The only reason why you would want a subscription is to keep charging people even after they have paid the full price and interests, which is a super annoying and bad policy to have in the first place.
* I'm totally and utterly baffled by all the downvoting. It seems like many people did not check out the product's web page and are left with Vice's misleading interpretation.
Here's the description I'm talking about, right from the product page: https://klimsitecontent.s3.amazonaws.com/contentblocks/2021%...
It says "Membership: Lease or Buy (No Subscription!)"
Maybe they goofed by using the word "service" in the description, but this is just a financing plan. And it's not some kind of crazy safety issue where they shut it off while you ride, they appear to have designed it to prevent that.
And it is, in fact, more lenient than my mortgage, my car payments, or my credit cards. I don't get to pause or cancel any of those without pretty severe repercussions.
We could also celebrate the mafia-types who don't send debts to recovery, they just come by and break your knees if you don't pay -- hey, it's just a "you keep being able to walk as a service", and they never damage your credit score by sending it to collections!
Where did you get the idea that you wouldn't know it wasn't working before you ride? The vest notifies you before you ride, it signals that it does not engage the protection... even if you happened to miss the payment, and the grace period, and ignore all the notifications along the way.
BTW, I am a very safety-conscious motorcycle rider, and I read both the article and KLIM's product page that the article links to. The fear that it will shut off and kill someone is the misleading impression that the Vice article left, but the product was specifically designed so that that can't happen.
With this level of aggressively pathological design, I would not trust them to have considered every contingency and ensure a fail-safe in every failure mode, particularly since their primary failure mode is fail-unsafe - by design.
Try a different scenario, you need to go somewhere, your vest does notify you, but you need to go anyway, and that's your disaster. Yes, that is a bit more on you, like deciding to go anyway without your helmet which just got stolen, which is pretty stupid but can be necessary - but in this case, the theft is digital and enabled by design.
Sorry, this is rent-seeking at it's worst. I'm sure they'll find fools to subscribe, just as Zuckerberg found plenty of "dumb f*ks" to trust him with their data, but that does not make it right.
Good luck, and stay safe out there.
It's a bit sad that their marketing and Vice and this thread of misinformation has convinced you of this. Because their financing terms are in fact more consumer friendly than the vast majority of financing plans out there, likely including all the monthly payments you're currently making. It's a missed opportunity that the marketing message got so lost here.
But
Specifically designing, building, & shipping a product with a deliberately most-dangerous failure mode (vs fail-safe) is sociopath-level pathology. The user, through a variety of readily conceivable of technical or user errors, could easily use the product, thinking they had protection (which demonstrably decreases risk-aversion), and end up with serious injury or death.
This could have been done much better. E.g., don't disable the protection, make it so it needs to be stored with the zipper locked, and require payment to unlock the zipper, so the user cannot even wear it. Even this is DOS, but at least as unambiguous as keeping a helmet locked in a case.
Is that a clinical diagnosis? Are you aware that many car brands have multiple levels of software deactivation for every safety critical feature, onboard and remote? Are you saying that all vehicle makers are sociopaths, or that you’re unaware of today’s designs?
> The user, through a variety of readily conceivable of technical or user errors, could easily use the product, thinking they had protection
This is speculation based on FUD and willfully ignoring the process they described, and it seems unlikely to me.
> This could have been done much better
Yeah probably, especially the marketing.
Can you provide some examples, particularly where the cars disable safety equipment for lack of payment? Cars/lenders are already heavily and rightly criticized for disabling cars from being driven at all for lack of payment because they could prevent someone from making a critical trip.
>> thinking they had protection >> This is speculation based on FUD No, any long chain of technological links, especially including wireless, and including users, is easily subject to many modes of failure. It is not particularly speculative at all.
>> could have done much better. >> marketing Marketing may have to do better, but management & engineering is the real location of the fault.
Marketing has an impossible job now, since Mgt & Eng have chosen to implement a fail-dangerous mode as their primary feature.
Mgt & Engineering need to implement it in a fail-safe way, e.g., so the device cannot be worn, even though it could require greater design effort and work. With an actual safe-mode lockout, marketing's job becomes possible, but even then, "X as a service" is still a rent-seeking biz model, which is kind of deplorable overall but may work for some people.
Sure, I did here already https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27058509
And it's generally pretty easy to find yourself, if you want https://www.google.com/search?q=cars+disabled+for+lack+of+pa...
> Cars/lenders are already heavily and rightly criticized
I'm sure you're right, but it still exists, and it's getting more common not less. Besides, the remote switch ability is there regardless of whether it's attached to payment. It's also being attached to cameras and GPS and auto-driving featuers, etc., etc. Your concern was about the safety of remote switches in general, right?, and those are incredibly common.
> "X as a service" is still a rent-seeking biz model, which is kind of deplorable overall but may work for some people.
You've already stated your opinion about this, and I don't appear to be making headway by pointing out that it's lowering the barrier to entry for some people, and that two different buyout options are available, and that they allow you to pause the rent at will.
So... I guess my question is do you finance anything at all? Do you have a car, or house, or rent, or credit card? If it's "deplorable", why participate? Don't you think the ability to pause payments at will sounds like a good thing? I do, and it doesn't sound all that rent-seeking to me that they're offing a buyout option, and a no-penalties cancel option where you get to keep the stuff.
> have chosen to implement a fail-dangerous mode as their primary feature.
I hear your point, and in the absence of any design information about this product, I agree with the general idea that attaching remote capability to safety equipment could be dangerous, whether or not it's common. That said, passing judgement on any given product requires seeking out and understanding of how the product was actually designed. A remote switch is not necessarily bad engineering. Cars aren't the only vehicles getting them, airplanes are too (and some people consider it a good thing, no possibility of hijacking.)
Stay curious friend!
In this instance, if I need to check the safety of my safety equipment before using it, that's a negative for me.
As a daily motorbike rider, I can definitively say that I will not be buying one of these because they have the capability to remotely disable the functionality. That's an absolute no-no for me.
However - no one can remotely disable my brakes over the air! So I can get to a position of not worrying about them much. In practice, I probably check the pads for wear every month or so. And that's good enough because I have an expectation that they're not going to change by themselves overnight.
With this airbag, the capability is there for someone to disable it without me noticing. I 100% agree they're not likely to do this intentionally. But it is under software control, as is the warning indicator, etc, etc. It's possible. And it's my life at stake.
Also, re #2 - my phones and computers aren't safety-critical, and no, my car does not have remote functionality. It's one reason I don't drive a car with over-the-air upgrade or CANBUS access functions. The safety benefits of more modern cars do not outweigh the added risks of turning them into internet-of-shit devices, for me.
( https://www.klim.com/Ai-1-Airbag-Vest-3046-000 down near the bottom)
There should be no way in software to make it not work.
But with or without a payment switch, this is an electronically controlled airbag. It’s designed to have a way for software to keep it from inflating at all times, just like your car’s airbag has. It has a heuristic algorithm that tries to anticipate a crash based on sensor inputs, and the fundamental operation of the thing is that software is going to decide whether to inflate. Like your car, its default mode of operation is don’t inflate. The software switch is nothing new, nothing out of the ordinary, and you’re already relying on software switches daily.
There’s no evidence or reason to believe the payment system adds any additional risk beyond the fact that all airbags are already electronically controlled. It is possible for the payment system to be isolated so that it won’t affect inflation during a ride, and they explicitly stated their intent to do exactly that. So there’s no reason to think that non-payment can lead to failure during a ride, and there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
All the pure speculation in this thread about payment affecting safety was stirred up by the Vice article suggesting it, despite the product specs.
Same for the other safety features - there must be no way to disable them. Or take control of them from the outside. (Yes, there was a case where hackers were able to gain brake/steering control of a Jeep, but that's definitely not the norm.)
I think in the end it comes down to trust. Do you trust some startup from 2016 (In&Motion is the company behind the airbag module) to get the software 100% correct?
And that’s not because Jeep removed the remote control or the software switch, it’s because Jeep improved the network security. Now, there are a whole bunch more brands of cars that use the same remote access system Jeep is using. And there are a bunch of other systems in other car brands. How would you place a Tesla or other self-driving car into your black-box philosophy? The brakes and steering can run 100% of the time on software.
Are you sure KLIM’s airbag vest doesn’t have a CAN bus and a verification process?
I don’t trust Boeing or Toyota to get it right, so no I don’t trust a startup either. The point I’m making is not that I trust them, it’s that the vast majority of this comment section brought out pitchforks to rail against a straw man idea that Vice wrote about but does not match reality, and haven’t bothered to even read the product description that directly addresses things people here are speculating incorrectly about.
Thats not how safety critical analysis is done. YOU have to prove thats it's physically impossible for the system to fail.
We already had boeing kill 300 people with crappy software and sensors in a plane.
For $400? My whole non-IoT riding suit already cost $1200. My insurance costs $1200/year. Who is this financing option _for_, exactly?
It’a a strange pay-for-non-existent-service scheme designed to artificially reduce MSRP, while using fear to reduce their risk. On a personal safety device. It’s disgusting.
You don't have to continue payments, they offer a buyout plan for $99 after three years. (They also offer the buyout up front plan.)
BTW, jeez, I realize I seriously sound like an ad for the company just because I'm trying to help explain the flood of misinformation in this comment section. I ride motorcycles, but I have no affiliation, and I like the idea of an airbag vest and I like the idea of being more easily able to afford to try safety gear... even if it's more expensive in the long run. (Like everyone, I generally dislike rent, subscriptions, and financing plans, but I do have to acknowledge the utility.)
> It’a a strange pay-for-non-existent-service scheme designed to artificially reduce MSRP but increase lifetime value.
That seems accurate, except that it's not at all strange, it's utterly commonplace. Like millions and millions of people, I have a mortgage and a car payment and a credit card. Most of the money I spend would be reduced if I were to pay up-front.
> It’s disgusting
I'm very confused about this part, I don't understand why that feeling is so strong in this thread. KLIM's financing plan is better than most, just be open to reconsidering your idea here. You can cancel without notice, and you get to keep the vest. You can pick up where you left off and continue paying later. You can pay only in the summer when you're riding. Those consumer friendly options aren't available on any mortgage or car plan or credit card anywhere.
That’s not the strange part. Volkswagen cannot deactivate your car if you stop paying - it’s the banks problem. Same with your house. There are legal mechanisms to kick you out or recover property, but none of them involve a subscription and remote deactivation. Imagine your front door stops opening if you miss a payment.
Yes they can, they will come boot it or tow it or remotely deactivate it, if you finance from them instead of the bank and stop paying. And they won't give it back, and you can't decide to pay later.
There absolutely are multiple car brands on the market that can be remotely deactivated: "A Quebec teenager's car was remotely deactivated by a dealership after he refused to pay to remove a GPS tracking device" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8Enmspjbjo
"How auto lenders can disable your car if you miss payment" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6LU20sAn9c
This vest thing was spun as a subscription model dystopia, but that's not really what it is. This is really an actually very consumer friendly financing plan, it was just marketed badly and then framed as FUD by Vice.
Think about it- this is a financing plan where you get to pause for the winter because you're not using it. Neither Volkswagen nor the bank offers that kind of flexibility.
Financing is dealt with by a bank, the seller is fully paid and has no business messing with your property afterwards. It’s a better model for all parties involved, unless you think saving a few % is worth having your personal items tracked by the manufacturer forever. I don’t.
Come on, man, that is unreasonably hyperbolic and simply not true. They do exactly the opposite of that and design the product and ensure the buyer that accidental injury/death is not possible unless they’re not paying and willfully ignoring payment notifications and willfully ignoring the power-on state of the vest. The financing model is that you can have the thing if you pay for it, like all other products including all other safety products in the world.
> Financing is dealt with by a bank
Aren’t most car and motorcycle financing plans executed at the dealership by the dealer? (Just looked it up, and yes, two thirds of new cars are dealer financed... also called “captive financing”) Maybe I should, but I’ve never actually gone to a bank first before buying a car.
> invasive tracking [...] personal items tracked
Looks like the goal posts have just moved pretty far. Sure, I’m worried about tracking too. This isn’t what we were talking about, and tracking doesn’t compromise safety. Tracking isn’t new and isn’t related to the financing model of this airbag vest, right? It feels like you’re rationalizing now.
I don’t think you’re paying much attention to what you sign when buying a car, you don’t go to a bank, there’s a person at the dealership who sets the loan for you from different banks. There are buy-here pay-here which is financed by the dealership but that is usually for conditions that banks won’t accept like rebuilt title vehicles, heavily modified or too old.
Exactly. You don’t seem to get it.
Is there a service being provided via this remote functionality? No. It’s only purpose is to “ensure” people are paying. It’s purely an insurance mechanism for their financing.
We’re going in circles now so I guess you’re pretty convinced by Vice’s hyperbole that this cannot be anything other than terrible, despite the fact that it’s a way more lenient financing plan than anything else you’ve ever financed before...
It’s good for Vice and their profit margin that they can so easily and effectively stir up a bunch of malleable people to get mad about something that isn’t really true. It’s a shame that they shit on a real business with actual safety conscious engineers behind it. Hopefully this thread full of negative and unfounded speculation has no sway on their bottom line, and they figure out how to better market their financing plan so that people understand the benefits and it doesn’t get so quickly misinterpreted.
You’re accusing me of being manipulated but I have no horse in this race. You think this is a sexy idea for risk management in lending, I just find the idea abhorrent, that’s all. You’re falling into the modern polarization trap, we just don’t seem to share the same values re. privacy & property rights.
Not looking forward to the day my car airbag stops functioning because a collection agency is after me, or I’ve been targeted by the government, or they just decide to refuse service because I said something awful on Twitter. That’s our dystopian reality right now.
It’s weird you would ask this, when I’ve explained it here in this thread like three times already. It’s almost as if you’re not listening...
It’s a financing plan with a pause option, a cancel option, and a resume option, all with no penalties. No other financing plans offer those kind of consumer-friendly options. You can try this vest for half price, and then not pay the other half, and still keep the vest without the airbag functionality.
You were manipulated, but it’s not really your fault, so don’t take it personally. Vice wrote the article and framed it as something it’s not. The only problem is it went one-sided and stayed that way, you haven’t been open to checking whether the conclusions you jumped to are actually true, which is what a bunch of people here did, assumed this was bad because Vice framed it that way, and doubled-down without bothering to research what it was.
Could you please? I barely read the article. My opinion is based on a strong dislike for this kind of remote kill switch. I made my argument several times but you simply ignore it, and go on to repeat why you think it’s fine and everybody would be fine with it if only this evil article hadn’t been published!
There is zero service being provided. It increases the cost and complexity of the device for the lender’s own and sole benefit. Who the fuck wants to pause their airbag subscription? I really can’t understand how you can see this as customer friendly, unless you work for them.
And that’s ok. You can take it or leave it, but don’t try to disqualify me because “I’ve been manipulated”. That’s incredibly dishonest and of course will be taken personally. I suggest you learn to disagree without resorting to personal attacks.
This is morally bacrupt and tyranical