Comment by dahart | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dahart | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Volkswagen cannot deactivate your car if you stop paying

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.

The fact it has done before doesn’t make it good, or change the argument. You may think nothing of it, but most people don’t want this kind of invasive tracking and do find it dystopian. This specific case is much worse - in the worst interpretation possible, the threat of death or injury (deactivating the airbag) is being used as a motivator to lower default rates.

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.

> the threat of death or injury (deactivating the airbag) is being used as a motivator to lower default rates.

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’ve never actually gone to a bank first before buying a car.

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.

> ensure the buyer that accidental injury/death is not possible unless they’re not paying

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.

Yes, it’s a financing plan. Correct, it shuts off if you don’t pay. Not during your ride, but before you ride, when you try to turn it on. Can you die from it, is there any danger of misunderstanding? No, none whatsoever. Are they threatening danger if you don’t pay? No, they’re doing the opposite and making access to an expensive safety product more convenient and affordable.

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.

Why is it more lenient than other financing plans? That makes no sense. This could literally be a traditional lease with no cloud syncing bs involved, at a cheaper cost.

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.

> Why is it more lenient than other financing plans?

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.

Consumer friendly, yes. That’s funny.

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 really an actually very consumer friendly"

This is morally bacrupt and tyranical

Reply on news.ycombinator.com