Hacker News Reader

Comment by gdilla | Hacker News Reader

This article seems a little harsh. Does leasing/renting the battery out make the car more affordable? Because aren't batteries still a huge cost driver for these vehicles? What is the difference in sticker price? And can drivers be incentivized to share their driving data - maybe lower insurance or insurance per mile, a lower battery leasing fee, etc? Just saying that this 'brickable car' may be worth it for some. No need to write it off just like that.

And would you really want to own an expensive battery that has to be replaced eventually at great cost?

View on HN

I don't think it's harsh enough. Renault wants to 'sell' a product to a consumer that he will never truly own.

>And can drivers be incentivized to share their driving data - maybe lower insurance or insurance per mile, a lower battery leasing fee, etc?

This reminds me of the fictional television set that used its built-in camera to take a photograph of its users' living rooms and lowered or raised the price of streaming movies based on how many people were in the room (as insurance that you're technically not broadcasting it to a group that they've determined as needing a paid license). Sure, it's intrusive and you're potentially paying more for a stream than ownership of the media, but maybe there's a bright side.

And really, do you want to buy a blu ray that's possibly, eventually going to have to be replaced by a more expensive format?

I don't know if it is really legit, but it seems there is a patent application from Microsoft, presumably using the Kinect, to count the number of people watching.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...

It wouldn't surprise me. Microsoft wanted to ship their new game console with audio/video sensors that constantly record. I wouldn't be shocked if they decide to ignore the consumer backlash and send back "some" data via an encrypted channel.

edit: Thanks for the interesting link to that patent.

Someone had to try it. That's how the world works, someone thinks it up, it's stupid, they make no money, people don't do it again. Honestly I am shocked it took so long.

More or less like Adobe cloud?

No, not at all like that.

Why not?

> Renault wants to 'sell' a product to a consumer that he will never truly own.

So exactly like when you purchase an ebook from Amazon, a game from Steam, or dozens other services where you think you own something but in reality you don't. I'm not saying it's good, but why do people get angry when it's more "real"? And at the same time are OK with it when it's something virtual?

>So exactly like when you purchase an ebook from Amazon, a game from Steam,

No, not like that. And definitely not "exactly like" that. Bridging the tangibility gap makes this into a different manner.

I think a lot of it has to do with expectations.

Personally, I don't buy DRM'd ebooks from Amazon, unless I happen to get them at a tremendous discount and consider it a throwaway item. (I think I have purchased 1 DRM'd ebook for my Kindle in the 3 years I have had it). I also only purchase steam games in a similar way- when highly discounted- mostly through the Humble Bundle deals. This is because I know what to expect, and I make other choices.

Amazon, Steam, etc. are not in fact capable of taking away the data I bought, no matter what they do with their servers.

Also I'm optimistic law will catch up and fix the first sale doctrine eventually, so that they won't even try to take away the data.

> Amazon, Steam, etc. are not in fact capable of taking away the data I bought, no matter what they do with their servers.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you elaborate? As of now, if e.g. your Steam account is suspended or the Steam servers shut down, you will no longer be able to play any of the games on that account (offline mode and DRM circumvention notwithstanding).

You may have access to a subset of the data on your disk (the games you previously downloaded), but they're still wrapped in DRM.

As an aside, Steam is also capable of removing games from your account, which they do e.g. in the case of a chargeback.

> I'm not sure what you mean by this

I meant circumvention. I paid for it, they're not taking it back.

Most of the games are in fact not wrapped in Steam DRM. Just by the way, as playing them is equal to pirating anyways. If your service is suspended you "can't" play them (even though you can).

This is getting slightly off-topic, but it's only a minority[1] of games that lack the Steam DRM wrapper and they're primarily indie titles. Nearly all (if not all) AA/AAA titles on Steam require Steam to be running.

[1] http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_st...

Since Amazon has remote deleted Kindle books in the past, your statement is clearly incorrect. They have since "promised" not to do it again. The capability remains.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18ama...

And I'll have it back in under an hour.

Unlike this battery system where I'm probably unable to fix it.

Well, I get angry about those things too. There's no way I'll "buy" a game from Steam for example.

A recent court case in Germany started to edge these disingenuous business practices into illegality. Hopefully things will continue to move in the right direction.

There are three obvious differences between this and software DRM. One is that this isn't a piece of non-critical software. You can live with your copy of 1989 being deleted from your kindle; something not so easy with a car.

Two is that a temporary loss of permissions to play a video game won't result in potentially permanent damage to that software; letting a modern battery run dry by refusing to charge it could.

Three, you're not saddled with a $15,000 plus hunk of metal, plastic, and rubber if your rights to use the software are revoked.

How does this DRM even work? What if the battery can't communicate with Renault, because you're in a country or region they don't have coverage (for example the mountains)?

You can get a SIM card that works in 160 countries for $15. And I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people who own an electric car but never drive it on an area with cellphone coverage is literally zero.

I had a car once that relied on the bank sending it a "payment was made" message to the car every two weeks. To say it was not reliable was an understatement. For a good two weeks after the original purchase, I could not rely on the car due to faults with their system working in an area with spotty cell coverage (which still exist even in the US).

To the last day of my obligation to that lender, I would have problems with it, typically due to weather, problems with the module itself, or any number of other factors.

I would hope that Renaults system is better than that... but I will be hard pressed to trust such a system ever again. Having your car shut down remotely due to faulty DRM really sucks.

The whole point is that they do not want to sell it. They want to rent it. They are quite explicit that this is not a purchase arrangement.

> Just saying that this 'brickable car' may be worth it for some.

Yes, and I'm sure that taking out huge mortgages on their houses was worth it for some people, especially just before 2007. But that doesn't mean that offering mortgages with no upfront payment is moral, or beneficial for the society. People can't properly value risk and most don't think long-term, so businesses can often trick them into doing things for short-term gain, long-term harm.

you're comparing unsustainable loans with a system to make a patently better (on most fronts) mode of driving available to the masses that can't afford a Tesla.

I'm just saying that all loans (given to the public) have a tendency to become unsunstainable.

Renting the battery is rather the opposite of a loan.

By removing the option to buy, and adding the DRM, Renault will have cornered the market in batteries for the car. Perhaps you'd like to buy a 3rd-party battery? Tough luck. Think that the battery rental rates are too high and you'd prefer to rent from someone else? Bad luck again, Renault will be the only ones in the market.

if the objective of this is to make the car cheaper, you shouldn't really expect Renault to abuse this. If it isn't, then someone else can come in and offer a cheaper package.

I feel like if I were to make a same form-factor battery for a car I'd get sued on design patents. Cars have always had super tight vertical-integration. It might change, but this situation is pretty close to the status-quo.

Cheaper at the onset does not imply cheaper overall. Renault is already fleecing their customers with one of the highest maintenance costs of all makes (higher than BMW for instance).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com