Toyota owners have to pay $8/mo to keep using their key fob for remote start

[ZLoth]

From Ars Technica:

Toyota owners have to pay $8/mo to keep using their key fob for remote start
Feature requires subscription even though it doesn't use connected services.

Automakers keep trying to get a piece of that sweet, sweet subscription income. Now, it's Toyota's turn.

Nearly every car company offers some sort of subscription package, and Toyota has one called Remote Connect. The service offers the usual fare, letting owners use an app to remotely lock their doors, for example, or if they own a plug-in vehicle, to precondition the interior. But as some complimentary subscriptions for Remote Connect come to an end, Toyota owners are getting an unexpected surprise–they can no longer use their key fob to remote-start their vehicles.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Why am I getting an "Oh, what a fleecing" vibe from this? This is the same company that, for several years, refused to introduce Carplay and Android Auto integration into their autos, thus putting them several years behind Korean carmakers Kia and Hyundai. Should I purchase a new car (which probably won't occur for another eight years), Android Auto is an absolute requirement.

[JayhawkCO]

Yeah, that's some bullshit.  It's one thing if you think you're subscribing to the special app.  If you've never opened the app and have been using your fob and now it's disabled?  I'd raise hell.

[kalvado]

Honestly speaking, I cannot imagine a reason to get Toyota after throttle control fiasco and basically refusal to really deal with the issue.
but to each their own.

[kalvado]

And reading into this... I suspect this is a pretty good sign that nothing really changed at Toyota.
Most likely, they just routed engine start through the connection module; engineers doing that didn't give a second thought to paid model. They implemented a remote start module and allowed it to fire up via fob, online access module, and possibly in some other way.
Then marketing people started to partition services, and it turned out remote start was too closely bundled with what became a premium feature.
Pretty much exact same problem - a free feature implemented so that is got behind a paywall - was a contributing factor in Boeing 737MAX fiasco.

Moral of the story: project management, especially software part of it, didn't improve much since unintended acceleration issue; software review still non-existent.

[triplemultiplex]

I hate this shit where you "buy" something but don't actually own it.  The future wasn't supposed to suck.

[ran4sh]

From Ars Technica:

Toyota owners have to pay $8/mo to keep using their key fob for remote start
Feature requires subscription even though it doesn't use connected services.

Automakers keep trying to get a piece of that sweet, sweet subscription income. Now, it's Toyota's turn.

Nearly every car company offers some sort of subscription package, and Toyota has one called Remote Connect. The service offers the usual fare, letting owners use an app to remotely lock their doors, for example, or if they own a plug-in vehicle, to precondition the interior. But as some complimentary subscriptions for Remote Connect come to an end, Toyota owners are getting an unexpected surprise–they can no longer use their key fob to remote-start their vehicles.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Why am I getting an "Oh, what a fleecing" vibe from this? This is the same company that, for several years, refused to introduce Carplay and Android Auto integration into their autos, thus putting them several years behind Korean carmakers Kia and Hyundai. Should I purchase a new car (which probably won't occur for another eight years), Android Auto is an absolute requirement.

I'm not sure why the Android Auto issue is related to this, but it is/was because Toyota was (rightfully imo) concerned with the privacy of the data and with how Google would use it.

[ilpt4u]

I'm sure Aftermarket Remote Start kits would quickly pay for themselves, if Toyota charges $8/month to use a feature already built into the car, depending on how long a Toyota driver intends to keep said vehicle

I'd also like to see things like this made illegal - one should own what they purchase, and free to use its features and do repairs, etc (looking at you, John Deere)

[formulanone]

And reading into this... I suspect this is a pretty good sign that nothing really changed at Toyota.
Most likely, they just routed engine start through the connection module; engineers doing that didn't give a second thought to paid model. They implemented a remote start module and allowed it to fire up via fob, online access module, and possibly in some other way.
Then marketing people started to partition services, and it turned out remote start was too closely bundled with what became a premium feature.
Pretty much exact same problem - a free feature implemented so that is got behind a paywall - was a contributing factor in Boeing 737MAX fiasco.

Moral of the story: project management, especially software part of it, didn't improve much since unintended acceleration issue; software review still non-existent.

You're comparing the convenience of automatically starting your car from a distance to the avionics of passenger aircraft. Those are two complaints on opposite ends of the First World Problem spectrum. The drive-by-wire design has nothing to do with a microtransaction service. Wait until you find out that other manufacturers do it, along with software vendors, video games...

Read your fine print next time.

[SectorZ]

Can't wait until someone finds the hack to make this work for free.

Then predictably Toyota will sue because now people can use something they paid for.

[kalvado]

And reading into this... I suspect this is a pretty good sign that nothing really changed at Toyota.
Most likely, they just routed engine start through the connection module; engineers doing that didn't give a second thought to paid model. They implemented a remote start module and allowed it to fire up via fob, online access module, and possibly in some other way.
Then marketing people started to partition services, and it turned out remote start was too closely bundled with what became a premium feature.
Pretty much exact same problem - a free feature implemented so that is got behind a paywall - was a contributing factor in Boeing 737MAX fiasco.

Moral of the story: project management, especially software part of it, didn't improve much since unintended acceleration issue; software review still non-existent.

You're comparing the convenience of automatically starting your car from a distance to the avionics of passenger aircraft. Those are two complaints on opposite ends of the First World Problem spectrum. The drive-by-wire design has nothing to do with a microtransaction service. Wait until you find out that other manufacturers do it, along with software vendors, video games...

Read your fine print next time.

I am talking about software controlling a primary system of a car. As such, I expect it to be compliant with the standard.
And avionics standards and car software standards are not out of tune since the fundamental science of building reliable software is the same.

Oh, and we're talking about a company which is known to declare standard adherence, while creating untestable and unmaintainable (those are technical definitions, not just words) code which violated standards and caused loss of lives. So color me unsurprized if Toyota, similar to Boeing, lost control over their
design.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's not really hard to start a car with a key.  Remote start always seemed like a gimmick that wasn't worth an extra cost.

[kalvado]

It's not really hard to start a car with a key.  Remote start always seemed like a gimmick that wasn't worth an extra cost.

Depends on where and when. If it's really cold outside - say below 0F - some warmup comes real handy

[formulanone]

And reading into this... I suspect this is a pretty good sign that nothing really changed at Toyota.
Most likely, they just routed engine start through the connection module; engineers doing that didn't give a second thought to paid model. They implemented a remote start module and allowed it to fire up via fob, online access module, and possibly in some other way.
Then marketing people started to partition services, and it turned out remote start was too closely bundled with what became a premium feature.
Pretty much exact same problem - a free feature implemented so that is got behind a paywall - was a contributing factor in Boeing 737MAX fiasco.

Moral of the story: project management, especially software part of it, didn't improve much since unintended acceleration issue; software review still non-existent.

You're comparing the convenience of automatically starting your car from a distance to the avionics of passenger aircraft. Those are two complaints on opposite ends of the First World Problem spectrum. The drive-by-wire design has nothing to do with a microtransaction service. Wait until you find out that other manufacturers do it, along with software vendors, video games...

Read your fine print next time.

I am talking about software controlling a primary system of a car. As such, I expect it to be compliant with the standard.
And avionics standards and car software standards are not out of tune since the fundamental science of building reliable software is the same.

Oh, and we're talking about a company which is known to declare standard adherence, while creating untestable and unmaintainable (those are technical definitions, not just words) code which violated standards and caused loss of lives. So color me unsurprized if Toyota, similar to Boeing, lost control over their
design.

Again, it's a microtransaction. Or if you will, a subscription service...like an entertainment feed or some other content that's delivered to you (either electronically or by mail). If I cancel or fail to pay my Netflix subscription, the button on my TV's remote control fails to let me view Netflix content no matter how many times I push the Netflix button. The satellite radio button stopped working on my cars after 3 months of usage (my wife got a year), and I didn't really want to buy the XM subscription service.

Putting the ability to warm-up an engine (and perhaps by extension, change the temperature of a passenger cabin) on par with the engine throttle input or an aircraft's aerodynamic function is a sharp tack to a different argument. I've worked in or around automotive service departments for over 20 years now; people constantly fail to read the manual on what is usually their second-largest expense.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's not really hard to start a car with a key.  Remote start always seemed like a gimmick that wasn't worth an extra cost.

Depends on where and when. If it's really cold outside - say below 0F - some warmup comes real handy

Perhaps so, I guess that I couldn't justify the price hike for myself.  Usually I have scrap ice on my own car 40-50 morning a year even here in Central California.  I guess it doesn't feel like worth moving up the options list on a new car to get giving I grew up having to start my cars manually in cold weather climates.

[kalvado]

And reading into this... I suspect this is a pretty good sign that nothing really changed at Toyota.
Most likely, they just routed engine start through the connection module; engineers doing that didn't give a second thought to paid model. They implemented a remote start module and allowed it to fire up via fob, online access module, and possibly in some other way.
Then marketing people started to partition services, and it turned out remote start was too closely bundled with what became a premium feature.
Pretty much exact same problem - a free feature implemented so that is got behind a paywall - was a contributing factor in Boeing 737MAX fiasco.

Moral of the story: project management, especially software part of it, didn't improve much since unintended acceleration issue; software review still non-existent.

You're comparing the convenience of automatically starting your car from a distance to the avionics of passenger aircraft. Those are two complaints on opposite ends of the First World Problem spectrum. The drive-by-wire design has nothing to do with a microtransaction service. Wait until you find out that other manufacturers do it, along with software vendors, video games...

Read your fine print next time.

I am talking about software controlling a primary system of a car. As such, I expect it to be compliant with the standard.
And avionics standards and car software standards are not out of tune since the fundamental science of building reliable software is the same.

Oh, and we're talking about a company which is known to declare standard adherence, while creating untestable and unmaintainable (those are technical definitions, not just words) code which violated standards and caused loss of lives. So color me unsurprized if Toyota, similar to Boeing, lost control over their
design.

Again, it's a microtransaction. Or if you will, a subscription service...like an entertainment feed or some other content that's delivered to you (either electronically or by mail). If I cancel or fail to pay my the Netflix subscription, the button on my TV's remote control fails to let me Netflix no matter how many times I push the Netflix button. (Stupid Samsung TV, that's another matter.)

Putting the ability to warm-up an engine (and perhaps by extension, change the temperature of a passenger cabin) on par with the engine throttle input or an aircraft's aerodynamic function is a sharp tack to a different argument.

We are talking slightly different things. Looks like fob remote start linked to subscription wasn't a design feature. It is not clearly described in sales documents, and didn't come to light until not too long ago.
My impression is that it's a bug, promoted to a feature by later iteration of marketing effort.
And as such, it implies poorly designed system - which Toyota did before and could mostly get away with. I could care less about remote start; but this is a sign of significant lingering problems with engineering within the company.

[Scott5114]

Fuck, I'll go harder and say that any vehicle licensed for use on public roads should be compelled to make all of the specs to its computer-machinery interfaces public, and any and all code its computer runs open source. It's straight-up a safety hazard to not know what the code in the computers is actually doing, and just take it on the manufacturer's word that it's not going to suddenly bug out and send the car careening into the car next to it. That code should be open so that third parties (not just NHTSA, but the automotive press, computer security experts, etc) can read through it and identify any potential safety risks and offer patches to be installed.

Also, when someone drops $20,000 on a machine they should be able to do anything they want with it, including formatting the hard drive and installing their own software, and having open source software would facilitate that.

[kalvado]

It's not really hard to start a car with a key.  Remote start always seemed like a gimmick that wasn't worth an extra cost.

Depends on where and when. If it's really cold outside - say below 0F - some warmup comes real handy

Perhaps so, I guess that I couldn't justify the price hike for myself.  Usually I have scrap ice on my own car 40-50 morning a year even here in Central California.  I guess it doesn't feel like worth moving up the options list on a new car to get giving I grew up having to start my cars manually in cold weather climates.

Look at it from the other perspective. Once you have pushbutton engine start and no manual keys, remote start and local start become fairly similar. Once you have a medium range secure control channel - remote lock-unlock, there is really no reason not to add some features like window or engine control.
I can understand phone control being a premium since cell service and cloud servers have ongoing costs; but medium range control is just there.

[fwydriver405]

It's not really hard to start a car with a key.  Remote start always seemed like a gimmick that wasn't worth an extra cost.

Depends on where and when. If it's really cold outside - say below 0F - some warmup comes real handy

Perhaps so, I guess that I couldn't justify the price hike for myself.  Usually I have scrap ice on my own car 40-50 morning a year even here in Central California.  I guess it doesn't feel like worth moving up the options list on a new car to get giving I grew up having to start my cars manually in cold weather climates.

In my opinion, here in (southern) Maine, remote start comes in handy in the winter to get the car warmed up, get the heat running the cabin and get the defroster running on the windows. In the summer, it's mostly to get a head start in cooling the car down in the cabin to a comfortable temperature, usually around 22ºC (72ºF).

[Max Rockatansky]

It's not really hard to start a car with a key.  Remote start always seemed like a gimmick that wasn't worth an extra cost.

Depends on where and when. If it's really cold outside - say below 0F - some warmup comes real handy

Perhaps so, I guess that I couldn't justify the price hike for myself.  Usually I have scrap ice on my own car 40-50 morning a year even here in Central California.  I guess it doesn't feel like worth moving up the options list on a new car to get giving I grew up having to start my cars manually in cold weather climates.

Look at it from the other perspective. Once you have pushbutton engine start and no manual keys, remote start and local start become fairly similar. Once you have a medium range secure control channel - remote lock-unlock, there is really no reason not to add some features like window or engine control.
I can understand phone control being a premium since cell service and cloud servers have ongoing costs; but medium range control is just there.

I want to say with my Impreza that basically all that stuff was included in the next option group up and couldn't be individually optioned.  I wonder how much of that is the case with the Toyota line these days?  I would imagine it would be equally difficult to get stand alone opinions on specific trims.  It seems like things like remote start tend to come at the mid-level to upper tier option groups on most volume cars these days.

[LilianaUwU]

I'm gonna say it once and never again: subscription services for things like that is bullshit.

[ZLoth]

Why am I getting an "Oh, what a fleecing" vibe from this? This is the same company that, for several years, refused to introduce Carplay and Android Auto integration into their autos, thus putting them several years behind Korean carmakers Kia and Hyundai. Should I purchase a new car (which probably won't occur for another eight years), Android Auto is an absolute requirement.

I'm not sure why the Android Auto issue is related to this, but it is/was because Toyota was (rightfully imo) concerned with the privacy of the data and with how Google would use it.

It all comes down to money. While I realize that cars are partially rolling computers nowadays, it's depends on where the controllers are being used. When it comes to the actual car hardware (emissions control, engine efficiency), the carmakers have this down pat. It's a different story when it comes to the interior systems.

We're come quite a ways from when it was "good enough" to have a car radio in the car, with maybe a tape deck or a CD player. Nowadays, the vehicles have a "car infotainment system". Between 2006 and 2014 (the two years that I purchased a car), Bluetooth went from a rarely found feature to a requirement for me to purchase the vehicle. This is because smartphones took off in the late 2000s and were more than just phones, they were also audio players as well. Why listen to terrestrial radio or subscribe to SiriusXM when you can listen to the playlist on your phone?

You know what else a phone is good at? Vehicle navigation. Why should I pay for expensive "vehicle navigation" option and $300 updates when I can free GPS navigation from my smartphone that is continuously updated? To the car maker, that's an revenue stream that is suddenly cut off. And, that's just one example. Go ahead and knock Google and Apple for the privacy issues, but you have to agree, they got the whole user experience down pat. The Android OS make up 73% of the mobile market share, while Apple iOS makes up the other 27%. When it comes down to Android Auto/Car Play, there are extremely tight rules surrounding what you can and cannot do, including the fact that you cannot play video, the buttons have to be "jumbo-sized", and so on. Both Google's and Apple's application ecosystems are extremely strong with both the number of applications and how frequently they are updated.

For the car makers, however, Android Auto and Carplay hurts their revenue stream. If you want to integrate Carplay/Android Auto, you have to pay a hefty licensing fee. So much for having Pandora pay you a fee to include their service into your own proprietary car OS. And, so much for having a system that is "unique" to your brand. As a consumer, I don't mind paying the "one-time" fee as part of the purchase price.

It's not really hard to start a car with a key.  Remote start always seemed like a gimmick that wasn't worth an extra cost.

It comes in very handy on extremely cold mornings when you want to warm up your car and defrost those windows. Not to mention the hot summers when your car is under the hot sun and you want to get it partially cooled off. Of course, I garage my vehicles, so I don't have to worry about scraping the windshield as much. The procedure for remote starting my car requires that you first hit the "lock" button on the remote, followed by the "remote start".

[Scott5114]

What's going to be really stupid is when you have these 2022 cars still on the road in 2042. Does anybody really think the current version of the Android API is still going to be supported by then? Or that Apple/Android are still going to be the dominant mobile OSes by then? (If you're tempted to say "yes", think about what computers were like in 2002 and then try again. Do you have anything in your house that's compatible with Windows XP?)

Hell, what do you do if the car manufacturer or marque goes belly-up? You just have features on your car that are perfectly mechanically sound that you can never access again because the subscription servers are shut down?

[ZLoth]

What's going to be really stupid is when you have these 2022 cars still on the road in 2042. Does anybody really think the current version of the Android API is still going to be supported by then? Or that Apple/Android are still going to be the dominant mobile OSes by then? (If you're tempted to say "yes", think about what computers were like in 2002 and then try again. Do you have anything in your house that's compatible with Windows XP?)

Are we talking software level or hardware level? Windows XP was introduced in 2001, and went end-of-life in April, 2014, thus the backwards compatibility for Windows XP isn't there anymore. XP was also a 32-bit operating system, while we now use 64-bit operating systems.

Hardware level? Different story. Does the processor support 64-bit? If so, I can probably repurpose an old Windows XP computer into a Linux server or possibly a Linux workstation. On the other hand, try repurposing an Apple computer with their intentional obsolescence.

Lets look at another technology. DVD was technology that was introduced in 1997, and was a huge improvement over VHS in terms of video quality, feature set, and reduced cost of manufacturing the discs. Although it has been replaced by both BluRay and Streaming services, you can still purchase DVDs in at Walmart, and the BluRay/4K players still play DVDs and CDs. And CDs are a 40 year old technology, although support for physical media is being eliminated in cars in favor of Bluetooth.

Having said that, I put more confidence in Apple/Google updating their platform than the automakers updating their proprietary platform. Most of the work of Android Auto/Carplay is still at your phone's level, with the integration allowing your phone to interface with the touch screen. Any obsolescence will more likely occur at the hardware level instead of the software level.

[Scott5114]

Software level. Unless you think that the car manufacturers are going to voluntarily put all the specs out for their proprietary computer hardware so that someone can put together a Linux distro that you can install over the existing operating system. Granted, someone's going to attempt that anyway, but I would feel a little leery driving in a car with aftermarket software unless I knew either the manufacturer released their specs or that the processor running the aftermarket software only controlled creature-comfort features like the radio and GPS. It's one thing working around the fits and starts of a reverse-engineered printer driver, it's quite another if your car's OS suddenly bugs out reading the camshaft position sensor.

I personally have zero confidence in Apple/Google maintaining compatibility. That's just not in the nature of commercial software companies. Eventually we will reach a point where Apple/Google estimates that too few cars of a certain model year are left on the road (or to be more accurate, there aren't enough cars of that model year still being driven by people who have the cash to shell out for a new phone every year) to make it economically feasible to keep porting that version of the car interface protocol forward to their new OS version. And so we will get the inevitable end-of-life announcement. You'll end up having to do something silly like keep an outdated phone in your car with your music on it if you can't afford to trade your car in as often as you trade your phone in.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I hate this shit where you "buy" something but don't actually own it.  The future wasn't supposed to suck.

This concept isn't new, but because of the increasing interconnectedness of modern life it has become much easier to accomplish when a company wants to say "you 'bought' it but we can take it away from you". When you bought a CD, you didn't "own" the music on it - the CD was essentially a license to use the contents privately for yourself with restrictions (however unenforceable they may have been) on non-personal usage. Of course, they can't "shut off" a CD sitting on your shelf, but I've heard stories that songs you buy digitally may magically disappear - even though you paid for it, you never "owned" it and they can do that for any reason no questions asked, and I've noticed some stuff in the deeper corners of my library I bought years ago no longer "exists".

And I agree it's a pain in the ass.