I'm surprised everyone is ignoring the obvious elephant in the room: The car receives a signal to lock itself down. Therefore someone can impersonate the car dealer and lock your car down (as long as their encryption is set up in a broken way, which it almost always is).
Assume the Bad Guys have figured out how to send the brick-yourself code to an arbitrary Zoe. Which do you think is going to happen more often: bricked because you couldn't afford your monthly payment, or bricked until you transfer 100 BTC to the haxx0r?
I feel like you're trolling by mentioning "haxx0r" and bitcoin, but here goes anyway.
The fact that Renault is trying to sell a tangible, vendor-locked, remote-privileged/DRM-reliant device is more interesting than the "what if some jerk hacks the protocol?"
>Which do you think is going to happen more often: bricked because you couldn't afford your monthly payment, or bricked until you transfer 100 BTC to the haxx0r?
The comment I was responding to wasn't about DRM, it was about the possibility of someone else hacking into it. That same issue applies to every person who hasn't disabled OnStar (and I mean physically disabled, since GM can turn them back on by court order, I assume a "hacker" could too).
It looks like this is a lease, but instead of using an expensive repo. man to haul away the car when you can't pay your bill, the car stops charging instead. When your account becomes current, the battery unlocks. Progress marches on! The Boing Boing and EFF "articles" here are only so much outrage porn.
Note that you really do not want to buy an electric car at this point; leasing is really the only option. Technology is changing so fast that if you should buy an EV you risk holding the bag should it become radically obsolete in the next three to five years. There's also a chance the battery will degrade faster than anticipated.
You're saying that leasing is better than buying because cost of obsolescence is borne by the lessor.
This is an economic fallacy so common that it deserves a memorable name.
If a product became obsolete so quickly that everyone chose to lease it, then the lease price would rise to the level where leasing and buying were equally good.
For example, if the cost of a product went to $0 after 3 years, then--all factors being equal--the cost to lease it for 3 years then return it to the lessor versus the cost to buy it and throw it in the garbage after 3 years would be equal.
I'm saying something a little bit different, but I was not being very clear. Yes, the cost of leasing is born by you, the lessee. However, the risk of fluctuations in value of the car itself is born by the lessor, for which you pay a volatility premium. The lessor places a bet on the future value of the car ahead of time when they lease it, just as you would implicitly place your own bet should you buy it.
Electric cars are so new that they may be one of the few cases where leasing makes sense; some people may not want the downside risk of buying, and are willing to pay a bit more for that. Battery technology is ever-improving.
Except that lease $ payments are fixed and agreed at point of contract.
The parent is suggesting that on day 0 of the lease the lessor doesn't know if the EV will be worth less than they project, due to accelerated obsolescence from a new technology emerging.
You're right in the macro, that if this happened leases would go up, but those that were already in contract would be "protected" and I think that's his/her point.
The situation with electric cars is a little more complicated , as there's a $7500 tax credit for them. If I lease an electric car I can get the full value of that $7500 over the 2 or 3 year lease. If I buy it, that value is spread out over the entire life of the car.
Personally I'd prefer to lease an electric car, and am going to soon. Even if it's more expensive than buying one, the extra cost is like buying an option to give at back after 2-3 years, which is worth something, especially with relatively new battery technology.
That assumes that everybody is equally smart and well-informed.
I don't know that it's true, but it seems reasonable to assume that many electric car customers are treating it like a normal car purchase without thinking about obsolescence, and allowing the natural desire to own an object rather than rent it to push them in that direction.
In an ideal world filled with sane, rational humans, buying and renting should cost about the same. But we don't live in such a world.
The risk of default in an auto loan is just as high, if not a bit more, as loan payments are typically higher than lease payments. But yes, you pay more for a lease than if you bought the car outright, assuming you couldn't get a higher return on your money elsewhere.
The ability to remotely lock down the car, though, probably lowers the default rate and eases recovery of the car, so leasing this car should have lower "bad debt" costs than leasing a non-DRM'd car, making the lease comparatively cheaper than other cars.
I find this risky on the part of Renault. We still have the ENAC principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptio_non_adimpleti_contract... ). When Renault locks the electric car, they are reneging on their contractual obligations. So given that they want to recover the money, how will that work ? In court you can say "I'm not paying for (a) the period that the car was disabled, ever (b) nor am I paying anything until the car is re-enabled", and that's a defensible position. Given that the car costs exactly the same (in loan repayments) to Renault, whether it's driving or locked down, this seems beyond stupid. I wonder who their legal advisor is.
Reneging on contractual obligations is something you should only ever do if you're not expecting any payments anymore.
(Of course this would be the situation in Northwest Europe, I'm not sure how this works in the US, so YMMV. And of course, you can bet it's unlikely in the extreme a collection agency will see it like this). This does not constitute legal advice, and I am especially not advising anyone to do anything. I am just voicing a concern. Contact a lawyer before you do anything (there is free legal representation for people having trouble with payments to financial institutions in most locations, use it).
Then again the lessor may lower the lease price and absorb a little more of the risk in the hope of increasing sales and gaining market share, ie a loss leader strategy.
The article is one of the stupidest things I've ever read that wasn't a Youtube comment. "Not allowed to own?" What kind of ridiculous statement is that? Can I complain that I'm "not allowed to own" my apartment because my landlord chooses to operate a rental building instead of a condo building?
This article seems a little harsh. Does leasing/renting the battery out make the car more affordable? Because aren't batteries still a huge cost driver for these vehicles? What is the difference in sticker price? And can drivers be incentivized to share their driving data - maybe lower insurance or insurance per mile, a lower battery leasing fee, etc? Just saying that this 'brickable car' may be worth it for some. No need to write it off just like that.
And would you really want to own an expensive battery that has to be replaced eventually at great cost?
I don't think it's harsh enough. Renault wants to 'sell' a product to a consumer that he will never truly own.
>And can drivers be incentivized to share their driving data - maybe lower insurance or insurance per mile, a lower battery leasing fee, etc?
This reminds me of the fictional television set that used its built-in camera to take a photograph of its users' living rooms and lowered or raised the price of streaming movies based on how many people were in the room (as insurance that you're technically not broadcasting it to a group that they've determined as needing a paid license). Sure, it's intrusive and you're potentially paying more for a stream than ownership of the media, but maybe there's a bright side.
And really, do you want to buy a blu ray that's possibly, eventually going to have to be replaced by a more expensive format?
How does this DRM even work? What if the battery can't communicate with Renault, because you're in a country or region they don't have coverage (for example the mountains)?
You can get a SIM card that works in 160 countries for $15. And I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people who own an electric car but never drive it on an area with cellphone coverage is literally zero.
I had a car once that relied on the bank sending it a "payment was made" message to the car every two weeks. To say it was not reliable was an understatement. For a good two weeks after the original purchase, I could not rely on the car due to faults with their system working in an area with spotty cell coverage (which still exist even in the US).
To the last day of my obligation to that lender, I would have problems with it, typically due to weather, problems with the module itself, or any number of other factors.
I would hope that Renaults system is better than that... but I will be hard pressed to trust such a system ever again. Having your car shut down remotely due to faulty DRM really sucks.
> Renault wants to 'sell' a product to a consumer that he will never truly own.
So exactly like when you purchase an ebook from Amazon, a game from Steam, or dozens other services where you think you own something but in reality you don't. I'm not saying it's good, but why do people get angry when it's more "real"? And at the same time are OK with it when it's something virtual?
Personally, I don't buy DRM'd ebooks from Amazon, unless I happen to get them at a tremendous discount and consider it a throwaway item. (I think I have purchased 1 DRM'd ebook for my Kindle in the 3 years I have had it). I also only purchase steam games in a similar way- when highly discounted- mostly through the Humble Bundle deals. This is because I know what to expect, and I make other choices.
There are three obvious differences between this and software DRM. One is that this isn't a piece of non-critical software. You can live with your copy of 1989 being deleted from your kindle; something not so easy with a car.
Two is that a temporary loss of permissions to play a video game won't result in potentially permanent damage to that software; letting a modern battery run dry by refusing to charge it could.
Three, you're not saddled with a $15,000 plus hunk of metal, plastic, and rubber if your rights to use the software are revoked.
Well, I get angry about those things too. There's no way I'll "buy" a game from Steam for example.
A recent court case in Germany started to edge these disingenuous business practices into illegality. Hopefully things will continue to move in the right direction.
Since Amazon has remote deleted Kindle books in the past, your statement is clearly incorrect. They have since "promised" not to do it again. The capability remains.
> Amazon, Steam, etc. are not in fact capable of taking away the data I bought, no matter what they do with their servers.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you elaborate? As of now, if e.g. your Steam account is suspended or the Steam servers shut down, you will no longer be able to play any of the games on that account (offline mode and DRM circumvention notwithstanding).
You may have access to a subset of the data on your disk (the games you previously downloaded), but they're still wrapped in DRM.
As an aside, Steam is also capable of removing games from your account, which they do e.g. in the case of a chargeback.
Most of the games are in fact not wrapped in Steam DRM. Just by the way, as playing them is equal to pirating anyways. If your service is suspended you "can't" play them (even though you can).
This is getting slightly off-topic, but it's only a minority[1] of games that lack the Steam DRM wrapper and they're primarily indie titles. Nearly all (if not all) AA/AAA titles on Steam require Steam to be running.
I don't know if it is really legit, but it seems there is a patent application from Microsoft, presumably using the Kinect, to count the number of people watching.
It wouldn't surprise me. Microsoft wanted to ship their new game console with audio/video sensors that constantly record. I wouldn't be shocked if they decide to ignore the consumer backlash and send back "some" data via an encrypted channel.
edit: Thanks for the interesting link to that patent.
Someone had to try it. That's how the world works, someone thinks it up, it's stupid, they make no money, people don't do it again. Honestly I am shocked it took so long.
> Just saying that this 'brickable car' may be worth it for some.
Yes, and I'm sure that taking out huge mortgages on their houses was worth it for some people, especially just before 2007. But that doesn't mean that offering mortgages with no upfront payment is moral, or beneficial for the society. People can't properly value risk and most don't think long-term, so businesses can often trick them into doing things for short-term gain, long-term harm.
you're comparing unsustainable loans with a system to make a patently better (on most fronts) mode of driving available to the masses that can't afford a Tesla.
By removing the option to buy, and adding the DRM, Renault will have cornered the market in batteries for the car. Perhaps you'd like to buy a 3rd-party battery? Tough luck. Think that the battery rental rates are too high and you'd prefer to rent from someone else? Bad luck again, Renault will be the only ones in the market.
if the objective of this is to make the car cheaper, you shouldn't really expect Renault to abuse this. If it isn't, then someone else can come in and offer a cheaper package.
I feel like if I were to make a same form-factor battery for a car I'd get sued on design patents. Cars have always had super tight vertical-integration. It might change, but this situation is pretty close to the status-quo.
Cheaper at the onset does not imply cheaper overall. Renault is already fleecing their customers with one of the highest maintenance costs of all makes (higher than BMW for instance).
Silly; they claim if you lose your job and can't make battery payments, you can't even drive your car. If you lose your job and can't make gas payments, same effect. This is just another model trying to make an electric car affordable. Why all the vitriol?
Why is it OK for a newer technology to be restricted just because that's how it is for an older technology? We didn't start charging for emails just because snailmail cost money..
Its not ok or not-ok; its a marketing model (lease the battery) to bring down the purchase price of an electric car, who's major cost component is the battery. Go ahead, buy a Tesla if you can afford it.
For the same reason it's OK for vendors to set their own sales terms. If you don't like it, don't buy Renault, choose from one of the other electric vehicles on the market.
If you lose a job and can't afford to pay for the car(but still might have some savings to pay for gas) it usually takes a few months between you missing a payment and you losing the car to the bank or a debt collector.
With this technology your car can be disabled as soon as a single payment is missed.
Credit card auto payments are great. That is, until you get a new card with a different number or expiry. No matter how careful I am, I miss updating details with one company. I get an account locked, and an overdue fine. Having my car locked down would make the 2 yearly process somewhat worse. Great stuff.
Could be the same, but people scrape together gas money with greater urgency than they mail checks to pay bills, which I believe drives the change. Now people will be equally motivated to make their monthly payment.
They would do that only if they have to fight a competitor, for sure. The whole idea of this rental is to follow the quite successful model one sees with ISP or mobile operators. Currently, they sell a car and that's it. They don't get more money if you use it for 20 years (my car, which is from another french brand, is that old).
Why all the vitriol? Because your hands are tied once you've bought the car. And even if you trust Renault (or any other company) and are pretty sure they won't abuse your weaker position today, can you trust them tomorrow?
This is actually sounding like some sort of accounting gimmick, that combines a lease (power) with a purchase (shell). It may have the effect of some cost benefit to the end user. They are trying to sub the "rental" for the "gas payment" ($8/gallon==lots) to not make the stupidly uncompetitive on price. The main risk of this strategy, then would be if people "carjacked" the battery and a black market of non-traceble inter-operable parts emerged. Also, a grey market or secondary market that limited the "ticket sale" to only the commodity shell. This has the also obvious abuse potential (forced maintenence $$, engineered obsolecense, etc). Also, the value of the residual car? Going to take a huge hit. Athough this last point would be mitigated somewhat if the rental was not much worse than petrol costs (op-ex, otherwise incurred).
It's worth noting that while Renault is not in the US market and we won't get the Zoe EV, Renault and Nissan are partners and this tech could wind up in the Nissan Leaf.
(edit: depending on future battery lease models)
Is this a fact? It seems like the cells are so valuable that they are selling multiple tiers of battery so they will have a lower cost model. There's real money to be saved in not putting 20,000Whr in the car.
They weighed the cost of having variations during manufacturing and installing larger batteries after the car has already been delivered or resold and decided that it would be cheaper and give the car a higher resale value if the battery capacity could be upgraded remotely at any time.
Who comes up with these ideas? I can't even picture a somewhat educated group of people, sitting around a board room table, thinking that this is a remotely good idea.
If this makes the total cost of ownership up front significantly cheaper while keeping overall costs to operate equivalent over the time I plan on keeping the car, this is a completely rational idea. I'm not sure what everyone is so upset about. Sometimes there is a solid economic / utility argument to be made for a certain subset of consumers that will help increase sales. If you don't want it, don't buy it.
It makes it much easier to reposess the battery (and car if applicable) if the payments stop. Although I would not buy such a car myself, I reckon many potential customers wouldn't care. At the same time, those who care will probably either be anti-drm (a minority) or have a higher risk of missing a payment (not the target audience).
I think it's mostly a scheme to suck some money from the State. There are various things involved, but I guess the biggest are the research tax credit, and the special grants for electric cars. I suppose it helps sheltering the profits from normal cars to avoid normal corporate tax. It also helps green washing the brand in the news.
They seem to be killing this car intentionally. You can't use wall plugs to charge, and the battery rental stuff is also a mess. Apparently they were trying to sell 40k in 6 months, and only ended up selling 10k.
can you explain why? DRM might be important for some people, but weighed against their primary mode of transportation, I feel like it's a values concession I'd be slightly willing to make (making it clear I'd be willing to go for an alternative).
Don't see where in that link the extension cord issue is mentioned.
I don't think anyone can fault a car manufacturer for this issue. Long extension cord with too small gauge wire will cause voltage drop. It's the same for any electrical load.
Actually now that I think about it, I guess they could include dynamic power factor correction in their charging hardware and software. But it seems like a silly extra expense just to correct for someone buying a cheap extension cord. I think my 100 foot 10awg cord that I used to power the neighbor's stuff after Hurricane Sandy was under $100.
"Complete discharge can happen even when the car is plugged in if it isn’t receiving sufficient current to charge, which can be caused by something as simple as using an extension cord. "
Yep, using the same care in choosing an extension cord as you would for work equipment and space heaters would be advisable with electric cars. Do not buy the cheapy cord.
Disclaimer : I'm as concerned as you about data privacy, money etc. I'm not technically a Renault employee, but it just happen that I'm working for them as a consultant (in a non related field).
So I'm not representing Renault [insert legal terms here], I'm only trying to transcript the response when I expressed off record some of the concerns to one of Zoe's engineer.
Here is more or less what he said about:
- Data privacy: Renault worked with the CNIL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNIL) to legally comply with French/European data privacy laws. All data sent to Renault remains anonymous, Renault does not associate the "ID" of the car with owner's personal information.
- Battery: He used the same gas pump analogy. When I asked him why a renting system for a part of the product, he replied "simply to make it cheaper": Renault could have added the price of the battery (around 8000 euros) to the price of Zoe, but this is not a smart marketing move.
Meanwhile, I'll forward the conversation and your concerns to Renault's communication team. Let's hope they make a public statement about all this.
Cheers.
...with battery DRM that you're not allowed to own
Ah, news! On the upside, this car is somewhat theft-proof. (Nothing can be totally theft proof.) Next, it should have a 360-degree dash cam that's monitored 24-7 by an organization funded by a consortium of insurance companies and 3 letter government agencies. All the above sounds scary while bringing benefits. (The scary that brings benefits with it is the truly scary stuff, as it has a good chance of sticking around.)
So? Dont treat the automotive market the way you treat the tech market. single companies have a much, much lower affect on the market when it comes to cars.
Security Researchers in the SDR community are going to have a field day with these kinds of features. Companies like Renault need to bring in better consultants. This is not going to work.
About a hundred years after the first time someone found themselves in a life-threatening situation because their car refused to start because they couldn't pay for gas.
There's a real and fundamental gap between "physically unable to run" and "physically able to run, but blocked from doing so by someone else's actions".
How often has someone found themselves in a life threatening situation five minutes after the repo man towed their car away? I suspect the incidence rates will be similar.
Autonomous taxis would largely revolutionize car ownership. Why own your own car, when you can pay a fraction of the price to have one available whenever you need it, and never when you don't?
