Automakers Can't Give Up The Idea Of Turning Everyday Features Into Subscription Services With Fees

from the pay-more-for-the-same-product dept

At the same time car companies are fighting the right to repair movement (and the state and federal legislation popping up everywhere), they're continuing the quest to turn everyday features -- like heated seats -- into something users have to pay a recurring fee for.

In 2019, BMW had to abandon a plan to charge $80 per year for Apple CarPlay. The company, having learned nothing, began floating the idea of charging a subscription for features back in 2020, when it proposed making heated seats and heated steering wheels something you pay a permanent monthly fee for. Last December, Toyota proposed imposing a monthly fee for customers who wanted to be able to remotely start their vehicles.

Each and every time these proposals come forward the consumer response is swift and overwhelmingly negative. But with $20 billion in annual additional potential revenue on the table between now and 2030, the industry seems poised to ignore consumers:

"Still, automakers see dollar signs. Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler), Ford, and GM each aim to generate at least $20 billion in annual revenue from software services by 2030. Over-the-air capabilities open up huge opportunities for carmakers to introduce new subscription or pay-per use features over time, Wakefield, of AlixPartners, said. Someday, you may be able to fork over extra to make your car more efficient, sportier, or — in an electric vehicle — unlock extra range for road trips."

Keep in mind these are decisions being made during a pandemic when most households continue to struggle.

This sort of nickel-and-diming works well in the telecom sector where captive subscribers often can't switch to a different competitor. But in the auto space, companies risk opening the door to competitors gaining inroads by... not being nickel-and-diming assholes. Many companies may also be overestimating their own product quality; one JD Power survey found that 58% of people who use an automaker's smartphone app wouldn't be willing to pay for it. At the same time, as with gaming microtransactions, if enough people are willing to pay to make it worth it, it may not matter what the majority of car consumers think.

Filed Under: automakers, features, fees, right to repair, subscriptions
Companies: ford, gm, toyota

Apple, Verizon Join Forces To Lobby Against New York's 'Right To Repair' Law

from the making-ownership-more-expensive dept

Over the last year, we've noted the surge in so-called "right to repair" laws, which would make it easier for consumers to repair their electronics and find replacement parts and tools. It's a direct response to the rising attempts by companies like John Deere, Apple, Microsoft and Sony to monopolize repair, hamstringing consumer rights over products consumers think they own, while driving up the cost of said product ownership. John Deere's draconian lockdown on its tractor firmware is a large part of the reason these efforts have gained steam over the last few months in states like Nebraska.

In New York, one of the first attempts at such a law (the "Fair Repair Act") has finally been making progress. But according to New York State's Joint Commission on Public Ethics, Apple, Verizon, Toyota, Lexmark, Caterpillar, Asurion, and Medtronic have all been busy lobbying to kill the law for various, but ultimately similar, reasons. And they're out-spending the consumer advocates and repair shops pushing for this legislation by a rather wide margin:

"The records show that companies and organizations lobbying against right to repair legislation spent $366,634 to retain lobbyists in the state between January and April of this year. Thus far, the Digital Right to Repair Coalition—which is generally made up of independent repair shops with several employees—is the only organization publicly lobbying for the legislation. It has spent $5,042 on the effort, according to the records."

To be clear, the vast majority of the time, companies lobbying against this kind of legislation don't like to even admit that they oppose it. But when they do go on the record, it usually features a trifecta of false claims that the bills will make users less safe, pose a cybersecurity risk, and open the door to cybersecurity theft. In Nebraska, for example, we've already noted how Apple claims that allowing people to repair and tinker with the hardware they own will somehow turn the state into a "mecca for bad actors and hackers," and that letting consumers repair their own electronics would cause lithium batteries to catch fire.

Of course, the real reason Apple opposes this legislation is that it stands to lose significant repair revenue once people no longer have to drive half an hour to the nearest Apple Genius bar and support team. The same is true for game console makers Sony and Microsoft, who obviously would prefer it if you're only able to use their significantly-more expensive repair programs. They'll ignore the fact that this kind of behavior not only allows companies to charge an arm and a leg for what very well may be superficial repairs, but helps prop up closed, proprietary ecosystems, hurting customers in a myriad of other ways as well.

And while supporters of these right to repair bills are very candid about the benefits they think users will see, it's telling that the companies lobbying against these rules refuse to comment whatsoever on their opposition, and when they are willing to talk can only trot out a parade of theoretical horribles that don't really make coherent sense.

Filed Under: license agreements, new york, ownership, right to repair
Companies: apple, lexmark, toyota, verizon

DailyDirt: Seemingly Innocent Things...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Sometimes it's pretty easy to track down the origin of how a meme gets popular. If you've ever seen gifs with the caption "Do Not Want" -- you might not have realized where that phrase came from (or just assumed it was just the typical bad grammar of the internetz), but it actually comes from a bootleg version of Star Wars Episode III with comically bad "Engrish" subtitles -- specifically the scene where Anakin Skywalker is first revived as Darth Vader and screams "Nooooo" which was hilariously translated from English to Chinese and back to English as "Do Not Want." That aside, some products have become unusually popular in unexpected demographic groups without clear explanations. Here are just a few things that have crossed cultures.

• The Casio F-91W watch was introduced in 1991, and it's a remarkably reliable inexpensive digital watch -- that's also been used as a bomb timer by terrorists. There's nothing inherently sinister about the F-91W, but maybe you shouldn't wear one if you want to minimize your time at a TSA checkpoint. [url]
• ISIS appears to be brand loyal when it drives around -- almost exclusively in Toyota trucks. Toyota doesn't know how its vehicles get into the hands of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Syrian rebels, or fighters in Chad/Libya's "Toyota War," but these trucks have a reputation of being indestructible which might be one of the reasons why Toyota's trucks are so popular. [url]
• The kaffiyeh was a brief fashion fad in the US that seemed to supplant Che Guevara T-shirts. It's just a scarf usually worn in Middle Eastern countries, but it also became popular among hipsters and some kids in Tokyo. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: casio f-91w, fad, fashion, gadgets, isis, kaffiyeh, popularity, terrorists, toyota war
Companies: casio, toyota

DailyDirt: Effective Charity FTW

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

We've previously pointed out how some charities might need some changes to improve their reputation, public image and effectiveness. Some charities have been vilified for million-dollar CEO salaries or inefficient operations, but in the end, everyone wants to see more net good come from their donations than would have happened by doing nothing, right? Here are just a few examples of charitable organizations getting some good results -- even if their methods may still be debated.

• Last year, the Ice Bucket Challenge raised about $115 million (in the US alone) from 2.5 million people, raising awareness about ALS -- and wasting a bit of water. According to the ALS Association, the Ice Bucket money for ALS (aka Lou Gehrig's disease) will be spent thusly: 67% on research, 20% on patient and community services, 9% on education, 2% on fundraising and 2% on external processing fees. The Ice Bucket Challenge was one of the largest charitable events (outside of disaster or emergency), and it may be difficult to repeat this kind of viral phenomenon. Still, the ALS Association wants August to become a traditional month for ALS awareness... and a couple million bucks will be spent to try to get more than a few million back in donations. [url]
• The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) funded a biotech company with $75 million to research a cure for over more than a decade. A treatment from Vertex Pharmaceuticals appears to be successful for some patients, and further research could improve the results for more people who suffer with cystic fibrosis. [url]
• Instead of money, Toyota donated its engineers to the Food Bank for New York City. Armed with a philosophy of 'continuous improvement' (aka kaizen), higher productivity at the charity meant more people were fed more efficiently. Elsewhere, Toyota's efficiency methods are also being used at more and more hospitals. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: als, biotech, cff, charity, cystic fibrosis, donations, efficiency, ice bucket challenge, kaizen, lou gehrig's disease, medicine
Companies: als association, cystic fibrosis foundation, toyota

Seattle Honda/Toyota Dealer Decides To Try To Sell Cars Like Tesla Does, Rather Than Trying To Shut Tesla Down

from the that's-one-step dept

Over the past few years, we've highlighted how frightened autodealers have absolutely freaked out about the way in which Tesla sells its cars. If you don't know, rather than having a bunch of independent dealers, Tesla sells direct, where you mainly buy via its website. Rather than dealerships, Tesla has showrooms where you can go check out the cars. The pricing is clear and obvious and it's much lower pressure. Dealers have tried a variety of tricks to actually outlaw Teslas from being sold in their states, even arguing that Tesla's website is illegal. Thankfully, most states aren't falling for this, and even the FTC has supported the Tesla way of selling cars.

Apparently, some dealers are finally realizing that if you can't beat 'em by trying to make them disappear, perhaps you ought to compete. Via Jalopnik, we learn of a dealer in Seattle (who owns both a Honda and a Toyota dealership) who has decided to adopt what he thinks is the "Tesla model" for selling cars -- single price, no haggling, no separate finance department whose there to screw you over on the deal terms, and transparency about the loan rates.

What's more, the dealerships have no F&I managers. Salespeople handle the loans. Learning to do that isn't easy, so Miller and Mohammadi have hired contractors to do some paperwork and walk the salespeople through the process.

Prices are fixed, and so are interest rates. Customers who need financing can refer to a chart on the wall, tracing their finger from their credit score to the amount of the loan.

Of course, the story also notes that this shift hasn't been easy. Most of the existing sales staff left as they couldn't deal with this setup, and sales at the dealership dropped significantly -- though they've since rebounded. And, of course, there have been other dealers in the past that have adopted "one price/no haggling" setups, but studies have shown that many customers don't trust such deals, assuming that the "one price" is likely to be higher than they could get by negotiating, even if they don't like haggling.

While I think it's a smart move to try to compete, rather than ban, innovative competitors like Tesla, it feels a little bit like a cargo cult copying situation, where the focus is on copying the obvious superficial aspects of what Tesla is doing, but not the deeper hidden reasons. In Tesla's case, it's a combination of factors that are selling those cars, including the cool factor, the environmental factor and the overall prestige of the car. Hondas and Toyotas, while recognized as reliable, don't have all of those factors. Plus, since the Tesla sales model is for all Teslas, there is no other option, so no one feels that the single price offering is a rip off. That's not the case when a single dealer does something.

So I think it's good that this dealer is looking for a better model, but it's going to involve a lot of experiments and innovating, beyond just copying some of the superficial aspects of what Tesla does.

Filed Under: auto dealers, car dealers, cargo cult, competition, dealers, haggling, innovation, sales, superficial
Companies: honda, tesla, toyota

DailyDirt: A Car Designed For The Average Consumer

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

American highways are slowly filling up with Crossover vehicles that drive like a car but have some of the height and space of an SUV. Sedans still outnumber Crossovers, but this non-car-non-SUV segment is growing rapidly. The Toyota RAV4 came out in 1994, but in 1991, a car design no one of a certain age will ever forget made its debut on The Simpsons. The Homer will have the last laugh. Here are some links to prove it.

• A real-world version of The Homer raced in the 24 hours Of LeMons in 2013. It finished in 5th place, but it didn't fully capture the essence of The Homer. [url]
• If you missed the episode "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" when it first aired, you can read up on the specs of The Homer on The Simpsons Wikia page. The car was built by Powell Motors (owned by Homer's half-brother Herb), and ultimately ruined the fictitious Detroit automaker. [url]
• The Homer was actually ahead of its time in some ways, sorta. No soundproof bubble domes for kids yet, but active noise cancellation and some child safety restraint systems might be a step in that direction. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: automobiles, cars, crossover vehicle, simpsons, suv, the homer
Companies: toyota, wikia

DailyDirt: The Future Is All About Hovering

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Until quantum levitation and room temperature superconductors are a practical reality, we're still without hoverboards and flying cars. The future has promised everyone some kind of hovering transportation, but we'll just have to be patient and wait for the technology to be refined and made economical, right? Here are just a few hopeful links to getting your hovering fix sooner rather than later.

• Toyota has publicly stated that it's working on making a hovering car. The idea is that a hovercraft-like car would have reduced friction and be more efficient, so the trick will be to figure out how to make a vehicle float without expending too much energy. [url]
• There's a commercially available Hoverboard that lets a rider surf up to 30 feet above water. This board shoots a powerful jet of water to lift its rider up, and it requires a supply water hose and a trailing jet ski for its power supply. [url]
• For folks who remember Back To The Future II and hoverboards, the possibility of real hoverboards (made by HUVr Tech) is not just special effects and hidden support wires -- the futuristic skateboards EXIST. Or it's all just an elaborate hoax, like the moon landings.... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: back to the future, flying cars, future, hoverboard, hovercraft, jet ski, levitation, quantum levitation, superconductivity
Companies: toyota

DailyDirt: Who Drives Best -- Men, Women... Or Robots?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

If you believe in gender stereotypes, then you probably think that men are better drivers than women. However, auto insurance companies are inclined to believe that women are actually safer drivers. It's a hotly debated topic, but it's safe to say that there are lots of bad drivers -- both men and women -- on the road. That's why we need robot cars. Here are a few links to some driving-related studies.

• A New York City traffic study found that male drivers were responsible for 80% of car accidents in which pedestrians were severely injured or killed. Blame it on testosterone, which increases aggression and risk-taking. [url]
• A University of Michigan analysis of 6.5 million car accidents in the U.S. between 1998-2007 found that female drivers were responsible for 68.1% of all crashes. Apparently, women have trouble navigating intersections, as they were most often hit on the driver's or passenger side while trying to turn left or right. [url]
• A more recent UK study showed that women are actually better at parking than men, dispelling the myth that men have better spatial awareness than women. According to the professional driving instructor who created the study, men learn and perform better during driving lessons, but it's possible that women retain what they learn better than men. [url]
• Let the car park itself. Many automakers, including Ford, Toyota, and BMW, are offering self-parking systems in their vehicles now. While they can guide cars into parking spaces with minimal driver involvement, they aren't always reliable. [url]
• To discover more interesting car-related content, check out what's driving around StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: accidents, autonomous vehicles, cars, drivers, gender stereotypes, parking, robots
Companies: bmw, ford, toyota

Court Says Woman Can Sue Toyota After Being Tricked Into 'Agreeing' To Be 'Stalked' In Ad Campaign Gone Really Wrong

from the eulas-are-not-all-powerful dept

Two years ago, we wrote about how Amber Duick was suing Toyota for their ridiculous ad campaign that allowed people to totally freak out their friends by entering some info about them, and then having that friend be fake "stalked" by someone creepy who would start emailing, texting and calling the person, pretending to be planning to come to their house to stay with them. It was a bad idea all around, done by an ad agency who made the idiotic decision that young men like to "punk" their friends. And, of course, to make it seem "legit," Toyota would trick the victim into "agreeing" by having something totally different sent to them (a personality test) from the friend, which has really broad terms of service.

Toyota sought to dismiss the case, by saying that Duick had agreed to these terms. However, as we predicted when the lawsuit was filed, that agreement isn't standing up in court. The court has rejected Toyota's argument, and is allowing Duick's lawsuit to go forward against Toyota and others associated with the campaign.

The question I'm still trying to answer is what sort of thought process leads anyone to think this kind of campaign is a good idea?

Filed Under: ad campaign, punked, stalking, viral marketing
Companies: toyota