ifarteditssmelly t1_jefyw46 wrote on March 31, 2023 at 6:58 PM

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

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

ShuRugal t1_jeg2lsf wrote on March 31, 2023 at 7:23 PM

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.

kleptokiller82 t1_jega4ut wrote on March 31, 2023 at 8:13 PM

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.

ShuRugal t1_jegcl9f wrote on March 31, 2023 at 8:29 PM

>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.

kleptokiller82 t1_jegdwyf wrote on March 31, 2023 at 8:38 PM

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.

ShuRugal t1_jegkytt wrote on March 31, 2023 at 9:26 PM

>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.

TheQuarantinian t1_jeh0tko wrote on March 31, 2023 at 11:23 PM

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.