Yes... pirated cars will definitely fix the problem

Everything is crackable, I bet the software in the car is as cheaply made as everything else

Worse, generally. Car manufacturers are completely awful with privacy and also very bad at security.
this subscription involves a mobile plan and access to a backend service though
- So you're PAYING for the vulnerabilities this time?
- There is plenty of subscription or always online software out there that is cracked and fully working, Adobe products, Microsoft office, Spotify, etc.
  
  Obviously any service that can't be replaced with a free or open source alternative won't work, first thing I think that would be on the chopping block would be anything that uses GPS, though that's just a guess, I don't really have intimate knowledge of this
Many run on a fork of android iirc.

It's kinda depressing to see bunch of people who support the subscription model in my post comments for something that you already paid & own

As they pointed out in your original post, it's not, "the subscription model...for something that you already paid & own." This isn't subscription seat warmers, it's paying for an additional service outside the car. You can argue it's too expensive, but without their internet connection and servers, these features wouldn't be possible.
- Remote start has been around for well over a decade and did not require internet or a subscription. If you just subscribe and use the feature then clearly the neccesary equipment for remote start is already installed and you paid for that equipment regardless if you use the subscription service.
- There's no need to host servers for 99% (maybe 100%) of this stuff. All the remote start features can be done through a direct connection between your phone and car. There's no need for a third computer to be involved, except to check if you've paid for it. As long as your car has wifi access (or phone network access, which would need to be paid for) then it can communicate with other devices on the network/internet. Sure, you still have to pay for the internet, but that's paid to the ISP, not the car company.
Features like this really do require a subscription model. This isn’t enabling remote start by pressing a key on your fob. This is sending a request to a server, which connects to a cell tower to broadcast signal saying “turn on this car”. That stuff ain’t free. Someone has to pay AT&T for the data connection.

What BMW was (is?) doing is abhorrent. You’re buying a car with heated seats, and you have to subscribe to hit the button.
- Features like this really do require a subscription model. This isn’t enabling remote start by pressing a key on your fob. This is sending a request to a server, which connects to a cell tower to broadcast signal saying “turn on this car”. That stuff ain’t free. Someone has to pay AT&T for the data connection.
  
  Only because they unethically intentionally designed it that way, when they could've just as easily picked a different design that could've worked entirely locally. They are inventing excuses for rentiership.
- Then let me have the remote start that has existed for decades as ONE option (without a monthly subscription), and the remote start that requires an entire infrastructure that isn't required for me to look out my window and remote start my car as an option for those who want or need it.
- Sure, you need to pay for the connection, whether wifi for cell. There's no need for specific servers or computation to take place. Yeah, you'll need to pay for another (low data usage) phone line probably, but that should be it.
IMHO, It makes sense though. Piracy and open source are two approaches to attacking the enclosure of public (intellectual) space. Roads for cars are literally an enclosure of public space. The subscription model just extends from this logic.

Edit: These are also things that make sense because the car has to have cell service via a provider.

These are things that need a subscription, though... These are remote features that require internet connectivity and application serving. Things that don't just come with a one-time fee. These are actual services being provided by Kia or Hyundai. This isn't the same as putting a hardware feature of your car behind an arbitrary pay wall.

Then I should be able to self-host these softwares.
- You wouldn't be able to communicate with the car at a distance though.
- You would still have to pay an ISP to connect it, but an open source, self hosted version would be ideal.
149 to send a ping to locate a car? For an API call to lock unlock? How many API calls are worth 149 per year? In which world?
Make the car cost £400 more, once, when it's bought first hand. That will cover any costs for the lifetime of the vehicle. There you go, chuck the subscription in the sea.
yeah, i agree. it costs them money so there's little to no incentive to run that stuff for free.
also the price is reasonable (about as much as a single Nano ec2 instance on aws + mobile plan that's required to connect the car to the internet) and pretty much negligible when compared to amount of money you'll be spending on that vehicle anyway.
then there are privacy concerns tho. do you trust kia with knowledge of your exact car location, 24/7? (I'd assume it doesn't connect to their servers without the subscription?)
also that information (Exact location of all kia vehicles, with exact model numbers and registration information) seems like a goldmine for car thieves if leaked (or accessed by a third party.)
also, fuck heated seat other hardware/local software subscriptions
These are software features that need an open, secure API.
@FlexibleToast @hex_m_hell Yes, but the car you own has all the capability to do the above things, why can't I use the server in my basement to provide the remote components of the services?
- The vast majority of people won’t know how to manage a server in their basement. It makes no sense to invest in this capability that will be utilized by an extremely small fraction of car buyers.
  
  I would very rarely advocate for a subscription service but this one makes as much sense as a mobile phone plan.
I see your point but the costs to most if not all of what they offer are minimal... And for sure most of that could be a single payment when buying the car, calculated an estimated usage during the estimated life of the car, they could just be part of the price of the car not even indicated.

Don't worry there will be some vulnerability with the CPU that they wouldn't be able to patch out fully.

In the end we are in cat & mouse situation
Vulnerability found > hacker cracked it > car company figure it out > vulnerability get patched
It's same issues with John Deere tractor, from what i heard many farmer hire bunch of hacker to crack the software
- Yeah i hope this just strengthens these licenses. ive heard about john deer being hacked at dfcon but man these companies are scummy.
you're paying for a backend service and a constant internet connection for your car here though, not for some client side feature that can be easily unlocked
- If i can put my own sim card in why not?

I mean some people figured out how to crack a tesla to enable all the features including the secret "Elon" mode so.

Curious, what was the "secret Elon Mode" about?
- Full self-driving without driver monitoring.
  
  https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/20/23767041/tesla-hacker-elon-mode-hands-free-full-self-driving-autopilot
  
  Which is just fantastically dangerous and poorly advised. Very appropriate for it to be called "Elon mode," if nothing else.
But the script that crack it never released in public AFAIK
Maybe we need to wait & lurking for some time untill the script finally release in public
- there is no real script to do it. They released the full research paper on it and basically you pull part of the infotainment system low as it boots and it opens the maintenance menus that allow you to grant entitlements. It's a 100% physical attack. It also probably gets reversed every so often as mothership "detects problems" with your tesla.

Vote with your wallet.

Congratuations, you've fallen for the propaganda. That sentiment is nothing more than corporate astroturfing against effective regulation.
- Love this comment

Hell yeah! Fuck car dependent infrastructure!

I remember back in the old days when remote start was a thing you paid someone to install in your car and, in those days, “remote climate” was remote start plus remembering to set it on high before your got out.

Subscriptions are dumb, you should be able to buy these outright, but there are people who can’t so 🤷🏻‍♀️

Edit: but for remote lock and alarm, those have been around for ages. That should come standard.

"You wouldn't download a car?"

If this isn't a lease then it will never hold up in any state court, John Deere and Apple already tried something similar to this over right to repair and lost miserably in every state it was tried in. I'm actually surprised they tried this after the epic payout John Deere had to make after the class action lawsuit against them.

I think a lot of this conversation boils down to someone needing to make an ESP32 device that sits in your OBD port and can be addressed directly for those who have a car that can connect to your home WiFi. I feel like one of those already exists...

I think a major reason for these models is that the more that the car becomes a computing device, the more that it'll require regular patches and optimizations. Being connected to the servers and using services that route through it lets them gather usage data, offer some extra features that can functiom from anywhere, and update security and functionality (which would possibly involve full time developers I suppose).

It does seem greedy (way overpriced), but this isn't the same as disabling hardware that you need to sub to activate (a la seat warmers). Plus it's all still pretty cutting edge tech atm and I usually tell people that means you're choosing to fund its early development (and being a beta tester) over using more standard and tested products.

Outside of self driving cars there isn't a reason cars should become a computing device though.

If you want to end a car centric infrastructure in favor of bikes or velomobiles you would still want self driving cars that you only use for special tasks. Robotaxies or robo busses. Then it makes sense to not own a car.
- @LarmyOfLone @BR4 Safety aids can involve plenty of computing and getting those constantly improved can aid in keeping people alive.
  
  So there is some good reason to go that way. (But that may not be what is driving car companies to do it)
- I think e-cars are more computer-like as they'll prioritize optimizing as much of the system as possible to maximize battery mileage; performance/riding experience as a live service; DRM; probably pretty hackable.
  
  Driverless autonomy could also potentially turn pedestrian cars into part of the public transport system if people can have their idle cars work like taxis (not sure if this would involve things like smart contracts), but unfortunately it seems like the actual last piece of the puzzle that car companies aren't gonna crack any time soon.