Safety as DLC? Motorcycle Airbag vest will not deploy if you miss a payment

[Moonzy]

20 minutes ago, CerealExperimentsLain said:

The few hundred milliseconds of lag that could add alone could be life and death.

imagine dying in real life because of lag 

no one would believe you and call u a noob

[poochyena]

5 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Well, it's not if the company in question has a monopoly - and that monopoly is quite often legally guaranteed via the patent system.

 

(I don't know if the technology in question here actually has a current patent on it, but you get the point)

They don't, but either way, monopolies are anti-capitalistic.

[Quackers101]

54 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

The funniest fact is that you could buy insulin for way less a few decades ago and that isn't simpky due to inflation as the price increases have been massively over the normal inflation rate.

Yeah that is complete BS. And how little insulin costs while the tools would cost more than the insulin itself and doesn't need that much insulin in the product anyways? And I think there was not a long lifetime on insulin or something, which should make it worse.

VOX - healthcare/drugs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNla9nyRMmQ

Healthcare triage - insulin price
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx08ldVSvd4

 

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

imagine dying in real life because of lag 

no one would believe you and call u a noob

That could happen pre 2000.  Mainframe machines could have ferocious multiple minute lag sometimes if there were enough users doing sufficiently complicated things.  Airlines used the same sorts of devices. There were also dialup modems to mix in too.  I can’t point to an instance of it actually happening but it was more possible.  These days lag is an order of magnitude less ferocious.

[Vanderburg]

7 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

Please do not make safety features freaking DLC.

That's not how DLC works. It's a subscription service. If you don't pay the subscription, you don't get that service. (I take no position on whether it's good or bad)

[rcmaehl]

Just now, Vanderburg said:

That's not how DLC works. It's a subscription service. If you don't pay the subscription, you don't get that service. (I take no position on whether it's good or bad)

It's either or actually. $399 + another $399 or $399 + $12/mo

[TempestCatto]

As a motorcyclist, this is fucking stupid. I've already crashed at low speed (25ish mph), thankfully no cars were around (back road). I was ejected from my bike and landed in the center of the roadway (I also bounced once or twice, very jarring). Had I not had a helmet, I'd've cracked my head open. If I wasn't wearing a jacket, my skin would have scrapped off (probably not down to the bone, but still way worse than your average "scrape"). My jeans also saved my legs, but my left knee still got beat up really bad (I have permanent scaring on it now). I had a limp for only about 2ish months, so all in all I consider myself very fortunate and say it was a minor accident.

 

So, that said. I have some experience crashing a bike. My personal take on this is: this is legitimately unsafe. Does it provide extra padding regardless? Yes. But the whole point of this is to cushion the impact. When your product does not work as advertised, that's a scam. When your product is meant to save lives, you really shouldn't be charging for it (at least like a subscription that is). It's like if you had a life vest for boating, fell in the water, then the vest just deflates because you didn't catch a big enough fish. I sure as shit would have loved to have an airbag vest when I crashed. But I'm very glad I did not have this on at the time. Unsafe...

[atxcyclist]

24 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

As a motorcyclist, this is fucking stupid. I've already crashed at low speed (25ish mph), thankfully no cars were around (back road). I was ejected from my bike and landed in the center of the roadway (I also bounced once or twice, very jarring). Had I not had a helmet, I'd've cracked my head open. If I wasn't wearing a jacket, my skin would have scrapped off (probably not down to the bone, but still way worse than your average "scrape"). My jeans also saved my legs, but my left knee still got beat up really bad (I have permanent scaring on it now). I had a limp for only about 2ish months, so all in all I consider myself very fortunate and say it was a minor accident.

 

So, that said. I have some experience crashing a bike. My personal take on this is: this is legitimately unsafe. Does it provide extra padding regardless? Yes. But the whole point of this is to cushion the impact. When your product does not work as advertised, that's a scam. When your product is meant to save lives, you really shouldn't be charging for it (at least like a subscription that is). It's like if you had a life vest for boating, fell in the water, then the vest just deflates because you didn't catch a big enough fish. I sure as shit would have loved to have an airbag vest when I crashed. But I'm very glad I did not have this on at the time. Unsafe...

I ride every day and I wouldn't buy this device. While I'm sure it offers some impact protection, MotoGP guys wipe out at 120mph and walk off all the time, and a set of race leathers are not a subscription-based purchase. My guess is that the manufacturer wants to push for this tech into homologized racing so they can collect a huge subscription fee from all the teams.

[Kisai]

8 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

 

 

My thoughts

Dear god. Please do not make safety features freaking DLC. I can understand if you don't have the equipment already installed that you could sell the equipment for a one time cost, but to have the safety equipment already installed and just... refuse to let it work is just petty. A human life is worth more than a petty $12/month profit, especially when they're relying on your safety product. Just have it activate, and if the company is REALLY that petty, just take the debtor to collections. At the very least, if a lawsuit comes about this, it will dissuade other manufacturers from thinking about doing the same.

 

Sources

Vice (media source)

Jalopnik (quote source)

Um, that's a leasing mechanic. While I think it's pretty stupid if it can be disabled if a payment is missed, it's not "DLC" by the same virtue we would call game microtransactions or microsoft/adobe software rentals.

 

However if you actually read the transcript:

Quote

Shelby 01:49:46 pm: 3a. Choose from $12/month or $120/year subscription options, which include unlimited In&Box warranty, anytime cancellations, VIP support services, and a new In&Box after 3 years.

3b. Or choose the $399 one-time purchasing option which includes 2-year warranty and classic support services.These are the 2 subscriptions options.

Jason Torchinsky 01:50:13 pm so $399 and it always works, as long as I have it?

Shelby 01:51:23 pm You will pay the $399.99 and then the subscription fee of your choosing

 

Honestly, this is more of a double-dipping nonsense, where if you buy the item straight out, you STILL pay the subscription fee. So yes, it's a subscription, in a literal sense.

Quote

Ah, so I see why I was confused: after paying $400 for the vest, you can “unlock” it by either paying another $399 or you can do the $12/month thing. Either way you have to pay more to make it actually work.

 

Yeah at that point I'd be like "f no."

 

As far as "subscription" and "cloud services" nonsense works, safety and security should NEVER be subscription based. It should be a one-time purchase, or a perpetual lease, where they replace the hardware every year/off-year. If you cancel the lease, then yes you've technically not returned the property of the company and they can charge you a early termination fee if it's not sent back. This is Cellphone BS 101.

 

That said, "security/safety monitoring" isn't completely out of the question, but if you're paying for it, you better have an immediate response. If you get into an accident, the monitoring company should be dispatching 911 to your location if the airbag fires. Assuming the device can't do it itself (which it should be able to if paired to the phone in the first place.)

 

[xtroria]

You would hope all of automotive industry would learn from boeing 737 max and wont make critical safety features optional

 

Apparently not.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, xtroria said:

You would hope all of automotive industry would learn from boeing 737 max and wont make critical safety features optional

 

Apparently not.

“Critical” is the key word though.  There’s a group of insurance agencies that put out safety verification tests which have done really a lot for automobiles. They’ve effectively mandated door bars and integral roll cages and air bags and seat belts and a bunch of other stuff.  Even headlights and how high bumpers can be.  The thing about motorcycles is theyre more or less just death traps to start with.  If they mandated safety features for those things the first thing they would do is ban them.  A lot of insurance companies don’t even OFFER motorcycle insurance. 

[Sauron]

10 hours ago, Murasaki said:

Now when you mention it... doesn't this thing need to be CHARGED too?! I didn't see anything saying it can be hooked up to anything, just sitting on the back as a standalone module.

 

I assume you can take it out of the vest and charge it. I could live with that considering I don't really see a way for something like this to work without a battery.

[Bananasplit_00]

I mean you don't really want one of these anyway. You should get one that pops on a tether instead. Won't ever fail you while these IMU deep learning things could. Don't need to be cloud connected and they are cheap to refill. These smart ones are usually toss or send in to the manu to get refilled

[crystal6tak]

How long until our CPU/GPU performance is throttled unless we pay a subscription fee Lol

[jagdtigger]

13 hours ago, Sauron said:

critical security equipment requiring an internet connection to function rings all sorts of alarm bells

Honestly the fact that it is connected to  the net is raising a red flag.....  Security/Safety systems should not be exposed to the net, period.

[WolframaticAlpha]

14 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

Summary

Manufacturer Klim's airbag vest is designed not to deploy if a payment is missed. 

 

Media

 

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

Dear god. Please do not make safety features freaking DLC. I can understand if you don't have the equipment already installed that you could sell the equipment for a one time cost, but to have the safety equipment already installed and just... refuse to let it work is just petty. A human life is worth more than a petty $12/month profit, especially when they're relying on your safety product. Just have it activate, and if the company is REALLY that petty, just take the debtor to collections. At the very least, if a lawsuit comes about this, it will dissuade other manufacturers from thinking about doing the same.

 

Sources

Vice (media source)

Jalopnik (quote source)

Ea would be proud

[Bombastinator]

Cost is $144/year.  That’s crazy.  The thing isn’t just scary it’s more expensive too. Get a regular and borrow the money.  It’s a better deal.  totally aside from being safer, it’s cheaper.

[Tristerin]

Sounds like...people shouldnt buy it unless they want to.

[Tristerin]

7 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Honestly the fact that it is connected to  the net is raising a red flag.....  Security/Safety systems should not be exposed to the net, period.

Just read this comment, great point, first person to get hacked while driving and forced airbag to deploy will own the company selling them. (if they live)

[sof006]

I hope the company goes bust

[suicidalfranco]

When a short string invented eons ago is more reliable than the latest example in high tech

[Eaglerino]

23 hours ago, DobertRownySr said:

I mean, if you don't agree to the service, then simply don't buy it.

This advice doesn't work. This has been given as a 'solution' since mobile mictrotransactions and crappy DLC practices got invented. People are going to pay for it no matter how stupid it is. Sure, maybe not this specific item, but if subscriptions and DLC becomes more common in cars (already seen in Teslas and BMWs) then people won't care, they'll pay for it no matter how stupid it is.

[Pickles von Brine]

This sounds fucked. 

[DobertRownySr]

12 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

This advice doesn't work. This has been given as a 'solution' since mobile mictrotransactions and crappy DLC practices got invented. People are going to pay for it no matter how stupid it is. Sure, maybe not this specific item, but if subscriptions and DLC becomes more common in cars (already seen in Teslas and BMWs) then people won't care, they'll pay for it no matter how stupid it is.

Last I checked, in the past 15 years or so of gaming, I haven't once bought or needed to buy a microtransaction that I wasn't willing to get. Also, I'm not sure how two brands of cars allowing people to pay to unlock certain features is a new thing? Satellite radio has been like that for over a decade. In which case, the same principals apply, if you don't like something, don't buy it.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, DobertRownySr said:

Last I checked, in the past 15 years or so of gaming, I haven't once bought or needed to buy a microtransaction that I wasn't willing to get.

Yeah, and your personal experience is obviously representative of the entire population including children and problem gamblers.

 

 

Clearly, game companies keep shoving microtransactions into full price games because nobody buys them.

 

2 minutes ago, DobertRownySr said:

Also, I'm not sure how two brands of cars allowing people to pay to unlock certain features is a new thing? Satellite radio has been like that for over a decade.

Satellite radio isn't required for your airbag to work.

3 minutes ago, DobertRownySr said:

In which case, the same principals apply, if you don't like something, don't buy it.

Until this becomes the norm and you can't not buy it if you want to drive a car.