Another fallacy that service fees and subscriptions are 100% independent of hardware - all expenses and revenues are fungible - R&D costs come from the sale of hardware and, now subscriptions. Neither are in a vacuum from each other.
The part you are not seeing is that this is by their design, not by necessity. They use the artificial crippling of inherent features to block and break things on purpose so they can keep you in their ecosystem. The lock in is so they can get paid twice for the same thing. By locking you in to their ecosystem and refusing free roam, they get to get money from the users as well as the companies that have to pay THEM to gain access to their user base. Yes there is money changing hands, but it not necessarily have to be so. The whole game is to have access to your data and control the owner/user. When you completely block their cellular the way I mentioned and block Rivian (or GM in the case I already have done), then they have no costs that are not already free through their normal connectivity.
I've been to campgrounds that have campground-provided WiFi (usually paid, usually terrible) where there is zero cellular reception.Came here to say this. Where's someone supposed to drive that is so remote that their truck does not get a cellular signal, but they still have WiFi that works to connect to the truck?
Are we talking a house in the middle of nowhere, or something? Geeze.
Yea those don't typically work for this type of testing anyway because almost all public wifi has client isolation turned on. Casting would fail even if it would otherwise not be blocked if client isolation is turned on. The easiest universal way to test is anyone that has a starlink or lives somewhere with home wifi that is not within cell signal.
Without owning the vehicle everything you're surmising is completely made up with zero facts, just an unrealistic wishlist of your choosing. This is 100% nonsense paranoia period. Don't buy the car.
I disagree, I think they should get a Rivian so I can get more ridiculous threads like this because their tin-foil hat is on too tight.
I traded my Ocean in for another Rivian. I liked everything about the Ocean except for the lack of support. FOA is doing great work, but it still doesn't solve a lot of the issues around the insolvency of an automaker. If that's your worry, stay away from anything that's been built in the last 30 years.
No, insolvency of the automaker is not the point. The point is that owners create a better product than the manufacturers when they get past artificial crippling, cloud tie ins that should only be an OPTION, not a requirement, and have the ability to work on and improve the product that they own irrespective of the wishes and direction of the manufacturer. This ticks all the boxes, right to repair, right to secure your thing against the manufactuer, right to work around artificial limitations, right to enforce your own privacy etc. All of the fanboys for ANY product always spout the "any car made in the last 30 years is not for you" type of response. But unless consumers start pushing back to both automakers and our government representatives, eventually those 30+ year old cars will no longer be on the road and you will have no choice. The entire reason for this is to push back and generate change for the better going forward. CHOICE is never a bad thing. Cloud services and the things that all automakers are forcing on users today are great as a choice for people that want it. But it should never be the only option and unless there is pushback, there will be no other choice at some point going forward.
