Mazda recently surprised customers by requiring them to sign up for a subscription in order to keep certain services. Now, notable right-to-repair advocate Louis Rossmann is calling out the brand.
It’s important to clarify that there are two very different types of remote start we’re talking about here. The first type is the one many people are familiar with where you use the key fob to start the vehicle. The second method involves using another device like a smartphone to start the car. In the latter, connected services do the heavy lifting.
Transition to paid services
What is wild is that Mazda used to offer the first option on the fob. Now, it only offers the second kind, where one starts the car via phone through its connected services for a $10 monthly subscription, which comes to $120 a year. Rossmann points out that one individual, Brandon Rorthweiler, developed a workaround in 2023 to enable remote start without Mazda’s subscription fees.
However, according to Ars Technica, Mazda filed a DMCA takedown notice to kill that open-source project. The company claimed it contained code that violated “[Mazda’s] copyright ownership” and used “certain Mazda information, including proprietary API information.”
This needs to be banned. In fact, “licenses” for things you buy should be outright banned entirely.
Yeah. Feel this is a slippery slope. First it’s supposedly luxury extras like heated seats and remote starts. Next something more critical when folks are habituated to the practice? Enpoopification all around.
Imagine a world where the laws are literally used to opress you!
Now open your eyes.
Narrator:
their eyes were open the whole time
Welcome to Night City.
I give it another 10 years before car makers just fucking give up on fighting this kind of thing.
It’s gonna be a rough 10 years though
The shitty thing is that if margins are high enough only a very small minority of owners need to subscribe in order for them to break even and then we get stuck with it for eternity like SiriusXM being implanted into practically everything.
And of course there’s no way to just ‘opt out’ of the hardware via trim levels. Shitty industry in general
Yes, capitalism is horrible bullshit that we all must suffer through (for now). No argument there.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but I believe that within the next decade, car companies are just going to have to deal with the fact that a lot of very intelligent (and independent) software developers are able to work around their proprietary crap. Currently, they’re fighting it rather a lot, but that fight can only be sustained for so long before it becomes unprofitable for the corporations.
I hope you are right!
An API is not copyrightable 🤔
it seems everything is copyrightable if you are rich enough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.
When two very rich entities argued about it it was determined you can’t copyright API.
Sure, but if you’re not rich and they sue you, you loose. No matter what, you’ll run out of money before successfully using that case.
I wasn’t disagreeing.
You’re assuming the law matters when a company can hire a team of lawyers and a solo dev can’t
I’m saying that when both sides have “infinite money” the “truth” can be found lol.
Doesn’t stop companies from sending bogus DMCA takedowns to sites like GitHub.
There are no penalties for filling a bogus DMCA takedown and the legal cost for restoring the content falls on the victim of such a takedown: the DMCA legislation was designed exactly for it to be used as Mazda and many other use it against individuals and small companies who can’t spend thousands of dollars fighting bogus takedowns.
There are penalties. They require proof of intent, however. So there are no penalties.
Why is there no big alternative hosted outside of the US where your DMCA does not apply?
There are other centralised code hosting services, for example Codeberg, but they are equally scared of any legal action even when it doesn’t directly apply.
And if they want to attack car owners for doing what they want with their own car let’s go to court and see how fast their bullshit holds up.
Can’t wait for the inevitable “You don’t actually own the car, you just have a lifetime licence/lease to use the car”
That’s being normalized right now with video games. It’ll happen with other things soon enough too.
Frankly, for a lot of places, I don’t know that would be such a bad idea.
Now doing the same for land, that would be bad…
It could make sense if the price were reflecting of not owning the car. But we know damn well that you would pay full price as if the car was yours, but you just wouldn’t own it.
Oh well, “if buying isn’t owning…” Time to watch some Lockpicking Lawyer and trundle down to the car licensing lot and indulge in a little piracy >;-)
I was considering a Mazda for my next car. Now I’m not.
I live in a place that gets fucking cold in the winter. If the normal fob option were always available and you get the option to pay for the convenience using an app, that would be one thing - though $10/month for that is ridiculous. But removing the fob option and locking this basic feature behind a subscription is exactly the sort of game I don’t want my vehicle to play with me.
Go ahead and sell roadside coverage, parts/repairs, batteries, get royalties from Sirius or whatever for extra cash flow. Make a great app that adds new convenient live-service features and is worth paying for, even. But fuck all these new subscription un-gimping games.
The subscriptions is free for the first few years so if you plan on trading it in definitely still worth it. While this does piss me off I still really like my mazda 2020
That’s called giving the drugs for free then taking it away so the addiction kicks in. Fuck that noise. Stop justifying it because it’s ‘free for now’
ISPs do this too…go look for new service, it’s a royal pain in the cock trying to find the actual cost before bullshit sales that can be taken away with minutes.
deleted by creator
Toyota, Mazda and Honda are the only makes I’ve really ever considered, or ever plan to consider. Of those 3, Honda has not gone that route yet as far as I know. Correct me if I’m wrong.
22 CRV here. Fob based remote start, no subscription for that or anything (though I would like to get the maps updates without payin) :(
I’ve used three remote start once in almost 3 years and I live in Wisconsin. It’s just really not that necessary. The car warms up quickly just driving.
Subaru does the same thing, on my car it was free for three years then you pay or lose all connected features. That includes remote start, there is no way to start the car from the keyfob.
on my car it was free for three years
At least it sounds like they told you this. They probably aligned it with the most common lease period. Mazda just suddenly decided to make it a subscription.
Ideally it should be longer, like 8-10 years.
Might as well throw Subarus into that list. They’re LGBT Toyotas lol
Subaru has their own set of issues
https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/02/23/subaru-right-to-repair-fight-cars
Toyota tried to push this exact same remote start subscription BS as well so cross them out too
Honda collects and sells your driving history without your consent.
ALL of them do this. Literally all.
Is there a sim card buried in there somewhere that can be removed or is it soldered in, potted, etc?
… Or your car bricks if you remove it wouldn’t surprise me, regardless.
Could very well be an eSIM …
It took me 6 months to find a newer truck that had no Internet connectivity at all, and it was a royal PITA.
deleted by creator
I was planning on going electric with my next vehicle and I’m really hoping they force all the Chinese brands to disconnect them for national security or whatever. Just that will make the special import tax worth it.
I’m also kind of pissed at most car companies anyways, they have been dragging their feet when it comes to climate change. At least Byd is trying to offer cheap evs even if it’s to fuck with our economy.
Don’t know if you can guarantee they’re disconnected.
They all are. Your only option would be to buy an older car without connected services and hope that you never need another one.
As much as I’m sure this answer will be hated, Tesla cars don’t require a subscription for basic remote services. What comes free is:
- traffic aware navigation updates
- OTA software updates mandated by recall
- phone app access
With the phone app there are zero regular features that require a monthly sub. Free things include:
- HVAC controls
- heated seats
- charging stats and start/stop chargin
- unlocking all doors, frunk and trunk
- even changing radio/SiriusXM stations
Tesla does have an optional monthly subscription but that gets you:
- streaming radio
- unlimited internet
- traffic density notations on nav maps
- satellite view in nav map
However the car operates just fine without any of that optional stuff and therefor there’s no mandatory fee for regular functionality.
Oh noes, somebody said something positive about Tesla! Get 'em boys!
Seriously though, I would like to see some legislation that made them offer connectivity free models. All the connectivity crap should be opt-in. If you don’t opt in they don’t connect the SIM card.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Those things are free…for now….while they feel like it. There’s nothing stopping them from charging for that stuff when their stock price dips another 20%.
Those things are free…for now….while they feel like it. There’s nothing stopping them from charging for that stuff when their stock price dips another 20%.
They could change it for cars purchased in the future, but they can’t do what Mazda did and start charging for it now. So its either lifetime of free Standard connectivity, or at worst 8 years. These are part of the purchase agreement.
“All new Tesla vehicles ordered on or before July 20, 2022, will have Standard Connectivity features at no cost for the lifetime of the vehicle (excluding retrofits or upgrades required for any features or services externally supplied to the vehicle – e.g. telecommunications network). As additional features and services become available in the future, you will have the opportunity to upgrade your connectivity plan.”
I still don’t understand how that stops them from charging a subscription when their stock drops a bit more.
Contract law.
You know that “Terms and Conditions” you agree to all the time that binds you to things. It binds them too to those terms. The terms I posted above were what both car buyers and Tesla agreed to at the time of purchase.
The same courts that continue to allow the sale of “Full Self Driving”? You have a lot of faith in a system that has aggressively and repeatedly shown that it does not care about you.
Teslas unlimited Internet package is also super cheap at $100/year the last time I checked. Competitors are multiple times more expensive.
Wait… Even if users don’t pay for this, their car still comes a WWAN module that is hardwired to their ignition. Yes, I realize it’s more likely bolted on to the infotainment system and/or the car’s RTOS, but it’s still baked in.
Depends on the manufacturer’s implementation, but yeah in recent years they’ve made it really difficult if not impossible to remove
Some models are as easy as removing a fuse or unplugging an optional component from the infotainment system. So a “quick” 1-hour process can remove that noise from the car.
But I really shouldn’t have to rip apart my car just to remove spyware and nagware.
I might regret not searching about this before running my mouth here, but I would assume most automotive manufacturers, in 2024, are soldering the wwan modules onto the main board of the infotainment system for cost, and to prevent user removal of their subscription vector.
I would also assume most manufacturers who are converting standard automotive features into paid subscription services that dubiously rely on SaaS backends, are NOT also designing isolated architectures that separate the IoT infotainment system from the car’s critical systems like drive control, transmission, brakes, etc. I’m guessing most at least have CAN bus connections linking them together.
But I don’t know enough about cars and automotive systems to even pretend being knowledgeable. So, if anyone here is actually well versed on this subject (and not just searching forums before replying to me), please tell me I’m wrong, and how so.
Seriously, I want to be wrong about this.
actually well versed
That’s not me, I mostly searched forums and whatnot. My cars are all old enough that they don’t have this nonsense, and while I am handy with cars (do all my own maintenance), I’m not a mechanic, so I don’t have direct experience.
That said, at recent-ish Chevy cars w/ OnStar seem to have separate power and board for the wwan. I’ve watched a couple of these videos, and they seem pretty legit.
And with a quick check on Mazda, It seems you have two options:
- call customer support to have the TCU disabled - ends data collection and interaction, but the device can still be detected and communicated with
- remove the TCU - need to look up where it is, but for the '23 CX5, it’s below the center console; removal would turn on warning lights since it can’t find the device, but AFAIK it shouldn’t prevent vehicle registration or regular car operation
Again, I haven’t actually done this for any car, but it’s definitely something I’m going to be looking at before deciding on a make and model because I intend to remove whatever tracking BS they put in.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but OnStar is a 3rd party service, so it makes sense they would have a bolt-on device that can be removed without too much concern for the rest of the car’s functionality.
Also, isn’t a TCU something that controls a car’s drivetrain and transmission?
Edit: nevermind, just searched and found telematic control unit. Interesting, thanks for the info, I might look into this more if I have more time later.
Aftermarket android head unit. As long as they are able to sort out the canbus features, it’s a thing. Unfortunately, it’s mainly the Chinese that do this.
I unintentionally fibbed, because one thing I do have a bit of experience with is aftermarket car stereos, including double-DIN android units.
Granted, I haven’t tried to install one in a 2024 car, but a lot of modern infotainment systems can’t just be ripped out and replaced with aftermarket unit and retain the car’s original functionality, if it can be removed at all without breaking, or removing your access to core functions, like climate control, etc.
Here’s a picture of the interior of one of the cars in question, a 2024 Mazda CX-90
You’re not popping a double DIN in there, and even if you did remove the screen, I’m betting the actual infotainment system boards are inside the dash somewhere installed in a mounted panel box, and they aren’t just going to pop out and be replaceable like your standard head unit.
Another photo, this one from the linked article:
Chinese aftermarket “designed to fit” android head units aren’t just double din universals.
Well, crap! Was seriously looking at the CX50. I’m not paying monthly to use stuff that’s already equipped in the car. Just madness.
Love the CX-50…
I acknowledge the cell connectivity in the car costs Mazda money to keep running. Most cars with that kind of connectivity charge for it. But, I think 10/month is too much.
“capitalism promotes healthy competition”
But but, did you see the new “brand x brand x brand” product? The one where all the brands are owned by the same mega-corp and they just decided to smoosh their products together?
Innovation is dead and buried.
One of the biggest lie of all time.
Don’t forget innovation:
There’s an empty spot at the bottom of that list and the author – who by the way is a monster – could have easily included Subaru.
Hilariously, due to the teardrop shape, cars like this would be more aerodynamic if the shell was reversed.
Car companies do not want to innovate, because aerodynamic cars are “lame”, “soy”, etc.
People seem to have a low tolerance for what is considered weird when it comes to cars. That’s why most cars look the same. (Likely due to marketing and peer pressure)
Bar Atera, Ariel and a couple of other “unconventional” designs, and a handful of other concept cars. (Fuck the cybercrap, it’s the opposite of innovation)
TL;DR: cars could be way more aerodynamically efficient, but they aren’t, because people are peopleing.
And Communism does so much “better”:
Why don’t you go to Cuba and ask how they’ve been able to do it for ~100 years. Those people have self-reliance down to a fucking science at this point, and the cars they have been keeping running for 60+ years are a perfect example of it. Imagine if they were actually allowed to participate in global commerce.
So…who is making the open source car?
Are any of those open source?
It comes in parts and you can replicate them, isn’t that open source?
Nope. What makes if open source is that the designs are published and licensed using an open source license, such as CC BY-SA
Someone very rich who doesn’t feel the need to get arbitrarily richer.
So no one.
I’d be cool with starting a car company for as little as $1M salary; I don’t even need equity, just a couple hundred mil to get it started
There are definitely open source-ish options. Google locost 7
I don’t think “ish” is a thing. Either the sources are provided openly under a libre license, or they are not.
What license does the locost 7 release their designs under?
Locost 7 is a generic name for replica Lotus/Caterham 7 type cars that are built by people in garages, there’s no centralised body beyond “The Book” the original design came from. As far as I’m aware the book’s author has defended the design in court as being too generic to be protectable (which presumably precludes their design being used as a basis to prosecute anyone building something similar).
Most of the cars are built custom to the donor vehicle, taking the original design as a basis, there’s 100s of variations online with drawings - none of them are going to be protectable and no-one’s really tried in the 30 odd years since the book came out. No-one’s published anything with a libre license, I’m not sure if there’d be any point.
If the author licenses the book under a creative commons or other libre license, its open source. If not, its not open source hardware.
If the author would just announce that the book is licensed openly, then it would liberate lots of other orgs to be able to include his work in their work. Otherwise this is a dead end for other open hardware manufacturers
An ethical billionaire?
Yea, no one is right.
Edison Motors would be my bet.
That guy is doing some seriously cool open source shit on a HUGE scale (electric logging trucks). I’m sure once they perfect the process they will move into the car and truck market.
His media channels and shorts are always great, even if you have no knowledge or interest in the logging industry.
Can you link to the build instructions and CAD repo for the electric logging truck?
Did you bother to look into it at all? What you are asking doesn’t even make sense from a design standpoint.
Nobody asked for a car you can print.
The way they are building their electric truck is the smartest way. Using available, off-the-shelf parts that have proven reliability. Nobody is going to be using CAD to create custom parts. Reinventing the wheel is precisely the problem and Edison Motors is working to avoid those mistakes.
Also, they are taking design input/feedback at the consumer level right now, BEFORE they have a ‘completed’ product to purchase. This is as close to open source as you can get in my opinion.
You could literally buy the same parts out of a warehouse and build a logging truck yourself if you wanted to.
Or you can sit on the internet and complain without having any idea what you’re talking about.
If they’re using off the shelf parts and they include them in their open-source licensed CAD files, thats fine.
But, yes, CAD files are required, by definition, for open hardware projects. I said nothing about printing. CAD is needed for all types of manufacturing, even when using off the shelf standard parts like M3 bolts.
If they didn’t release CAD files and license them openly, this is not an open source project and its not worth contributing to.
I build open source hardware for a living btw, and ive built open hardware industrial machines. Don’t assume everyone you’re talking to on the Internet is sitting in an armchair without rolling up their sleeves in the shop. I’m legitimately looking for an open hardware car. Best ive found is OpenMotors Tabby. They’ve released their CAD files (which are licensed under CC BY-SA), but their documentation is terrible.
Here’s a link to help others https://openmotors.co/download
That doesn’t look like a car to me. I don’t even think they have a FOSS ICE afaict?
Car manufacturers are being so blatant about this stuff. It goes to show that they know how slow regulation is and they can milk it for all its worth.
“you wouldn’t download a car” was prophetic
“Of course I would” has always been the response though.
assholes
nope nope nope.
I don’t want anything smart in my car. I want a(n electric) engine that starts with a goddamned physical key that turns in a physical ignition. I want a volume knob that turns with a 1:1 ratio to the volume, ditto for climate control fan speed and temperature. The only thing I want my phone to do in conjunction with my cLilar is display the GPS.
So true… for me personally, I’d love to have a battery EV vehicle, but i just want a regular vehicle with a battery powerplant. I don’t want a mobile IOT advertising surveillance DRM non-repairable planned-olsolescence mobile which is how so many new vehicles are designed.
I feel like this is what we all signed up for vs what they delivered.
I’m very excited for Apreras vehicles and hope they are successful. Their whole philosophy is hyper efficient vehicles and they are committed to open repair and bring consumer friendly.
They seem to be the only company making cars or attempting to make cars that makes a point to say that they will make it as easy as possible for you to control, repair and fix your own vehicle.
