I place high value on not fucking over fellow human beings, and I'd happily put the money where my mouth is, but the market seems essentially devoid of ethical companies these days. I'm sure there is many more people like us - perhaps enough to sustain a company.
(FWIW, if you extend this past issues of ads and privacy, and into making good products and just selling them for money - I'm not sure how long such a company would last these days. Being ethical means no planned obsolescence, or otherwise churning out new variants of the same thing to keep sales up. It could have a problem with a continued revenue stream - but then again, I'd probably happily pay an extra subscription to an ethical company that cut away all this bullshit, just for the privilege of being able to then buy products from them.)
If you buy "TV as a service" instead of as a product, the effect is basically that the company providing the service will do the opposite of planning for obsolescence.
Perhaps this is the kind of company you are looking for?
One: in practice, -as-a-Service businesses tend to quickly devolve their business models to include user-hostile, unethical aspects. Requiring Internet access, telemetry, ads, remote bricking, etc.
Two - and this is more of a gut feeling than a properly thought-through objection: I don't like the risk curve. Services require a steady cash flow. Have a financial hick-up, and you have to start sacrificing some of your services. Whereas with ownership, you can keep using the goods you own regardless of how much money you have - and with proper care and maintenance, you can get a lot of mileage out of the things you buy. Poorer people tend to be good at it by necessity. The same poorer people would end up trapped if they depended on everything as services.
I also like the fact that, if for some reason you prefer monthly installments to lump-sum purchase, you can turn almost any product into service by getting a bank involved. It has a nice, Unixy feel to it.
But, as I said, I haven't really made up my mind about this just yet.
But I agree, we need a consumer-electronics company that uses privacy as a competitive advantage the way Apple does for phones.
Also, you're probably not telling the truth to yourself, since you get your news from HN instead of paying for journalism.
Manual transmission (actual stick and clutch, not silly paddles), minimal ECUs, disableable seatbelt chime, cigar lighter, and so forth. You know, less cyber.
Officially automatics and manuals are a wash for mileage, but I think driving style can make manuals the winner.
All that kinetic energy getting dissipated by brakes instead of turning the engine and all of its accessories in autos.
I’m quite surprised auto manufacturers haven’t implemented engine braking for émissions, reducing brake wear, and quicker « free » cabin heat in cold conditions.
Everything you can do, a machine can do better.
Sure, a good driver in the manual version of a car might achieve better mpg than the auto version, but that requires skill and focus and effort. And realistically, a human driver won't deliver 100% of the time, so the auto version will beat the manual version over the long haul, no matter the driver.
The reason to drive a stick is to drive. Anyone who's never tried it, try it! You become an essential part of the experience, both hands and feet involved and synthesizing related tasks, while you look ahead, anticipate, plan, breathe. You don't need music or the phone or a fridge in the glove box. It doesn't have to be a sports car, anything with a stick will do.
We are in a privileged moment. How long ago was it that cars didn't even exist? How long since they have been really excellent, dynamic, safe(er), powerful, reliable? I'd argue late 80s to about now is the entire window. Already, 2/5 of our appendages are useless to the task, and soon it will be 5/5.
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em!
It used to be an argument for stick shifts, that they had better mileage. When I got my license 7 years ago, that "fact" was part of the course. Eco-driving is a mandatory part of both the written test and the practical test, so the "correct" answer if you wanted to pass the test was that you should prefer a stick shift over an automatic, because of fuel economy. Also, if you do your practical test with an automatic, you get a mark on your license saying you are not allowed to drive manuals.
These days, it's factually wrong, so driving students get told wrong things, and spend time learning and doing useless bullshit, and get told to buy the wrong type of car. That pissed me off like no other.
> The reason to drive a stick is to drive.
I agree. That's an honest argument for stick shift. The feeling of driving one. Even though a modern automatic will accelerate faster than you can ever do driving a stick shift. Because everything you can do, a machine can do better...
The transmission can't see the road ahead and prepare in advance.
I know you said braking but I've seen it in both my 2002 and 2015 automatics when coasting.
If I'm coasting up to a red light I'm pretty sure I can brake lightly and still be coasting with no fuel consumption, and then it will only turn the fuel back on when it needs to creep.
I'll check it on the live MPG display next time I'm driving.
If they always assumed you wanted to brake, that would really hurt mileage.
And it would have to disengage anyway at some point to avoid stalling.
Engine braking is more RPMs in aggregate, but nothing particularly bad for an engine.
I meant wearing our brakes is cheaper to fix that engine parts.
and quicker « free » cabin heat in cold conditions.
Engine braking won't heat the engine much over just idling, in fact it may even cool it off more because the governor will cut off fuel completely.
I mean, the energy has to go somewhere, and the engine itself makes the most sense.
We’re doing the opposite of acceleration (sometimes faster), so that’s gotta be a lot more energy turned into heat than necessary to keep an engine idle.
If brake pads get to several hundred degrees while braking...
Gas vehicles effectively engine brake without modification, but dunno where all the energy is getting converted.
I do wish alternators would detect engine braking and ramp up electric cabin heat though.
Automatics don't have a clutch though. They have a torque converter, which is not the same thing.
Sort of like the original VW Beetle sales model.
Off the top of my head, they probably wouldn't meet:
FMVSS 126 (ESC), FMVSS 111 (rear camera), FMVSS 138 (TMPS), FMVSS 226 (occupant ejection mitigation)
Although, like the beetle, you could sell them in countries with lower safety standards. I'm pretty some joint ventures in China are/were actually done with old tooling from western automakers.
The touchscreen revolution in cars is a dumpster fire. Literally every aspect of the controls on my last couple of cars has been a regression.
Oh wait, they made that illegal starting MY2015 (in the US, at least).
OK, how about just without a touchscreen, then?
Apparently they're not selling well in US.
Most important: This is completely detached from the manufacturer spying on you, or preventing cheap repairs by not selling you necessary parts or withholding information.
2) I've seen enough comments on HN with the opposite (valid) mindset to think there's a nonzero audience of people that are also willing to pay for privacy over features.
Both groups of people seem to feel the other group is wrong and seem biased to think the world would be a better place if everyone in the other group converted to their own, but if you promote privacy over features there's definitely a market out there for you. :)
It's hard to install spyware on something that doesn't run off electricity.
my major concern is that the digital parts may be connection dependent for function