A pirated car would just be a more free way to access the $10k/yr pay wall you live your life behind. Car-dominant infrastructure is vendor lock in.

Edit: fixed picture

  • n2burns
    1·
    11 months ago

    I’m not sure which direct connection you’re thinking of, but for most phones that would be limited to WiFi (probably WiFi Direct), Bluetooth, and maybe NFC. NFC range is tiny and Bluetooth’s is pretty small. WiFi’s range is approximately the same thing as an RF remote, which isn’t great.

    Also, if we did have direct connection (which would be great for confirming the start worked, and the status of the car), why would we need internet??

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      21·
      11 months ago

      By direct I meant routing to the car and user device, not through company servers. There’s no need for that. Both devices are computers. The only reason the company would need it routed through them first is to make sure you’ve paid up.

      • n2burns
        3·
        11 months ago
        1. That would mean the vehicle still needs an internet connection, presumably a cell connection, which is a service.
        2. Removing the manufacturer’s server would make the car the server, and would mean exposing your car to the whole internet. That’s a bad plan.
        • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
          21·
          11 months ago

          1. Yes, I mentioned that. However, the cell plan would be a lot cheaper. There shouldn’t be a lot of data coming through.

          2. It would mean exposing it as much as any other device is exposed. It’d have a port open and listening for communication. Honestly, I’m pretty sure it’d be identical to how it is currently. It’s not like sending the communication from the company server is any different than from any other device. Its not connecting directly to the company’s servers. It’s a wireless service. Sure, it needs security measures, but it already needs that.