hardware manufacturers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_car
https://gearjunkie.com/motors/best-kit-cars
https://www.slashgear.com/1066686/kit-cars-that-wont-break-the-bank/
Are any of those open source?
It comes in parts and you can replicate them, isn't that open source?
Nope. What makes if open source is that the designs are published and licensed using an open source license, such as CC BY-SA
Edit: not sure why I'm being down voted. That's literally the definition of open-source hardware, per OSHWA https://www.oshwa.org/definition/
Edison Motors would be my bet.
That guy is doing some seriously cool open source shit on a HUGE scale (electric logging trucks). I'm sure once they perfect the process they will move into the car and truck market.
His media channels and shorts are always great, even if you have no knowledge or interest in the logging industry.
Can you link to the build instructions and CAD repo for the electric logging truck?
Did you bother to look into it at all? What you are asking doesn't even make sense from a design standpoint.
Nobody asked for a car you can print.
The way they are building their electric truck is the smartest way. Using available, off-the-shelf parts that have proven reliability. Nobody is going to be using CAD to create custom parts. Reinventing the wheel is precisely the problem and Edison Motors is working to avoid those mistakes.
Also, they are taking design input/feedback at the consumer level right now, BEFORE they have a 'completed' product to purchase. This is as close to open source as you can get in my opinion.
You could literally buy the same parts out of a warehouse and build a logging truck yourself if you wanted to.
Or you can sit on the internet and complain without having any idea what you're talking about.
If they're using off the shelf parts and they include them in their open-source licensed CAD files, thats fine.
But, yes, CAD files are required, by definition, for open hardware projects. I said nothing about printing. CAD is needed for all types of manufacturing, even when using off the shelf standard parts like M3 bolts.
If they didn't release CAD files and license them openly, this is not an open source project and its not worth contributing to.
I build open source hardware for a living btw, and ive built open hardware industrial machines. Don't assume everyone you're talking to on the Internet is sitting in an armchair without rolling up their sleeves in the shop. I'm legitimately looking for an open hardware car. Best ive found is OpenMotors Tabby. They've released their CAD files (which are licensed under CC BY-SA), but their documentation is terrible.
Here's a link to help others https://openmotors.co/download
https://github.com/speeduino/speeduino
That doesn't look like a car to me. I don't even think they have a FOSS ICE afaict?
This needs to be banned. In fact, “licenses” for things you buy should be outright banned entirely.
Yeah. Feel this is a slippery slope. First it's supposedly luxury extras like heated seats and remote starts. Next something more critical when folks are habituated to the practice? Enpoopification all around.
Well, crap! Was seriously looking at the CX50. I’m not paying monthly to use stuff that’s already equipped in the car. Just madness.
Love the CX-50..
I acknowledge the cell connectivity in the car costs Mazda money to keep running. Most cars with that kind of connectivity charge for it. But, I think 10/month is too much.
They should factor it into the price of the car. Maybe not a lifetime license, but some decent amount of time with a reasonable price to renew it for a few more years.
The connectivity doesn’t work that well anyway. I don’t give a crap about remote start and climate control but my wife uses it when it’s super cold out and only at work. Not worth paying for at all, even from her POV. The car (CX-90 PHEV) is still fantastic to drive.
I believe it comes with a 3 year trial
Reason number 29474929273 why we should ban internet access on cars
Paid subscriptions to use features of the car you bought should be illegal
Wait.... Even if users don't pay for this, their car still comes a WWAN module that is hardwired to their ignition. Yes, I realize it's more likely bolted on to the infotainment system and/or the car's RTOS, but it's still baked in.
Depends on the manufacturer's implementation, but yeah in recent years they've made it really difficult if not impossible to remove
Some models are as easy as removing a fuse or unplugging an optional component from the infotainment system. So a "quick" 1-hour process can remove that noise from the car.
But I really shouldn't have to rip apart my car just to remove spyware and nagware.
I might regret not searching about this before running my mouth here, but I would assume most automotive manufacturers, in 2024, are soldering the wwan modules onto the main board of the infotainment system for cost, and to prevent user removal of their subscription vector.
I would also assume most manufacturers who are converting standard automotive features into paid subscription services that dubiously rely on SaaS backends, are NOT also designing isolated architectures that separate the IoT infotainment system from the car's critical systems like drive control, transmission, brakes, etc. I'm guessing most at least have CAN bus connections linking them together.
But I don't know enough about cars and automotive systems to even pretend being knowledgeable. So, if anyone here is actually well versed on this subject (and not just searching forums before replying to me), please tell me I'm wrong, and how so.
Seriously, I want to be wrong about this.
Aftermarket android head unit. As long as they are able to sort out the canbus features, it's a thing. Unfortunately, it's mainly the Chinese that do this.
I unintentionally fibbed, because one thing I do have a bit of experience with is aftermarket car stereos, including double-DIN android units.
Granted, I haven't tried to install one in a 2024 car, but a lot of modern infotainment systems can't just be ripped out and replaced with aftermarket unit and retain the car's original functionality, if it can be removed at all without breaking, or removing your access to core functions, like climate control, etc.
Here's a picture of the interior of one of the cars in question, a 2024 Mazda CX-90
You're not popping a double DIN in there, and even if you did remove the screen, I'm betting the actual infotainment system boards are inside the dash somewhere installed in a mounted panel box, and they aren't just going to pop out and be replaceable like your standard head unit.
Another photo, this one from the linked article:
Chinese aftermarket "designed to fit" android head units aren't just double din universals.
That's not me, I mostly searched forums and whatnot. My cars are all old enough that they don't have this nonsense, and while I am handy with cars (do all my own maintenance), I'm not a mechanic, so I don't have direct experience.
That said, at recent-ish Chevy cars w/ OnStar seem to have separate power and board for the wwan. I've watched a couple of these videos, and they seem pretty legit.
And with a quick check on Mazda, It seems you have two options:
Again, I haven't actually done this for any car, but it's definitely something I'm going to be looking at before deciding on a make and model because I intend to remove whatever tracking BS they put in.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but OnStar is a 3rd party service, so it makes sense they would have a bolt-on device that can be removed without too much concern for the rest of the car's functionality.
Also, isn't a TCU something that controls a car's drivetrain and transmission?
Edit: nevermind, just searched and found telematic control unit. Interesting, thanks for the info, I might look into this more if I have more time later.
TCM is the thing that controls the transmission
Reupload on Russian github.
We have one?
Damn, I wish I knew about this workaround before the takedown, I know someone who could benefit from it
https://github.com/runDMCA/home-assistant-mazda
I’ll clone this, thanks!
Also, lol, RUN DMCA
STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM!
I would download a car
assholes
I give it another 10 years before car makers just fucking give up on fighting this kind of thing.
It’s gonna be a rough 10 years though
The shitty thing is that if margins are high enough only a very small minority of owners need to subscribe in order for them to break even and then we get stuck with it for eternity like SiriusXM being implanted into practically everything.
And of course there's no way to just 'opt out' of the hardware via trim levels. Shitty industry in general
Yes, capitalism is horrible bullshit that we all must suffer through (for now). No argument there.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but I believe that within the next decade, car companies are just going to have to deal with the fact that a lot of very intelligent (and independent) software developers are able to work around their proprietary crap. Currently, they’re fighting it rather a lot, but that fight can only be sustained for so long before it becomes unprofitable for the corporations.
I hope you are right!
I really hope you're right and wrong at the same time cause I don't want to have to wait 10 years for them to realize this is such a stupid idea.
I don't want anything smart in my car. I want a(n electric) engine that starts with a goddamned physical key that turns in a physical ignition. I want a volume knob that turns with a 1:1 ratio to the volume, ditto for climate control fan speed and temperature. The only thing I want my phone to do in conjunction with my cLilar is display the GPS.
So true... for me personally, I'd love to have a battery EV vehicle, but i just want a regular vehicle with a battery powerplant. I don't want a mobile IOT advertising surveillance DRM non-repairable planned-olsolescence mobile which is how so many new vehicles are designed.
I feel like this is what we all signed up for vs what they delivered.
I'm very excited for Apreras vehicles and hope they are successful. Their whole philosophy is hyper efficient vehicles and they are committed to open repair and bring consumer friendly.
They seem to be the only company making cars or attempting to make cars that makes a point to say that they will make it as easy as possible for you to control, repair and fix your own vehicle.
these car companies oh my god 🤦
nope nope nope.
Welcome to Night City.
There's always buying a third party remote service such as compustar for $700 (with install fees). The 1500 feet range from your key fob is included but you have to pay for the smartphone remote start (which can go on sale for $60 per year). Though these days, cars usually come with these features...
Edit: I meant that the $700 includes parts and labor costs
We need to get a big group together and make an open source car. The company that bought Fiskers leftover vehicles can't use them because Fiskers supposedly can't transfer the servers to them.
Um. Install your own?
...And the third third-party way where you can clap on clap off the engine! It was fairly convenient for people who lived out of the city or a comfy isolation room. In Mexico they will also banned the whistle on 3rd party option where the owner would come up with a special whistle pattern to turn on the engine. Engines in the US would become confused and dangerous on the 4rth of July due to the constant pops and whistle noises. That's why we never saw those features here.