Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ifarteditssmelly t1_jeftyuj wrote

Reply to comment by OldGreyTroll in GM is phasing out Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in EVs by hatramroany

so sad all they think about is money when functionality/compatibility is a far better route to follow

10

ShuRugal t1_jefylll wrote

>is a far better route to follow

you're thinking like a consumer.

If you think in terms of "how can we squeeze more money out of consumers" taking away features and then charging for a replacement feature is better.

8

ifarteditssmelly t1_jefyw46 wrote

It shouldn’t be all about money to them I could never just up and change everything I do and charge subscriptions just for the money it’s sad how money hungry they are

1

ShuRugal t1_jeg2lsf wrote

I agree, it shouldn't.

However, that's the society we have constructed and the business culture we allow to exist. Wanna change it? Advocate for stronger unions and consumer protection laws. Or, as the right would tell you that means: vote for socialists.

5

kleptokiller82 t1_jega4ut wrote

While I agree with the sentiment, none of those things would have helped this situation, the only way they’ll learn is by not buying the product and causing them to lose money.

5

ShuRugal t1_jegcl9f wrote

>the only way they’ll learn is by not buying the product and causing them to lose money.

This isn't about "teaching" companies to behave better. You can't. They've worked out how to exploit consumers to their own benefit. You might as well suggest that we can change the behavior of casinos by just waiting for all the gambling addicts to stop gambling.

The only way to stop the behavior is to force it to stop.

1

kleptokiller82 t1_jegdwyf wrote

Unfortunately you can’t force a company to use another companies technology (in this case android auto and CarPlay), only if that’s a genuine deal breaker for the majority will they adjust their strategy. If we’re talking about safety, better pay and conditions etc.. then you’re suggestions would absolutely help. The EU can do some things (such as the usb mandate for charging or all new cars required to have a SOS function to call police in the event of a crash) but these are open standards and not tied to a specific company.

0

ShuRugal t1_jegkytt wrote

>Unfortunately you can’t force a company to use another companies technology

Ignoring that we can do exactly that...

Something we can do without doing that is to require that if the car is sold with a physical capability, that capability must be enabled without additional fees being required.

Another option is to require that if the car is sold with a software integration feature, it must include integration with an open standard.

The third option, "force them to support someone else's software" is to mandate that if the car has any connectivity features, it must support connectivity with all devices having over a certain percentage of market share or raw number user base.

4

TheQuarantinian t1_jeh0tko wrote

IBM found out the hard way that exclusive tie-in was against the law. Once upon a time they tried to force only IBM brand punch cards to be used with their machines, but International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U.S. 131 (1936) put a stop to that.

So imagine that GM says "you can buy this car with remote start, but you can only use said feature if you also purchase a subscription to GMremote. And using DMCA protections we will block you from using an aftermarket remote starter.

That probably wouldn't fly.

1

Sad_Error4039 t1_jegq4h3 wrote

I agree but trust me Apple sales one device to me in 4-5 different pieces now they are no better.

−1

youbetca t1_jegn76a wrote

I know this is bs, but they could charge me for CarPlay and I would pay it. I am definitely picking my next car based on whether it has CarPlay.

0