Hacker News Reader

I think they’re also a bit blind towards what potential market they’re losing, even if it’s just step by step.

My peer group would probably have been a great target 10 years ago. Now I hardly know anyone at my level with a car, and if, it’s an old one or cheaper brand. I think this is a luxury product in decline, other options just keep getting better. If I like to pay a lot, I’ll just Uber everywhere. Public transport is becoming less shitty (eg with contactless payments in a lot of places, and google maps to find the routes), cycling is safer (and showers in offices) etc. Why deal with this nonsense, and insurance and fines and parking and repairs?

I think they’re looking at these revenue streams as a way to save themselves because it might increase revenue per customer, without seeing that it might actually reduce their market share even further.

Your experience with this will vary hugely with where you are.

If I live in London, then almost everyone I see regularly will be living car-free. If I live in Weasenham in Norfolk, probably far fewer of my friends and neighbours will have a car-free lifestyle.

This sounds right for someone that lives in a city and doesn't have kids. If you have a family then the options you laid out above don't work very well and if you live in the suburbs then constant uber/biking/public transport are not long term options.

> If you have a family then the options you laid out above don't work very well

Genuine question: Why is it that whenever someone on a forum mentions the phrase "public transit", inevitably someone comes along under ten minutes later to tell them how they're obviously wrong?

I am in my 50s. My wife and I have raised children in a city. Many years ago, before transit got much better, we hauled them up into the high-stair buses and strapped their strollers into wheelchair spaces. Trips to the mountains were an annual affair, at best, on poorly-documented shuttle buses. These days, my kids routinely go hiking in the Gorge or out to the Peninsula on nothing but a transit card and a day pack.

My children are now adults and none of them have learned to drive nor have any interest in doing so. Almost our entire friends group is the same, even through the pandemic. The most common reason to be an exception and having been required to learn how to drive is because they got priced out of where they live.

Perhaps it is time for the auto-responders to transit posts to adjust to a wider view of society?

I'm not sure why the swift backlash - you lived in a city. As I wrote "This sounds right for someone that lives in a city AND doesn't have kids." At the very least, that's an important "AND"

Which city?

The tube in London isn’t really even suitable for suitcases, let alone push chairs. Nor is the New York subway. Anyone that puts stairs in a transit hub needs to have a good long think about what they’ve done.

Perhaps Hong Kong, Seoul or Tokyo I could see this being the case though.

I have a family in a city. Judging by the cars around here, I’d say this is more likely to be BMWs market than most of the countryside. And I also think I would have had a car 10 years ago, now it’s just not anything I’d really consider without massive amounts of persuasion.

> The only way to stop this is with regulation

This is a controversial point, but a salient one.

If EVERY manufacturer makes a smart TV, then there are no longer dumb TVs. It is collusion of a sort, not a monopoly. One could argue: just don't buy a TV, but there is some weird kind of inertia behind the purchasing of a TV that is immune to that claim. It is not essential to own one, but it shouldn't have to be a surveillance device. I expect the EU to address this long before the USA does, as the latter seems to be struggling with its politics doing even basic things for its people.

My totaled 2009 Jetta is going to be with me until I grind it to dust.

When the dystopian future hits, I'll have a backup car that isn't reporting every behavior and remote controlled.

Perhaps there will spring a cottage industry around enabling these features without a subscription.

I'm sure the lawsuits will flow — but bad look, no? Shades of McDonald's shake machine....

Recall the "satellite TV hacking" market? Note what happened to that when the satellite TV operators stopped fighting with each other.

Of course the Auto industry hasn't got the clout to make states serve them the way the Entertainment industry does, yet.

They'll regulatory capture that industry out of existence before it ever gets off the ground and you (you HN readers, not you personally) will vote for the politicians that will do it after telling you it's to prevent odometer fraud or dodging safety/emissions inspections. Maybe they'll even frame it as something those filthy poors who should be taking the bus anyway are doing that needs to be reigned in.

I kind of hope that said cottage industry won't spring up, because then more of these products will be sold than if people just start paying attention to their purchased and avoiding these anti-features entirely.

Hacking these features to work is treating the symptom, not the disease.

TVs became cheaper thanks to smartification, because networks pay for the privilege of having built-in support, and it more than compensates for the small increase in material cost.

The reason we don't have dumb TVs anymore is that very few people want to pay more for less.

About privacy, regulation is an option, but you have to realize that it goes against the will of most customers. The market has told us that people are ready to sell their private life to the highest bidder. We are often saying that it is greedy companies that do that, but in reality, by prioritizing price and features over privacy, that's our choice. There are companies that target the privacy market, and they have their niche.

Now, it is wouldn't be the only incidence of regulations that go against what consumers want because of higher goals. For example, people typically don't care about the environment, but it is important, that's why there are regulations in place to force consumers to pay for "greener" things. Same thing for safety, people don't always want to pay for safety (but they still complain later when an accident happen...), so they regulate it. And drugs, people like drugs, but since it is considered bad for them, these are regulated. Should we protect people privacy against themselves? Maybe, there are arguments for and arguments against, culturally, the US would be more likely say "no" and Europe would be more likely to say "yes", I don't really have an opinion.

As somebody who wants a world with more buses, cycling, and walking, I welcome the car companies declaring war on their own users.

Maybe it feels like there is no hope but to pay auto companies to abuse you, but there are alternatives, and we can all help try to build the world we want to live in.

Eh, i doubt this will affect the amount of cars being bought or how popular Public transportation is.

Well said. I hope consumers begin to recognize this and there becomes a trend for 'dumb products'.

It’s easy, just don’t buy one /s

Surveillance capitalism, transhumanism, AI government, tech overlords. People have no guts or comprehension to revolt.

We are an easy target for the combination of psychology and technology hacks which is “bestowed” upon us. For some time ahead, there will be a temporary mitigation route.

But in general, we all have fallen to our internal strive for comfort and convenience. Eventually, with high energy prices and scarce resources, we all be renting everything. So you will own nothing.