Gm is $40 per VIN 1 year,
Chrysler is $35 for flashing but to do that you need 2 more subscriptions which totals about $120
There are aftermarket tools but the subscriptions are for a year and about $1000-$4000
The problem is as I always point, that people want complexity and technology for everyday but as soon as something breaks they want it to be like 1990.
The article complains about CAN bus not being secure but this sort of attack is very rare, you need special tools, skills, physical access to the network and time. Regular car thieves don’t go and make a key to steal a car, that would be the same as a 1980’s one breaking a window and start trying to decode the cylinder and then cutting a key!
How does a towing company get your car in 10 seconds? That’s how they’re stolen most of the time.
God damn. I swear if they could , they would make you buy a fucking new wrench every time you work on a different car. Such bullshit how they tie their tools to a per-vin registration.
this is much more about insurance companies only paying for cheaper 3rd party parts for repairs than it is anything anti-consumer, though I'm sure there's some of that, too.
the automotive parts industry is massive and if you allow third party parts manufacturers to make parts for your car, you are undercutting your own parts replacement business. how do you counter that? you require that replacement parts come from you. the only way to do that is via electronic means, because anything purely mechanical can (and is) reverse engineered quickly.
insurance companies fight against this in court because 3rd party parts are much cheaper than official parts, and usually come with an associated dip in quality as well, which is another reason auto makers fight for first-party parts businesses.
Honda doesn't want Snake Oil Autoparts stuff installed on cars which are still under warranty after a collision, for example, but the insurance company paying for those repairs definitely does.
> you require that replacement parts come from you. the only way to do that is via electronic means, because anything purely mechanical can (and is) reverse engineered quickly.
They lost the right to require things to do with thr car the
y sold the car.
Electronic lockouts will be cobsidered theft one day
> They lost the right to require things to do with [the] car they sold the car.
not if you want a warranty or any manufacturer support on the vehicle at all, and these are things that consumers value a lot.
> Electronic lockouts will be [considered] theft one day
among the most feverish people, they are considered a problem worth fighting, which I agree with, and I don't think it will ever be considered theft. the law just doesn't support electronic lockouts as theft, and precedent on this would be very difficult to undo without changes to laws defining what ownership actually is.
The problem is as I always point, that people want complexity and technology for everyday but as soon as something breaks they want it to be like 1990.
The article complains about CAN bus not being secure but this sort of attack is very rare, you need special tools, skills, physical access to the network and time. Regular car thieves don’t go and make a key to steal a car, that would be the same as a 1980’s one breaking a window and start trying to decode the cylinder and then cutting a key! How does a towing company get your car in 10 seconds? That’s how they’re stolen most of the time.