[el ess A]

OTA upgrades are great, as long as that's all they are. GM mad at Apple from trying to horn in on their stuff? I'm more concerned at GM trying to horn in on my life periodically. I like options. The first option is leaving it up to me to decide what a car company can and cannot "see" in my automotive ownership. The data I generate is mine. I'm creating it. I'm not renting the car. I'm buying the entire thing. That's my blackbox and what the car stores is my information. If I decide to share it, that should always be my choice.

For those that believe the "that's not going to happen" mantra should be aware we all already know what the nose of a camel looks like. Every company in the world wants to get in everyone's back pocket and follow them around. Almost literally. They bash Google for it, probably more out of jealousy more than about privacy issues.

I see the point for both sides. I used to work in a different industry than the automotive one, but customers are customers and data mining their information is core to the business, regardless of what industry you're in. Customer feedback is good, but data mining is better, especially when you force people to allow you to do it or they can't use your product. If you use the info internally to make a better product and gain market share, that's all cool. But how do we really know they're not selling our names on a list even if they say they won't? We don't.

Apple sees the cars for exactly what they are. Rolling tech toys. And they want to be part of the car's infrastructure.

The problem with all of it is, even if you bother to read the fine print, is they don't tell you everything they data mine. GM begrudgingly handed over blackbox data in the Alex Murdaugh murder trial and showed some crucial evidence (along with Apple's iPhone data, ironically) to help put him behind bars. They used that data in the trial to document an exact time-line and route and speeds at certain points. If he'd have driven a 1984 pickup and left his phone at the house, it might have been a different trial. Who knows?

And then when you're beholden only to the manufacturer to hold out your hand and take whatever crumbs they're willing to give you as far as upgrades, they also have the power to monopolize your wallet. Just like Tesla and their "no OBD plug in warranty voiding" rule. To me, that's lame. Another thing I despise about the Tesla and the #1 reason I will never own one is that they got caught video spying on customers. Done. Can't get that trust back.

I would have no problem to be able to opt out of some things or everything without putting the operation of the vehicle I own out of service. TBH, I didn't even realize that OnStar was lost on the older Camaros because of no further support. Fine by me. Didn't use it, don't miss it. I do like the fact that at least for now, I have a CHOICE to upgrade the NAV maps in our 2020 vehicles. Opt in at my choice to pay a price for the USB drive map updates, plug it in and do the updates. At my convenience.

The business model of the future has benefits, but also pitfalls, and I still don't think there's enough protections in place for the consumer to not to be a mis-used data-mining source.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by silversleeper

I bought one of those OBD plug ins to address the lack of HUD or in front of you display. I returned it unopened after I found out tesla is voiding warranty if you have OBD plug in mods. Like always with dealer service and Mods voiding warranty YMMV but there are few service places and that's the guidance they have now. Just FYI to hide that if you need to take it in under warranty or for others consider that before buying one.

30 minutes to put it in, 10 minutes to take it out when I need to.

Originally Posted by el ess A

OTA upgrades are great, as long as that's all they are. GM mad at Apple from trying to horn in on their stuff? I'm more concerned at GM trying to horn in on my life periodically. I like options. The first option is leaving it up to me to decide what a car company can and cannot "see" in my automotive ownership. The data I generate is mine. I'm creating it. I'm not renting the car. I'm buying the entire thing. That's my blackbox and what the car stores is my information. If I decide to share it, that should always be my choice.

For those that believe the "that's not going to happen" mantra should be aware we all already know what the nose of a camel looks like. Every company in the world wants to get in everyone's back pocket and follow them around. Almost literally. They bash Google for it, probably more out of jealousy more than about privacy issues.

I see the point for both sides. I used to work in a different industry than the automotive one, but customers are customers and data mining their information is core to the business, regardless of what industry you're in. Customer feedback is good, but data mining is better, especially when you force people to allow you to do it or they can't use your product. If you use the info internally to make a better product and gain market share, that's all cool. But how do we really know they're not selling our names on a list even if they say they won't? We don't.

Apple sees the cars for exactly what they are. Rolling tech toys. And they want to be part of the car's infrastructure.

The problem with all of it is, even if you bother to read the fine print, is they don't tell you everything they data mine. GM begrudgingly handed over blackbox data in the Alex Murdaugh murder trial and showed some crucial evidence (along with Apple's iPhone data, ironically) to help put him behind bars. They used that data in the trial to document an exact time-line and route and speeds at certain points. If he'd have driven a 1984 pickup and left his phone at the house, it might have been a different trial. Who knows?

And then when you're beholden only to the manufacturer to hold out your hand and take whatever crumbs they're willing to give you as far as upgrades, they also have the power to monopolize your wallet. Just like Tesla and their "no OBD plug in warranty voiding" rule. To me, that's lame. Another thing I despise about the Tesla and the #1 reason I will never own one is that they got caught video spying on customers. Done. Can't get that trust back.

I would have no problem to be able to opt out of some things or everything without putting the operation of the vehicle I own out of service. TBH, I didn't even realize that OnStar was lost on the older Camaros because of no further support. Fine by me. Didn't use it, don't miss it. I do like the fact that at least for now, I have a CHOICE to upgrade the NAV maps in our 2020 vehicles. Opt in at my choice to pay a price for the USB drive map updates, plug it in and do the updates. At my convenience.

The business model of the future has benefits, but also pitfalls, and I still don't think there's enough protections in place for the consumer to not to be a mis-used data-mining source.

Yeah, this is the new business model for GM and every other automaker in the world, regardless of what makes the wheels move.

[90503]

Just curious....

It seems that whenever Tesla "allows" another manufacturer to use their charging stations, it's considered good news by most, but not so much with the Tesla owners....(who "paid" for the stations originally with their purchase..?)....

Was wondering, how solid is this arrangement? Can Musk/Tesla change their minds and pull the plug? (sorry...lol). Is Tesla laying a trap to discourage any real competition when it comes to charging? and at some point again only allow their own makes to charge? Do Tesla owners/drivers have any clout with this?

Who really owns and controls these charging stations?

Just wondering if it could become problematic in the near future.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by 90503

Just curious....

It seems that whenever Tesla "allows" another manufacturer to use their charging stations, it's considered good news by most, but not so much with the Tesla owners....(who "paid" for the stations originally with their purchase..?)....

Was wondering, how solid is this arrangement? Can Musk/Tesla change their minds and pull the plug? (sorry...lol). Is Tesla laying a trap to discourage any real competition when it comes to charging? and at some point again only allow their own makes to charge? Do Tesla owners/drivers have any clout with this?

Who really owns and controls these charging stations?

Just wondering if it could become problematic in the near future.

A good summary:
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...-ev-strategy/#

[Capricio]

"the automaker can reap information such as how and where drivers charge their cars, time spent charging, charging speeds, and even what customers do while waiting for their vehicle to charge"

So awesome, nothing but upside for everyone. Now I won't have to spend time detailing all my movements for others on paper after paying for gas with cash, such a time saver.

[kevint]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

How would they know what customers are doing while they charge?

I don't own an electric vehicle but there are probably cameras at or around the charging stations. There may also be other services like wifi where they can see/limit what users, in general, are looking at.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by kevint

I don't own an electric vehicle but there are probably cameras at or around the charging stations. There may also be other services like wifi where they can see/limit what users, in general, are looking at.

Probably whatever people are doodling around with using the onboard infotainment system, even better with actual camera surveillance.

[silversleeper]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

Electric cars release more toxic emissions than petrol-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment

“The tire tread releases toxic particles 400 times greater than exhaust emissions”

“The study, which was published in 2022 but has begun circulating again after being cited in a WSJ op-ed, found that brakes and tyres release 1,850 times more particulate matter compared to modern exhaust pipes which have filters that reduce emissions.“

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...6315d168&ei=18

But they fail to mention what type of crap comes out of the tailpipe. Back in the day it was lead. CO2 isn't a poison no matter what they say.
Also back in the day asbestos from brake pads was a big thing. I think it's prohibited but just look at your front wheels, all those iron and pad particulates. After the seasons first light rain my car is coated with all that mostly pad dust from the cars on the highway. The article doesn't even touch on that. If a person drives non aggressively their tire wear will be like a minivan or SUV and it is a smaller tire than some SUVs so less material deposited, let's ignore that to make a scarey article. Also I have no brake wear most drives and only slight other drives because regen braking does it all for me with no waste. Only unexpected hard stops in traffic that happen once in a while need added traditional brakes and that isn't hard applications normally. You wouldn't know this unless you spent time at the wheel in the real world and drove non-aggressively.
As I sit here thinking of the fun depositing rubber from my now bald 315 wide rear Camaro tires...with no cats because factory cats tend to melt under high hp

[The Chief (tm)]

Pretty impressive that IC and exhaust treatment tech has lowered the particulate "count" (?) to this extent, especially w/o the power-robbing impact of the equipment rolled out back in the '70's.

But re: relative EV/ICE particulate contribution, don't ICE cars also , y'know, release the toxins from the tires and brakes? So the overall difference still comes down to exhaust / zero exhaust?

[Evergreen6]

I love how everyone becomes an electrical engineer and environmentalist in these threads. Moonlighting from former hobbies and careers, I'm sure. I guess if EV's actually and finally inspire the everyday Joe to "care" about the environment, that's a good thing, right? Or, at least it looks and feels good in their newfound, personal crusade against another thing they don't like?

The writeup on "tire dust" is already tired and old and lacks context. Not that it isn't important and that there isn't some factual data. Pick a different hill to die on for environmental reasons, though. Be sure to account for the full lifecycle of oil production including exploration, drilling, fracking, spills, refinery emissions. Make sure to add in ICV idle time to defrost windows and warm interiors, and subtract the energy loss from heat, driveline friction, and noise.

Or, be like me. I don't give $0.02 about how my EV impacts the environment right now. Just like I didn't have a little greta-meltdown before I bought my V8 Camaro. EV's are <1% of cars on American roads. I didn't consult a study about tire dust before I bought mine. These distractions are more noise put up by politically motivated individuals, and mostly people screeching on car forums. And there's so much good data about the environmental impact of EV's. Interesting that they cherry-pick one little study, don't you think?

[ABM2SS]

I love how everyone becomes an electrical engineer and environmentalist in these threads.

I do too! It's fun!

[Capricio]

Hopefully EVs will start paying their fair share of road maintenance taxes, eventually, since they disproportionately wear down the roads with heavier weights and contribute nothing in fuel tax revenues. Yet another "subsidy" by exemption.

Oops, off the narrative again... resume the all upside for everyone all the time discussion. Golly! EVs are cheap to operate, right?!

[Evergreen6]

If you don't want an EV, don't buy one. If discussing them upsets you, consider abstaining from the thread. It really is that simple.

I guess those poor ICV owners will have to shoulder the burden for the 1% of EV's on the roads for a little while. Womp womp. However, that is quickly changing, with some US states charging higher fees for EV's as part of the registration/renewal process. Have no fear, state and fed governments will find a way to tax EV's operating on the road.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

It really is that simple.

The government is pretty much running the automotive marketplace to a degree never seen before. It will never be simple again. I didn't want to be a stakeholder in EV sales, but now I have be as a taxpayer.

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

Have no fear, state and fed governments will find a way to tax EV's operating on the road.

Taxing them while subsidizing to promote them? Or wait until they are more widely adopted before dropping the bad news (bait and switch)?