Hacker News Reader

Comment by winternett | Hacker News Reader

Many other car makers do this too. My Volvo has a remote start feature installed (that I paid for in buying the car) that is not accessible without enrollment in a (pretty much useless otherwise) monthly subscription service.

It's flat out criminal considering that I could have just bought the device with a remote at Auto Zone for 1/4 of the price (that also doesn't allow the auto maker to track/log each time I use it and where I am when I use it).

View on HN

Toyota is being lambasted for forcing a subscription on a function between the key fob and the car (RF signal). There is no app to port to various device OSes. There is no server infrastructure to maintain.

Subaru's subscription is for remote start via app.

Which is Volvo's service?

Volvo has a subscription called Volvo On Call, and it's app based. You can't remotely start the car from just the fob. So yes, you are paying basically for the server upkeep + the sim card installed in your car that enables all those services.

Subaru has the same thing on their new cars - subscribe annually to Starlink or no remote start for you! I live in a winter wonderland where remote start would be a dream but no way I am paying a cent for this feature. I’ll have to look in to the after market options.

VW diesel cars can be equipped with Webasto (auxiliary heater which burns diesel). One gets a remote (in my experience reaching up to 500 meters) which can be used to start this heater along with car's climate control. The advantage is that it consumes 1/3-1/5 of what an idling engine does, while heating interior and engine coolant much faster. The disadvantage is that it consumes battery charge, but to counteract that the car is equiped with 30-50% bigger battery. Though this was never a problem for me, from my experience on 94Ah battery it can run for hours without any effect on engine starting, while heating the car in some 10-15 minutes when it is below freezing outside.

and, in the models that use the engine coolant as a working fluid, your engine is heated up to a cozy operating temperature right from the start, so you end up about even on fuel.

So in my Volvo XC60 T8, the car just came with a Webasto preinstalled from factory, it was standard fit on all models(in 2020 in UK anyway). But you can only start it from the app, they don't give you a separate fob like the one you can buy from Webasto, so you have to pay Volvo's subscription to use it.

You’re not interested in paying for something that provides you with very clear value? So instead you wil go pay money for a different system to bolt on?

I don’t mean to criticize, but I have to admit that I cannot empathize.

If I put a gun to your head and then sell you a service of not shooting, that's a clear value too right?

Said service is called “taxation”

In this narrow of a scope, yes - it is absolutely valuable for me to be able to pay to not die. The alternative is to be killed.

But of course the world is larger than this made up example. Context matters, and this context isn’t really relevant except to say that there are different contexts that necessitate different decisions.

But you knew that, even as you posted such a ridiculous comparison. I think your point would have been much more effective and less reactionary if you had actually made your point, instead of resorting to absurdism.

Would you find it appropriate for automakers to charge a monthly fee to be able to simply start an automobile you bought? If no, then why are you okay with a monthly fee to do so remotely? It’s rather straightforward - you’re either for usury or against it, I guess. This is usury.

(usury is not exactly the right word, but it’s the best I could think of at the moment).

It’s nuanced - I don’t approve when someone changes the terms of a deal that we already agreed upon. At the same time, I think there is a reasonable expectation that companies don’t have to support something into eternity (not that is what happened here, but in general I think support for a feature that requires maintenance is okay to have an expected lifespan).

Another nuance is that starting the car is core to the functionality, remote start is not.

If they were doing this only moving forward, for new sales, I think it would be totally fine. I wouldn’t buy that car if I cared about the feature, but I totally think it’s valid to have premium subscription addons.

In the situation where they have altered the previous deal and the service does not require maintenance by the company, it’s pretty fucked up and i would love to see a class action happen for existing owners.

Yeah - not sure why Toyota is getting hammered for this.

Subaru does this as well. You can get app enabled remote start from your phone, if you buy their subscription service.

I love Subaru, but that is a trash system.

That feels like apples-and-oranges to me if you're talking about a smartphone app feature. A smartphone app has to be regularly upgraded to pay nice with new OS versions, has to have back-end servers, etc. Toyota is disabling remote start functionality between the key fob and the vehicle if the vehicle doesn't have a subscription. I'm not surprised a smartphone app requires a subscription but I am surprised and disappointed that a feature on a car's key fob does.

I too am highly disappointed in Toyota here. A remote start is something you can buy at any auto store and have installed by a mechanic for a couple hundred bucks. Will they block people from going that route now? They charge such a premium for their cars and this just seems petty.

The logical next step would be to ensure that you can't do that in the name of security or if you CAN do it then the "partner" that sells that service has to pay more than you would for the privilege of being allowed on the "platform".

I have remote start on my Subaru and I think it's essentially this:

https://www.subarupartspros.com/sku/h001sfl300.html

On that page it says:

> This Genuine Subaru Accessory is an alternative for customers who do not enroll in STARLINK Safety and Security Plus.

Subaru at this point is a sub brand of Toyota. (they're part of the "Toyota Group" as of last year)

Toyota owns 20% of Subaru, and Subaru is also invested in Toyota. From what I understand being an affiliate in the Toyota Group is not remotely the same as them being a sub brand of Toyota.

> I could have just bought the device with a remote at Auto Zone for 1/4 of the price

But you didn't? I hope your realize at least half of the responsibility is on you as a consumer. You pay for and enable these idiotic ideas.

Incorrect, all of their cars come without the option. Buying an alternate car just because of one corrupt feature is not reasonable nor effective as a protest, many new cars now leverage this tactic and there is no real choice because they get away with it based on leverage.

The responsibility is on regulators, not me as a consumer.

When the regulators have failed, the only option is to vote with your wallet.

I'm sticking to older cars without this nonsense.

I think some of the reasoning behind the fee is that there's a simcard in the car that needs to be payed for and if you opt out then they don't have to pay for it. I have the same service and I can't live without the remotly started heating so for me it's worth every krona.

A remote RF device could do that without the Sim card, the same key that unlocks the car... My problem is that I paid for a device (the starter device already installed on my car) that I can't use without a membership. People have had remote start on cars for decades without needing a bloatware subscription to XM radio.... sigh

Ok so your device is not supplied by volvo?

No, not the issue at all. The problem is that I refuse to pay a fee and use a tracking app just so I can use remote start features already installed on my car that don't need to be part of any paid monthly service.

My car should not require a cell phone with the maker's app installed on it, or even an Internet connection to fully operate... It's insane to think it should from a reliability standpoint.

If only it were insanity. It might be curible.

According to the article, the remote start feature from the remote does not use the cell connection.

That might very well justify some fee, but $8/month is excessive if one only cares about remote start.

Yeah I pay less than 40€ per year(390 sek) and with it I also get emergency services with towing etc. There's a button in the ceiling.

Btw I also own a Volvo and at least here in UK you get emergency services regardless of whether you pay for the Volvo On Call subscription or not. Breakdown cover is provided for every new Volvo as long as you do the service at a Volvo garage, nothing to do with On Call subscription either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com