Jump to content

Your next BMW might only have heated seats for 3 months

4 hours ago, dizmo said:

You find it hard to buy phones or consoles? There's only a handful of consoles to choose from...

Just because it's in the car didn't mean you paid for the feature though. Sometimes it's more cost effective to include everything in one unit, instead of making tons of different models. So, if Mr X wanted a car with these 8 options, he wouldn't have to go to a dealership in a different town to get it, it could simply be coded at the dealership. We'll see this model grow substantially with electric cars, especially with OTA updates becoming a thing.

 

If you didn't pay for the option, no, you didn't pay for it, regardless of if it's in the vehicle or not.

If I paid for it and the hardware is included, I have every right to do what I want to that hardware. I'm not going to be charged for flipping a switch. I have every right to modify something I own for my own use as long as it does not violate the law.

 

This will be bypassed, and it absolutely should be. You have just guaranteed that I will hold off on buying an EV as long as I possibly can.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2020 at 9:02 PM, Trik'Stari said:

If I paid for it and the hardware is included, I have every right to do what I want to that hardware. I'm not going to be charged for flipping a switch. I have every right to modify something I own for my own use as long as it does not violate the law.

 

This will be bypassed, and it absolutely should be. You have just guaranteed that I will hold off on buying an EV as long as I possibly can.

I think one could argue that if I didn't pay for it then why did they include it? 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think one could argue that if I didn't pay for it then why did they include it? 

That's a good point.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah this sounds like a great idea... This will cause people to install hacked software into their cars which, you know, sounds perfectly safe. A car capable of insane speeds with software developed by some homebrewers.

I love homebrews, don't get me wrong, but creating a market for these in the first place sounds like a really bad idea.

I mean there is already cracked software for that tractor brand because you can't repair them without some BS. They are lethal, but in much lower numbers and not exactly around many pedestrians.

If you want my attention, quote meh! D: or just stick an @samcool55 in your post :3

Spying on everyone to fight against terrorism is like shooting a mosquito with a cannon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

That's a good point.

One could further argue, if they included it because it was cheaper for them to install than not, then what they are actually arguing is that they gave you the option because it would have cost them more to not do so, in which case they cannot sue you for financial losses in the event you circumvent their software and use said feature.

 

All other arguments amount to artificial product control after the sale.  Something which is illegal in most jurisdictions.

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

One could further argue, if they included it because it was cheaper for them to install than not, then what they are actually arguing is that they gave you the option because it would have cost them more to not do so, in which case they cannot sue you for financial losses in the event you circumvent their software and use said feature.

 

All other arguments amount to artificial product control after the sale.  Something which is illegal in most jurisdictions.

 

 

That's just beautiful. You absolute mad man.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught the WAN show late but wanted to jump over here to add my 2c.

 

I think that Linus brings up some really good points and some very sad points for myself being a car enthusiast. 

 

One thing that I think he's over looking a little bit is this already exists to some extent with options/trim levels that are available with vehicles already. As it is currently a manufacturer will have a chassis or in some cases a shared platform that multiple vehicles are built on. These vehicles will have options available that can be added to the base model if desired. These options add $ to the final cost of the car and are paid for overtime via a lease or loan. Conceptually this isn't that far off from doing what BMW has proposed with just having what is essentially one vehicle with all options included and those options are just gated in a different way. Rather than paying for them to be included in the car, you pay for it over time. 

 

I think the only way this ends up working for anyone involved is if the base cost of the car with no options enabled comes down. Now as a consumer I could buy a BMW that maybe I wouldn't otherwise be able to afford but not enable any of the options that come with said vehicle. If I decide to later I can enable them or if not I can keep them disabled. It doesn't take away from what the experience of owning the base model car would be if we stick with the way things are currently done and can open BMW up to new customers. 

 

Not that everyone would want to follow this but there are plenty of aftermarket replacements out there that can make this a complete moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2020 at 4:02 AM, Trik'Stari said:

If I paid for it and the hardware is included, I have every right to do what I want to that hardware. I'm not going to be charged for flipping a switch. I have every right to modify something I own for my own use as long as it does not violate the law.

 

This will be bypassed, and it absolutely should be. You have just guaranteed that I will hold off on buying an EV as long as I possibly can.

This is the argument used for satellite piracy and it doesn't fly. 

 

Not that it would ever stop someone from doing it and the dealership having a tug-of-war over the feature being enabled.

tenor.gif?itemid=10310373

 

I have a feeling though that this will largely be features controlled by the entertainment unit computer and not just ECU programming like what currently goes on. As a typical example, what people would do,  and still do in cities that have such requirements is that when a vehicle must be inspected for safety/air-pollution/etc the user undoes their tweaks, get's it serviced, has it inspected, and then puts their tweaks back that would knowingly violate safety and air-pollution controls. Remember what Volkswagen did https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772 and got fined mercilessly for it.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kisai said:

This is the argument used for satellite piracy and it doesn't fly. 

 

Not that it would ever stop someone from doing it and the dealership having a tug-of-war over the feature being enabled.

-snip

I have a feeling though that this will largely be features controlled by the entertainment unit computer and not just ECU programming like what currently goes on. As a typical example, what people would do,  and still do in cities that have such requirements is that when a vehicle must be inspected for safety/air-pollution/etc the user undoes their tweaks, get's it serviced, has it inspected, and then puts their tweaks back that would knowingly violate safety and air-pollution controls. Remember what Volkswagen did https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772 and got fined mercilessly for it.

 

 

 

That's an interesting way to look at it.

 

I disagree, but it is interesting to think about the arguments they will make.

 

As @mr moose pointed out, this is artificial product control, post sale, which is illegal in most jurisdictions.

 

Counter to your arguments, bypassing these lockdowns does not violate the rights of a third party (as satellite piracy does) and it does not cause a loss of income to the manufacturer, as it would have (allegedly) cost the manufacturer more to not include the hardware necessary to enable these features. It's literally a cost saving measure.

 

If someone decides to develop their own software to enable this hardware, as far as I understand the law, it is entirely exempt from copyright as it is an original work, so long as it is developed without the use of software from the manufacturer.

 

If I purchase a piece of hardware, it is entirely within my rights to operate that hardware as I see fit, so long as it does not violate the law. As I understand it, there are no laws preventing me from altering that hardware, or using custom software to operate that hardware, so long as that software was not developed using purchased and cracked, or outright stolen software from the manufacturer, because I would be using that software without the permission of the developer. However if I was using software developed by and given away for free, a third party..... well BMW is just going to lose that fight completely, at the very least, they deserve to.

 

This entire concept is stupid, and to be honest, if they're going to include the hardware, they should just have the features be enabled from the get go and not create different "version" of the same physical object and be happy with the savings from eliminating excess production lines.

 

to wit, they can eat a ****. This is a stupid idea, no one should pay for it, everyone that buys a BMW (that falls under this idea) should just buy the base model and use 3rd party developed software to completely bypass any and all lockouts. They're doing this to save on costs and that is admirable, but having different product levels only separated by software is just fucking greedy. If they want to have different product levels, they should just stick to the industry standard of having different trim packages that actually offer different hardware.

 

As far as I know, there is no legal precedent to support preventing me from modifying (or repairing, for that matter) an object that I own. There is no precedent, as far as I know, allowing them to prevent me from uploading a completely custom, independently created software, to said physical object that I own.

 

I can purchase all the components to physically assemble a computer. I have the legal right to develop my own operating system and use it to run that computer, or, I can use one developed under a free use license and given away for free, as I see fit. Basically, the existence of Linux entirely invalidates this business model.

 

I'm honestly surprised that their legal department didn't tell them "this is a fucking stupid idea, everyone will buy the base model and just bypass your lockouts, and you have absolutely no rights to stop them, at all."

 

The farming industry already has this issue ongoing. John Deer has similar control schemes for their absurdly priced equipment. Farmers have cottoned onto the idea of just bypassing software lockouts using software reverse engineered by "hackers" from overseas. As far as I know, John Deer can do nothing to stop them, other than lobby congress. Which has garnered a LOT of pushback, last I checked.

 

In short, fuck em.

 

Edit: If this seems a bit rambling, I am drunk, and very tired. I had a long ass day of physical labor.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

 

Counter to your arguments, bypassing these lockdowns does not violate the rights of a third party (as satellite piracy does) and it does not cause a loss of income to the manufacturer, as it would have (allegedly) cost the manufacturer more to not include the hardware necessary to enable these features. It's literally a cost saving measure.

 

 

Even if it does cost more, they are choosing to give it to the customer anyway.   

 

Lets do this with a BT speaker,  imagine we buy a speaker for a party and it only works with BT if you pay the monthly license,  Is it illegal for me to pull out the BT unit and put in my own BT unit?  of course it's not,   we can do whatever we want with products we purchase so long as we are not reselling IP or breaking copyright.  Given I am not reselling anything it is not illegal, not in any conceivable way.  

 

What's next? tying replacement parts to genuine only?  I'm sorry but apple already is trying that and they can fuck right off with it too.

 

 

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Even if it does cost more, they are choosing to give it to the customer anyway.   

 

Lets do this with a BT speaker,  imagine we buy a speaker for a party and it only works with BT if you pay the monthly license,  Is it illegal for me to pull out the BT unit and put in my own BT unit?  of course it's not,   we can do whatever we want with products we purchase so long as we are not reselling IP or breaking copyright.  Given I am not reselling anything it is not illegal, not in any conceivable way.  

 

What's next? tying replacement parts to genuine only?  I'm sorry but apple already is trying that and they can fuck right off with it too.

 

 

 

 

The catch is that hardware is not that simple. Even devices that became open by accident (the Linksys WRT54G as one example) still was derived from the GPL sources. You can't build an entire car OS from scratch as easily as you could an OS for a 386, which is what Linux is.

 

To which, honestly I'm fine with seeing hardware reverse engineered as long as the goal is to unlock the hardware features that have been disabled or prolong the life of the device. But that's pretty much never the case, and a lot of RE 's goals are basically to pirate the "better version" of a software package and replace the crippled one it came with. That better version might be hacked official software such as MacOS X hackintoshes, or PS2/PS3/PS4/PSP firmware, or it might simply be ways of bypassing crappy licencing problems (eg software that was withdrawn from sale due to license expiry, so there's literately no way to acquire it legally since you can't transfer software from one device to another due to licencing as well.) 

 

My hope is that a lot of this "feature locked by manufacturer/dealer, unlockable subscription" nonsense goes away and sees a similar backlash that Adobe gets for it's own licencing nonsense. 

 

If you buy vehicle, and it has the hardware to run the autopilot software, then there should be nothing stopping me from putting my own autopilot software on it as long as I don't just steal it from another car that also has it, I should be able to transfer that software from that car I traded in to the new car.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

The catch is that hardware is not that simple. Even devices that became open by accident (the Linksys WRT54G as one example) still was derived from the GPL sources. You can't build an entire car OS from scratch as easily as you could an OS for a 386, which is what Linux is.

 

When it comes to legality, complexity is not an issue.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

To which, honestly I'm fine with seeing hardware reverse engineered as long as the goal is to unlock the hardware features that have been disabled or prolong the life of the device. But that's pretty much never the case, and a lot of RE 's goals are basically to pirate the "better version" of a software package and replace the crippled one it came with. That better version might be hacked official software such as MacOS X hackintoshes, or PS2/PS3/PS4/PSP firmware, or it might simply be ways of bypassing crappy licencing problems (eg software that was withdrawn from sale due to license expiry, so there's literately no way to acquire it legally since you can't transfer software from one device to another due to licencing as well.) 

 

My hope is that a lot of this "feature locked by manufacturer/dealer, unlockable subscription" nonsense goes away and sees a similar backlash that Adobe gets for it's own licencing nonsense. 

 

If you buy vehicle, and it has the hardware to run the autopilot software, then there should be nothing stopping me from putting my own autopilot software on it as long as I don't just steal it from another car that also has it, I should be able to transfer that software from that car I traded in to the new car.

 

 

The good thing about IP and copyright law, is that it is not illegal to write and distribute a program that modifies existing software, The only hurdle is removing DRM, which is quite the grey area for an OS on a product (as opposed to content) you already have paid for.   

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of options that require expensive hardware that the manufacturer may never get paid for throughout the vehicle's life, it seems like a bold strategy. Also, what happens when the car is out of warranty and the owner pays for an upgrade that doesn't work because the hardware is faulty? On the upside there will be fewer options the salesman can insist you get to maintain resale value.

 

I think the subscription rather than purchase model is about to receive a wider public backlash. A lot of people have recently lost their job, or will do so over the next 9-12 months. Once your income goes all the things you subscribed to goes too, with little bought you will be left with little. It is especially serious for people who rely on expensive software as a business owner, or freelancer, as you'll lose the tools of your trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×