upvote
> Why are they shooting them selves in the feet?

They don’t. Majority of users don’t care, and some middle manager shmuck, working on MySkoda, can report how “we” prevented a huge security risk and funneled valuable ~~cattle~~ user data where it belongs.

reply
By the way, regarding additional profit stream, to access VW data before you still needed WeConnect subscription (100€ a year), just that before you could use another app or automation to access the data. Now you MUST use exclusively WeConnect and partners to access same data even though you paying already for subscription.
reply
And that is why I'll not be buying a vw ever again despite being a fan of the brand so far.
reply
Pretty sure connect is free for like ten years.
reply
Well, might be depending on model. I own eUp and it was free for first year.
reply
> Why are they shooting them selves in the feet?

Because people will still buy their cars. The average Joe has very little regard for their privacy. We've been trained to be numb.

> Is this really a tangible income stream?

Yep.

> Is it really increasing security?

Nope.

reply
How is this a tangible income stream? I suspect that the amount of customers willing to pay for some weird API access or We Connect offering is rather limited. It would have to be bundled into some other solution, which again I'd guess have a limited customer base.

I have VW and I suppose We Connect, there's not a single thing that's worth paying for, not when you have CarPlay and Android Auto (or whatever that's called). If anything I'd prefer that they'd just drop the personalization they do with users. Our car will forever assume that my wife is driving, because that what the dealer configured and none of us care to mess around with it.

But yeah, people will buy the cars anyway, because all the automation is something that only an incredibly small segment has any interest in. It's just weird that those who actually care about connected cars are the only one VW is punishing with this move.

reply
> I suspect that the amount of customers willing to pay for some weird API access or We Connect offering is rather limited

I tend to agree. But the counterpoint is Tesla. They charge for API access, and there are several businesses that exist to make that data available to customers. I don’t know how valuable it really is, but it’s working. My wife would pay Ford for the level of data she was getting from TeslaFi but instead she gives it to MileIQ. It’s not huge but that adds up.

reply
That's my line of thinking with the "bundled into some other solution". It doesn't make a ton of sense for an individual to buy API access, but other companies could provide a service built in the API, and they are the ones paying VW.
reply
> Why are they shooting them selves in the feet?

1. They dont think anyone will stop buying their cars because of this

2. They want to make more money

3. (speculation) The drop in demand for their cars in china is leaving them fucked, they need revenue now

reply
Unfortunately I think they're right on #1. In the grand scheme of things the lost sales because of this change are a drop in the bucket. HA and similar tools are not that popular, very few people who have their mind set on buying a VW will change their minds because of this alone.

What's worse is that other manufacturers are starting to do the same thing. They all see unofficial integrations as lost revenue (less of your data to sell because you don't use their app), and higher costs because the usage still comes on their cloud spend bill.

I was talking to my gadget-passionate (but not techie) best friend when the company making our cars made it more difficult to authenticate using the HA integration. He looked at me like I switched to an alien language. "Who cares? Don't you use the app?".

reply
Most executives make commercially disadvantageous decisions in exchange for more power.

It's practically a law of business: executives prioritize their power first and their company's profit margins second. This is one reason why outsourcing coding was so popular despite not saving money and being so commercially disastrous - execs were in the driving seat with that relationship much more than they were with us.

Despite what some people will tell you about how the home assistant consumer segment "doesn't matter" (it does) it really is more about the tangibility of control over data vs the intangibility of lost consumer goodwill.

Companies are not profit maximizing at all costs. The shareholders and the executives are not a singular body they have different and sometimes wildly divergent interests.

reply
Yea, I don't really see the revenue potential here. They seem to be doing this purely to force developers to have a "formal relationship" with them, and to grief all other developers who don't.

Same mentality behind companies who insist users have an "account" to use their otherwise-unconnected products.

reply
I haven't seen anyone put this dynamic in such a clear and succinct description - the fact is that a lot of people (especially corporate managers) just hate the loss of control and will go out of their way to ban people accessing their things "wrong" - even if it's counterproductive for their larger corporation or a goal.
reply
wow - I was looking at moving from Tesla to Skoda for our next EV. Last month it was interceptor missiles for Israel and now this.
reply
[dead]
reply