this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
869 points (98.3% liked)

News

36000 readers
2375 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It turns out that more technology in cars isn’t necessarily something customers want, and it’s not really improving their driving experience. We know my thoughts on the matter, but I’ll do my best to stay impartial on this latest survey from JD Power that shows most customers don’t appreciate technology in cars unless they can see a clear benefit to them.

JD Power’s 2024 U.S. Tech Experience Index Study evaluated over 81,000 drivers’ experience with “advanced vehicle technologies” in 2024 model year vehicles after 90 days of ownership, It turned out to be a pretty mixed bag when it came to what people liked using. There are a number of tech features that customers like using because they feels that it answers their needs, but at the same time there is a whole lot that don’t get used very often or are continually annoying, according to the survey.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 79 points 2 years ago (2 children)

We need some serious federal regulation against bullshit in vehicles.

Every function that is normal to use while in motion needs a physical button.

Absolutely no fucking spyware reporting back to the manufacturer.

[–] tal@lemmy.today -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

I don't want to ban it. Some people apparently want it (well, or at least the price reduction that comes with the auto companies having a new revenue source). I'm hesitant to try to impose my preferences on them.

I just want an option to pay regular price for a car myself and not have everything I do be data-mined. If it costs $N to pay your costs and make your profit, just charge me $N. I just want to be the customer in the relationship, not the product.

They operated just fine like that for decades. I don't see a need for that to change.

[–] draughtcyclist@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If the backdoor exists, it will be abused.

Also, that relies wholely on trusting the manufacturers to not mine your data when they have the ability to collect it.

[–] Disaster@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago

It beggars belief that people still make the argument you responded to after the whole Clownstrike debacle.

[–] tal@lemmy.today -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If the way you want the market to work is "everyone does things the way I want" rather than "let everyone choose what they want", the chance that the single route that is taken is not what you want is considerably greater.

Choice is good.

[–] 9bananas@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

you don't have a choice when it comes to data collection:

if it's allowed literally every manufacturer WILL do it!

see: the exact situation we're currently in!!

so, no, you don't have a choice (other than buying an older model).

this isn't how "the market" does anything.

there's no downside to outlawing spyware in cars.

and it hasn't made anything cheaper, what the hell kind of cope is that??

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 2 points 2 years ago

It's funny, because there actually is 0 price reduction in most cases.

It is literally even more expensive cars and the corporations double dipping to make extra profit.

Except for maybe some lesser-known Chinese brands that I have no point of reference for, I don't believe there is a single corporation that has made their "smart" cars with tracking on-par or cheaper than their counterparts.

[–] Tja@programming.dev -1 points 2 years ago

A reasonable opinion on lemmy? Prepare for the downvotes, it's a pitchfork circlejerk here!

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Most of the bullshit exists because of federal regulations requirements that they ran away with. Even backup cameras (which are arguably useful) because of shape/size/economy restrictions causing rear windows to be less easy to see out of.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 12 points 2 years ago

No shape of window will let you see a toddler directly behind your car.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Backup camera was mandated because of stronger pillar requirements to increase protection in rollovers, which was mandated because of an increase in rollover crashes, which was caused by an increase in SUV and Truck sales, which was caused by an increase in consumer demand for trucks and SUVs, which was caused by an increase in marketing for Trucks and SUVs which was caused by decrease in (relative) profit margin on sedans/coupes/wagons which was caused by the light truck loophole in CAFE standards, which was put in by manufacturers in the first place.

So I blame the corporations, their lobbyists, and the payroll politicians for it.

Backup cams are great though, quit complaining.