Automakers argue that independent shops can already get the data they need, with permission — but making it automatically accessible by third parties is dangerous.
Yeah, this is just further BS in a long line of BS. This continuing quest to build vehicles that cannot be serviced by anybody but a dealer is just a tactic to make more money off the misery of customers. I dearly wish they just banned the sale of any auto that couldn't comply. We honestly need to deal with this company throws a hissy-fit culture (e.g. Apple and the App Store) every time society says it wants all companies in a sector to act in a certain way. This rent seeking is just getting out of hand.
Also, statements like its "impossible" should be brought to a court to ascertain the truth value and fine the heck out of liars.
I'm struggling to find nuance in what seems like a black/white issue. If you buy the vehicle, you can do whatever the @#$% you want with it. If you can't do what you want, it's a subscription model and the maker is responsible for all maintenance and insurance. I fail to see how the latter is a good option for car makers, so I find this whole issue to be total BS.
"Next on CNN, Kia and Subaru vehicle 'owners' have amassed over 50,000 vehicles in a field in Kansas and will be lighting them on fire momentarily. Let's watch."
This all sounds fine to me. The car with no "smart" functionality sounds better than one with it! No way to nag you with subscriptions or a mobile app that sends you loud ads at 3AM. And, the market will solve this problem. Ford will figure out how to sell whizbang bluefi features, and then Subaru will lose sales until they do the same.
I think Subaru must be hoping that they can get people in Massachusetts to say "ok, fine, we don't want the right to repair if it means we can't check fluid levels from our phone" and lobby for the repeal of the law, but I think Subaru is going to lose that standoff.
I have yet to see how this thread will go but I imagine there will be some population that sees this as a malicious attack on 'right to repair'. My take from behind the scenes on these kind of things is that this is likely 'until we have the tools and processes to handle the work stream originating from this one state in this one country, we should disable the feature'.
I am the cofounder of https://Smartcar.com. The talking point being used to suggest that "it's not possible to comply because such a solution doesn't exist" is just completely false.
This is exactly what we've built at Smartcar over the past 5+ years. Thosuands of developers have built apps on our platform to let consumers access their own car data and bring it into the apps of their choice.
Alternate headline: Web site at www.kdsk.com seemingly shuts out European visitors with http/403 instead of dealing with EU data protection act.
I don't know the details of the law, but the only argument that seems remotely sympathetic for automakers is a timeline for compliance. Certainly, there should be a pathway to compliance that gives makers a reasonable window to implement features.
That said, any argument against sharing all telemetry generated with the owner of the vehicle and with shops they pay is disingenuous and immoral. I find it shameful that my 2014 vehicle cannot display all OBD data via the dashboard or the infotainment screen.
Call me silly, but I'd like to buy one of those cars w/o telemetry.
"
So it was a surprise to Subaru fans when Massachusetts dealerships started selling its line of 2022 vehicles without a key ingredient: the in-car wireless technology that connects drivers to music, navigation, roadside assistance and crash-avoiding sensors.
“The dealer didn’t bring it up,” said Joy Tewksbury-Pabst, who bought a new Subaru Ascent without realizing she'd be missing out on the remote start and locking features she had before trading in her 2019 model. She also lost the ability to check wiper fluid levels, tire pressure and mileage from her phone. "
I want that, I don't want my car to be connected to a 3g/4g/5g modem sending telemetry wherever I go.
I don't find value in checking out my car fluid on my phone, I find value in popping the hood and visually confirming it. The car stops what, every 400 miles for fuel? Not that much more to pop the hood and see what fluid levels are.
I find value in not letting the auto companies be able to track, measure, analyze my car usage.
> " only carmakers and their dealers have access to the real-time diagnostics that cars now transmit wirelessly."
Real-time access to driving while the vehicle is in motion?!
What a privacy nightmare! Is this common with newer cars? When did this happen?
I have a Subaru BRZ and it is probably the most analog car of their fleet.
There's zero connectivity to the internet, the headunit is replaceable, etc. Everything works from the ECU, wiring harness, etc.
In some ways it's too bad that it takes a car being a niche sports car to qualify for having a (mostly) analog setup.
The rest of the fleet should be this way, but then fancy features like EyeSight and such probably wouldn't work as well.
I'm still unclear, if I buy. car with some features, and then the car maker retroactively removes those features, shouldn't I be able to return the car for the amount I paid?
They weren't legally prevented from having the feature (e.g. they didn't turn off the feature for public safety reasons), so they made the choice to remove the feature I paid for.
I own Snapon diagnostic equipment capable of servicing anything up to 2016 model year and by extension a few more years unofficially if the model line continues.
It is very expensive but became reasonably priced after Snapon declared it unsupported and stopped making updates available.
The security excuse is not valid because there are many people like me who have electronics background, are willing to invest into right tools, and can fix anything but who have little desire to operate a shop.
My tool can reprogram keys, modify airbag parameters, troubleshoot anti-lock brakes and so on. All of that is safety systems.
Seems like you could supply an aftermarket part to resume the wireless connectivity if that is all it is. If they removed the sensors etc... then not a lot you can do.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/04/supreme-court-allo...
What’s not clear to me from the article, initially what’s discussed are use land features, but with these changes are they also turning off access for dealer repair shops as well? Just so the don’t have to give access to third parties? Won’t this bite them by reducing the quality of first party repairs? Or am I misunderstanding?
I love how Subaru says it is "impossible" to comply. I think someone needs to school them on the meaning of that word.
This statute goes right up against the provisions in the DMCA though that stop you playing with the inside of devices. How will that play out? Usually federal law wins out against state law, but it's complicated.
Time for a FOSS car.
Buy a car from a company that makes their items easy to repair.
First Toyota, now Suburu and Kia: less dealership lots to visit to deal with less bullshitting.
“ Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.ksdk.com/article/news/nation-world/some-car-featu..." on this server.”
undefined
https://archive.is/LZlNp