Yes friends, in the neverending parade of stupid ideas coming out of California, another new one stands out: electric car subscription.
In January a California startup named Autonomy began "stocking up on EVs from pretty much every company that makes them," reports Bloomberg (including Tesla, Ford, and Polestar). Their plan? Collect a $5,900 "start fee," then charge $490 to $690 a month for an electric vehicle subscription with up to 1,000 miles of driving (but with no maintenance or registration fees):
To me, $690 a month US sounds like a car payment on a Ford F-150. But these guys want to call it a "subscription" model. Presumably because it is a recurring, never-ending income stream.
That could be why auto executives are pushing to round up that sweet, sweet software revenue in smaller chunks. BMW, to much outcry, is selling an $18-a-month subscription for heated seats in the UK, and General Motors turned its OnStar voice navigation into a $1,500 "mandatory" subscription on every new Buick, GMC and Cadillac Escalade. Even without a la carte add-ons, one of the major forces propping up prices for used EVs is, ironically, their ability to update remotely — the same technology carmakers are using to nickel-and-dime drivers with subscription services.
I will tell you what. Being an ancient Boomer, having learned to drive on a Ford Pinto with a stick, most of the eeelectronic shit in cars these days is a pain in the ass.
I love digital engine control, that is a huge leap forward in technology. I'm a fan of the 10-speed electronic shift transmissions, those are great. ABS brakes, also great. But, and this is a big but, I still like my 5-speed stick-shift and basic tech old 2001 Dodge Ram 1500. It is an appropriate use of technology. Electronic engine control, ABS, both awesome. Stick shift, also awesome because I get to choose when it shifts. It doesn't decide when it is good and ready, which makes me crazy with automatics. There is a time during cornering when the power should come on, and they are always late. Always. Maybe I want to downshift as I slow for a corner or on a hill, that doesn't happen either. Maddening.
I love digital engine control, that is a huge leap forward in technology. I'm a fan of the 10-speed electronic shift transmissions, those are great. ABS brakes, also great. But, and this is a big but, I still like my 5-speed stick-shift and basic tech old 2001 Dodge Ram 1500. It is an appropriate use of technology. Electronic engine control, ABS, both awesome. Stick shift, also awesome because I get to choose when it shifts. It doesn't decide when it is good and ready, which makes me crazy with automatics. There is a time during cornering when the power should come on, and they are always late. Always. Maybe I want to downshift as I slow for a corner or on a hill, that doesn't happen either. Maddening.
As to the rest of it, we've had power windows, heat and air conditioning in cars since the 1950s. It does not need to be electronically controlled by a CPU bigger than a 1990s mainframe on a CANBUS network as big as ARPANET. Seriously. If you want audio, stick an amplifier in there and plug in your cell-phone. You want a big screen, hang an I-Pad on the dash.
Maybe car-makes should stick to making CARS and leave the whole consumer-electronics universe to the people who do that. Outrageous notion I'm sure.
The only tech I like on a car is a decent radio and bluetooth to answer my phone while driving.
ReplyDeleteI don't need auto braking, adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitoring, etc. I have driven rental cars with them and it makes me a WORSE driver, not a better one.
My SUV has a back up sensor and I find I rely on it and forget to look.
I know young people who learned to drive with a camera and can't use mirrors to back up - what happens when their camera gets dirty, foggy, or breaks? (I have a friend who got a good deal on an SUV because the back up camera was broken and would have cost over $2000 to fix).
Technology should help us have better control, not take control from us.