Considering that your web activity generates enough money to keep large amounts of people employed, your driving activity would to. I can see Free car journeys in exchange for your attention so that it can be sold to advertisers along with your current location.
Some examples are, you are approaching Mac Donald’s, or a competing petrol station, a competing supermarket, or hardware store.
Just like any other good hackernews reader, I read the comments first and only then decide whether to read the article. As I read this post and there were no comments, I'll take the liberty of trying to provide a nice comment that might or might not induce you to read the rest of the article.
Ford CEO Jim Hackett said this in a podcast:
>“The issue in the vehicle, see, is: We already know and have data on our customers. By the way, we protect this securely; they trust us. We know what people make. How do we know that? It’s because they borrow money from us. And when you ask somebody what they make, we know where they work, you know. We know if they’re married. We know how long they’ve lived in their house because these are all on the credit applications. We’ve never ever been challenged on how we use that. And that’s the leverage we got here with the data.”
He explicitly stated "we protect this securely", a statement that I am extremely cautious about and wouldn't touch with a ten feet pole. Just this statement from the CEO has cemented my idea to never ever buy a Ford wagon.
Of course, a backlash on Twitter ensued, as some user responded:
>“I heard it yesterday, and was appalled,” tweeted another. “No concern whatsoever for privacy and no reflection on whether or not this is a GOOD thing. Talked about linking with personal medical data while in the vehicle. No thought to ethical considerations. Another Zuckerberg. Disturbing.”
Ford is failing financially and as Ford is a company, it will do anything to stay alive, self-preservation, very human, but of course a company would rather stay alive exploiting our data than to make a gracious exit:
>With sales of vehicles flagging worldwide, the company is finding itself running out of financial freeway, so to speak. And even in the U.S., its strongest market, Ford is seeing little vehicular success of late beyond sales of its trucks and SUVs). Accordingly, the automaker is wisely taking steps to be more fully integrated into people’s lives, by expanding into ancillary businesses that at first would seem to run counter to its mission.
The beginning of the post is basically fear mongering (and I'm glad I read on) as later a Spokesperson for Ford is being quoted saying the following:
>“In the podcast ... Jim Hackett was painting a picture of the future possibilities of data use given the long-term relationship and trust we have with our customers,” she said. “Specifically, it is important to know we do not sell or monetize information from customer credit applications. We take seriously our obligations related to how we use this information. With regard to all data use, we are committed to protecting customer privacy and we do that by ensuring transparency and appropriate consent in the collection and use of all customer data.”
In the end it says this
>This story was updated at 5:25 p.m. EST with comments from Ford’s spokesperson.
In other words, this article was first published without quotes from the spokesperson, maybe Ford saw the article and felt pressured?
Anyway, I think the article is mostly fear-mongering amongst our more privacy oriented people, but at the same time I will keep a closer eye on Ford.
I'm especially curious how they plan to do that in the EU.
The GDPR requires that you separate your requests for consent for ads from the consent for stuff which is actually necessary to be provided the service.
If customers don't consent to their data being used for ads, you can't use it for ads, but you also can't blackmail them by not providing the service then.
Also, you as a company are responsible to have the customer understand what they're signing.
If all of these would be done correctly, why would anyone ever sign the consent sheet for you processing their data to show them ads?
All they get out of this, is their personal data at risk of being leaked.
Never use dealer financing. You will always get a better deal through a bank that makes car loans, or your credit union. At the very least, via the haggling leverage in being able to keep secret the maximum amount you can afford to pay. You may also get better terms on the note, but even a higher interest loan could be a better deal, if the principal is negotiated to a lower amount.
You will also have to avoid GM Financial, Ally (formerly GMAC), and TD Bank (formerly Chrysler Financial) as lenders. I have no idea whether or not they have a data sharing program with dealers, but I wouldn't risk it.
Best is paying in cash. Keep your budget secret. Never let the salesperson know what you would be willing to pay, or you will end up paying exactly that. Never speak in terms of what you can afford, and speak exclusively in terms of the value of a vehicle in relation to its list price.
You’re definitely buying cars wrong. It doesn’t matter one bit if they know my budget. Cars are a buyers market and sales businesses are hungry to close every deal they can. I don’t need a car, but they do need to sell one. And if I decide I want one, I have the choice of buying from any dealer I want.
Also, you’re incorrect about dealer financing. It’s often, but not always, a far better deal than anything you can get from a lender, because the manufacturer buys down the rate in order to move more product. 0% financing is common, and no bank would give you that. Depending on monthly dealer incentives, you do sometimes forego a purchase price rebate by opting for the financing, so it pays to weigh both options. But, those cash buyer incentives are getting far less common because they destroy the used market.
If you are buying cars less than 2 years old from a dealer affiliated with specific manufacturers, and financing the purchase, you might be buying cars wrong. It depends on how rich you are. You only buy those cars if you could pay cash (if you wanted to), and eat the instant depreciation.
The cost of those fancy showrooms, flag-and-tinsel-bedecked lots, television and radio ads, and well-dressed sales staff is baked into the sticker prices of the cars. If you instead buy from someone that gets their stock from auctions and trades, and has to get a small-business loan to even offer dealer financing, you don't have to pay those costs. With those dealers, you can always get better financing on your own than they could offer you, because they have to make money on the financing side as well as the sales side in order to stay in business. And they might also include shady clauses like requiring tracking devices in the car for possible repossessions, which might happen after a single missed or partial payment.
I actually forgot that people can get repair service and financing from a manufacturer-affiliated dealer. They do advertise 0% financing on television sometimes. They still have to make money through another part of the deal in order to do that. No dealer is sitting on a pile of cash large enough to self-finance all their sales. Where is that money coming from? It's still you, the customer. If you somehow avoid paying it now in cash, you will pay with the value of your time and personal information.
In the financing application, you have to tell them the information they need to assess your default risk, which is also the information they need to figure out how much car you can afford now, and how much you can likely afford in the future. If they can't leverage that on the current sale, you have still given them everything they need to advertise to you, and then upsell you next time you come back. That's my whole point. The bank doesn't care what car you drive, so long as it gets you to your job, and you make the payments on the loan until it's paid off. The dealer wants you to make payments on more car than you can afford, of their brand, continually, until you die. The money you "save" on the sweet financing deal is (on average) getting sucked out of your pocket from a different vector. You may be able to beat the average individually, but as a broad generalization over the whole market, I stand behind my previous statement. Don't take dealer financing, ever.
If you can't buy a car without dealer financing, you should be buying a cheaper car. Buying the best car you can afford with cash on hand, minus the projected cost of several months of maintenance that you set aside for it, is ideal. Otherwise, finance through a lending institution that does little more than place a lien on your title, and would have to sue to foreclose in order to take possession of the vehicle. The bank or credit union has no reason to hide the true cost of the loan from you, or to recover it by other means. Their business is loans, and the way they make their money from loans is clear to everyone.
You’re way off on a tangent now. That’s telling people how to spend their money, and nothing to do with how to make a purchase after that decision is already made. I dont think you understand the car business as much as you think you do, as you’re clearly unaware of some basic business practices. All new cars come from manufacturer affiliated dealers!
Just one example of why you’re wrong - the dealer doesn’t subsidize the loan, the manufacturer does using their captive financing company. Therefore, it’s a completely different line item that the dealer has no flexibility to touch. Obviously, if you can borrow at 0% without giving anything up, you’d be foolish not to.
The bank has no other way to make money from you. You say that’s a good thing, but it isn’t. The reason is that the manufacturer can take a loss on the loan because they make money selling cars. This has nothing to do with the dealer, and you can’t negotiate an alternative unless the manufacturer provides a similar cash-buyer incentive. They often don’t, and it’s 0% or nothing regardless of the sale price.
”I actually forgot that people can get repair service and financing from a manufacturer-affiliated dealer.”
To forget something so basic and fundamental means you really are not in a position to present authoritative sounding absolute statements.
It was a rhetorical device. Going to the manufacturer's dealer is something I can't ever do, because I don't have "just get it done" money.
No matter how you structure the deals, cars flow one way, and money flows the other way. Everyone involved in supplying the car has to get paid, and that money ultimately comes from customers. Everyone you see in the business is ultimately being paid something by you. Everyone you don't see that is facilitating the purchase process is ultimately being paid something by you. Financing from a manufacturer-captive company is only added to the sales business because it results in more total money flowing from customer to car business. It enables higher sale prices on the cars. The business has to make money somehow, or it stops existing, because those people handling money and reviewing paperwork have to be paid, too, and if they don't get paid, they leave.
Comparing the costs of loans of varying interest rates is just a time value of money calculation. It is easy to offer a zero-interest loan, by pre-computing the value of the interest you otherwise would have charged, and adding it to the principal at the start.
If you buy a car for $12000 with no down payment and a 24 payments at 0%, that's $250/month and a total cost of $12000. If you get a loan for $9250 for 24 months at 4% and make a $2000 down payment, that's ~$209/month and a total cost of ~$12032. If you make even a single payment earlier than scheduled, you will end up paying less.
When you are offered a 0% loan, know that the interest you would have been paying is probably implicitly being added to the purchase price up front, as a means of paying for the lending. You would be well justified in pressing for a discount for paying in cash (or bringing your own financing), and you will have more leverage to do so, because the dealer will not know exactly how much is in your budget.
For starters, read up on manufacturer incentives to dealers, and dealer holdback. The manufacturer has margin that the dealer cannot access, and the customer cannot negotiate with the manufacturer. Hidden incentives change monthly, and they are provided to the dealer separately for loan, lease, and cash. Knowledge of your own budget never matters when you always have the dealer’s numbers (easy to obtain with some research), BATNA, and competition.
You’re making a lot of assumptions that seem logical to someone unfamiliar with the business, but don’t hold true because these assumptions are either wrong or missing critical information.
I think it's early days to judge the effects of the GDPR. If websites are anything to go by, the primary effect on cars will be (if not already) pop ups on the touchscreen to agree to the new T&Cs.
As long as those T&Cs have a "no" button which still lets me drive the car (which most interpretations of the GDPR not made by surveillance companies themselves seem to require) I'm happy.
It’s not just Ford. Here is an article about GM. This is just the beginning of how they will monetize their product. Well it’s not a product anymore it will transition into a service as car ownership fades away.
The CEO of a company the size of Ford making statements about the future direction of the company w/r/t digital assets seems newsworthy, no matter the venue.
"Well, sir, it seems young people today just aren't as enamored with cars as with previous generations."
"Is there anything to be done?"
"Privacy has been in the news a lot lately. What if...I'm just spitballin' here...but what if we made our products even less appealing? Have the CEO rattle off all the shit we know about customers, and then talk about how we're going to MON-OH-TIZE the shit out of those data? I mean, nothing else is working."
"Out-STANDING, Johnson. I see a promotion in your future!"
Back when, exactly? Because if you're complaining about size, I remember when a '70s Dodge Dart passed for "compact car". (For reference, youngin's, you could put multiple bodies in the trunk of a Dodge Dart.) And a shadow of what? Gas-guzzling V8s that put out a whopping 250bhp? 350bhp if you were lucky? With drum brakes to haul yer ass down to zero? My 72 year old mother drives a '16 Corvette that puts out 450bhp and gets 25mpg. It'll stop so fast you can feel your retinas loosening. I'd have to take it to a track to get it out of shape, I dare not test its handling limits on a public road. All for $50K. (EDIT: oh, and aesthetics? I loathed those swoopy, gaudy, plastic penismobiles. Until I saw the new ones and said, "I would now like to own a Corvette, for it is much hotness.") Other examples abound. If you're into cars, there is no better time than now.
No, I think it has more to do with the collective realization that maybe a car is less a ticket to freedom and more an albatross around the neck of its owner. Expensive, dirty, and in urban areas an increasingly annoying way to get around. I was thinking just yesterday, as the fuel light came on in our ICE car, "gawd, what a pain in the arse these things are. I'll be glad when all of the vehicles in our house are electric." And I'm old.
Or more simply, maybe we collectively figured out that automobiles make a poor substitute for a penis.
While I disagree about EVs (they are the devil's making. Gimme that sweet, sweet rumble of a V8 and the connection of a manual gearbox), I think your other point is, well...on point.
There's never been a better time if you're a "car guy/gal", except maybe the 90s. The ZR1, ZL1, Shelby GT350, 911 991.2, Demon, M2, Stinger, Q70, Golf, WRX, Focus RS, etc. Like, damn, that list of solid cars could just go on forever. Haven't even mentioned any supercars, yet.
And the technology in cars is incredible. It's almost standard now to have 6-piston Brembo discs up front on a performance car. Suspension is insane, too, these days.
As much as I love the rumble of an ICE (the Japanese straight-6 is my aural drug of choice), its days are numbered. We're closing in on a future where gasoline is too expensive due to rarity, too polluting or just too socially unacceptable to power cars with. As a pure mode of transport, EVs tick all the boxes, and they've even proven to be performant, too - even the best drag racer is going to struggle to match a machine with maximum torque available for 95% of its rev range, from zero.
I'll drive my twin turbo straight six till it wont run any more!
That being said I welcome what i perceive to be the coming days of electric wrenching. Once someone make a an electric motor kit that works as a drop in replacement for an LS engine things I think will get really interesting. I'd love to build an all electric rat rod.
And if it's Japanese, it'll continue running for decades. Particularly the Toyota M and JZ series - just about indestructible.
Agreed, I would love to retrofit an electric power train in a mk2 Supra - attach the motor directly to the rear diff and fill it with batteries to the weight of the ICE/gearbox plus full fuel tank, and it could be a really potent sleeper.
Neverrrr! I will not succumb to the dark side. You can take away my V-Twin or supercharged V8 once I'm dead! I can't do it. I refuse to even own an automatic gearbox. I need my 3rd pedal, man
True, gasoline is an incredible pollutant. But, electricity has its environmental costs, too. Depending on our where your power comes from, e.g. coal, it could be very dirty indeed. As a whole, though, EVs are much greener.
As for racing, drag cars + EV = extremely fast. No doubt. The Telsa P100D in ludicrous mode can even beat a dodge demon. But, I'd say there'll be at least 15 years before a pure EV can match the consistent performance of, say, the Porsche 911 GT2 RS on the Nurburgring. Add another decade for any endurance style race e.g. Le Mans.
Right now, EVs struggle to come close to the top end speed of ICE supercars, despite their awesome torque figures.
True on all counts. For the most part, coal power is being phased out (the UK has closed many plants in the last couple of decades), although China is opening new ones about as fast as the rest of the world is closing theirs! No doubt, it's very difficult to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, but cars are a great start - even if they're ultimately powered by a coal plant, the energy efficiency of such a power station is drastically higher than individual engines (many go to great lengths to recover or make use of waste heat) and the potential for controlling emissions from one source is a lot easier than millions of tailpipes.
No doubt, however, the move to EVs will coincide with greater use of renewables or nuclear.
Hopefully there will be a breakthrough in battery technology in the next decade; if we can improve on the power density of lithium, we might finally be able to rival the energy stored in a tank of fuel.
Whilst I do agree, I don't see this as a problem so much as the increasing amounts of technology between the driver and the road. Car makers have borrowed styling cues off each other for decades (just look at Ford's definitely-not-Aston-Martin front grille), so the convergence was pretty inevitable. It's drive by consumer choice anyway; so long as people keep buying these designs, someone is going to think they're good and keep incrementing on them. Same reason every company is building SUVs, despite them being neither sporty or utilitarian; the design is popular, people keep buying it, and there's only so many designs you can cram on the market before things start to overlap.
Make no mistake, I love the aggressive angular styling of my 80s Supra and the non-threatening, friendly look of my Outback, my issue is with cars becoming computers on wheels and now having uplinks back to the manufacturer, able to collect data in real-time. This article only hints at the possibility Ford may be exploring, they haven't admitted they would do so, but the option is certainly there.
We've got a 11 year old car. Not too long ago a car that age would be a broken down clunker and we'd be looking for an immediate replacement, now it's newer than average and running fine.
They see a google and facebook which are young companies which are worth more than every auto company in the world combined and they are tying to copy that. Most of these auto companies are 100+ years old and all together are worth less than google and facebook. Google and Facebook make almost all their money through ads.
Which I think is a dangerous train to be getting on.
The GDPR is likely only the first such law, other countries will also enact some form of privacy laws. And the first round of lawsuits from the GDPR are still underway. Once those have gone through, things should hopefully change quite a bit more still, as most companies are still in violation of the GDPR.
And if that all does go through, the business model of Google and Facebook is going to become much less profitable.
Welp, guess I won't be purchasing the mustang I wanted. This has got to stop. Like the final paragraph states: If I pay for a vehicle in cash, I damn well don't feel like paying with my privacy and data, too.
This is the very same reason I'll never use Windows. Telemetry is an invasion of privacy. It's also why the "right to repair" is such an important issue. Owners of cars (or any device, for that matter) should be able to go into the software (including breaking encryption) and disable or remove components that report data to external sources.
If I want cheap services in exchange for data, I'll go with Lyft. Fuck yourself, Hackett.
> If I pay for a vehicle in cash, I damn well don't feel like paying with my privacy and data, too.
Well, to be fair all of the data the CEO was talking about wouldn’t be in play if you actually paid in cash - he specifically called out the data collected in the loan process, not data obtained from the vehicle itself.
Of course slippery slopes are a thing for a reason...
It's already here. I know people who sold their cars and rely on Uber now. I also know people who never owned a car and take taxis everywhere. It's not new.
That works if you live in or near a city centre, but I live far outside the city and drive 25 minutes to work one way. Uber would be expensive compared to the cost of petrol and my already-low car payment. Even if you extrapolate out the cost of the car payment, petrol, and insurance, I'm still ahead.
That's fine but it needs to be more appealing than private ownership if it's going to succeed.
ATM I'm quite happy to pay more to have a nice personal form of transport.
Public transport is slow, dirty and inconvenient. Uber and taxis are only ever so slightly less so. Car sharing cars are not as nice to drive as the one I own.
It would be awesome if there was a good alternative, but having my data mined or being subjected to ads in my own vehicle will never happen while I'm paying.
Ford: Ford reiterated that it “will deliver on the company’s commitment of 100 percent connectivity of new vehicles in the United States by 2019"
I think an easy next step would be to display ads on the console when the vehicle is stopped. Would be fairly easy software wise and that ad model is already working with Waze.
58 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadFord CEO Jim Hackett said this in a podcast:
>“The issue in the vehicle, see, is: We already know and have data on our customers. By the way, we protect this securely; they trust us. We know what people make. How do we know that? It’s because they borrow money from us. And when you ask somebody what they make, we know where they work, you know. We know if they’re married. We know how long they’ve lived in their house because these are all on the credit applications. We’ve never ever been challenged on how we use that. And that’s the leverage we got here with the data.”
He explicitly stated "we protect this securely", a statement that I am extremely cautious about and wouldn't touch with a ten feet pole. Just this statement from the CEO has cemented my idea to never ever buy a Ford wagon.
Of course, a backlash on Twitter ensued, as some user responded:
>“I heard it yesterday, and was appalled,” tweeted another. “No concern whatsoever for privacy and no reflection on whether or not this is a GOOD thing. Talked about linking with personal medical data while in the vehicle. No thought to ethical considerations. Another Zuckerberg. Disturbing.”
Ford is failing financially and as Ford is a company, it will do anything to stay alive, self-preservation, very human, but of course a company would rather stay alive exploiting our data than to make a gracious exit:
>With sales of vehicles flagging worldwide, the company is finding itself running out of financial freeway, so to speak. And even in the U.S., its strongest market, Ford is seeing little vehicular success of late beyond sales of its trucks and SUVs). Accordingly, the automaker is wisely taking steps to be more fully integrated into people’s lives, by expanding into ancillary businesses that at first would seem to run counter to its mission.
The beginning of the post is basically fear mongering (and I'm glad I read on) as later a Spokesperson for Ford is being quoted saying the following:
>“In the podcast ... Jim Hackett was painting a picture of the future possibilities of data use given the long-term relationship and trust we have with our customers,” she said. “Specifically, it is important to know we do not sell or monetize information from customer credit applications. We take seriously our obligations related to how we use this information. With regard to all data use, we are committed to protecting customer privacy and we do that by ensuring transparency and appropriate consent in the collection and use of all customer data.”
In the end it says this
>This story was updated at 5:25 p.m. EST with comments from Ford’s spokesperson.
In other words, this article was first published without quotes from the spokesperson, maybe Ford saw the article and felt pressured?
Anyway, I think the article is mostly fear-mongering amongst our more privacy oriented people, but at the same time I will keep a closer eye on Ford.
I read this as: "We will make sure that we will hide deep down in the terms of service you consent to us selling you data to the highest bidder"
The GDPR requires that you separate your requests for consent for ads from the consent for stuff which is actually necessary to be provided the service.
If customers don't consent to their data being used for ads, you can't use it for ads, but you also can't blackmail them by not providing the service then.
Also, you as a company are responsible to have the customer understand what they're signing.
If all of these would be done correctly, why would anyone ever sign the consent sheet for you processing their data to show them ads? All they get out of this, is their personal data at risk of being leaked.
Never use dealer financing. You will always get a better deal through a bank that makes car loans, or your credit union. At the very least, via the haggling leverage in being able to keep secret the maximum amount you can afford to pay. You may also get better terms on the note, but even a higher interest loan could be a better deal, if the principal is negotiated to a lower amount.
You will also have to avoid GM Financial, Ally (formerly GMAC), and TD Bank (formerly Chrysler Financial) as lenders. I have no idea whether or not they have a data sharing program with dealers, but I wouldn't risk it.
Best is paying in cash. Keep your budget secret. Never let the salesperson know what you would be willing to pay, or you will end up paying exactly that. Never speak in terms of what you can afford, and speak exclusively in terms of the value of a vehicle in relation to its list price.
Also, you’re incorrect about dealer financing. It’s often, but not always, a far better deal than anything you can get from a lender, because the manufacturer buys down the rate in order to move more product. 0% financing is common, and no bank would give you that. Depending on monthly dealer incentives, you do sometimes forego a purchase price rebate by opting for the financing, so it pays to weigh both options. But, those cash buyer incentives are getting far less common because they destroy the used market.
The cost of those fancy showrooms, flag-and-tinsel-bedecked lots, television and radio ads, and well-dressed sales staff is baked into the sticker prices of the cars. If you instead buy from someone that gets their stock from auctions and trades, and has to get a small-business loan to even offer dealer financing, you don't have to pay those costs. With those dealers, you can always get better financing on your own than they could offer you, because they have to make money on the financing side as well as the sales side in order to stay in business. And they might also include shady clauses like requiring tracking devices in the car for possible repossessions, which might happen after a single missed or partial payment.
I actually forgot that people can get repair service and financing from a manufacturer-affiliated dealer. They do advertise 0% financing on television sometimes. They still have to make money through another part of the deal in order to do that. No dealer is sitting on a pile of cash large enough to self-finance all their sales. Where is that money coming from? It's still you, the customer. If you somehow avoid paying it now in cash, you will pay with the value of your time and personal information.
In the financing application, you have to tell them the information they need to assess your default risk, which is also the information they need to figure out how much car you can afford now, and how much you can likely afford in the future. If they can't leverage that on the current sale, you have still given them everything they need to advertise to you, and then upsell you next time you come back. That's my whole point. The bank doesn't care what car you drive, so long as it gets you to your job, and you make the payments on the loan until it's paid off. The dealer wants you to make payments on more car than you can afford, of their brand, continually, until you die. The money you "save" on the sweet financing deal is (on average) getting sucked out of your pocket from a different vector. You may be able to beat the average individually, but as a broad generalization over the whole market, I stand behind my previous statement. Don't take dealer financing, ever.
If you can't buy a car without dealer financing, you should be buying a cheaper car. Buying the best car you can afford with cash on hand, minus the projected cost of several months of maintenance that you set aside for it, is ideal. Otherwise, finance through a lending institution that does little more than place a lien on your title, and would have to sue to foreclose in order to take possession of the vehicle. The bank or credit union has no reason to hide the true cost of the loan from you, or to recover it by other means. Their business is loans, and the way they make their money from loans is clear to everyone.
Just one example of why you’re wrong - the dealer doesn’t subsidize the loan, the manufacturer does using their captive financing company. Therefore, it’s a completely different line item that the dealer has no flexibility to touch. Obviously, if you can borrow at 0% without giving anything up, you’d be foolish not to.
The bank has no other way to make money from you. You say that’s a good thing, but it isn’t. The reason is that the manufacturer can take a loss on the loan because they make money selling cars. This has nothing to do with the dealer, and you can’t negotiate an alternative unless the manufacturer provides a similar cash-buyer incentive. They often don’t, and it’s 0% or nothing regardless of the sale price.
”I actually forgot that people can get repair service and financing from a manufacturer-affiliated dealer.”
To forget something so basic and fundamental means you really are not in a position to present authoritative sounding absolute statements.
No matter how you structure the deals, cars flow one way, and money flows the other way. Everyone involved in supplying the car has to get paid, and that money ultimately comes from customers. Everyone you see in the business is ultimately being paid something by you. Everyone you don't see that is facilitating the purchase process is ultimately being paid something by you. Financing from a manufacturer-captive company is only added to the sales business because it results in more total money flowing from customer to car business. It enables higher sale prices on the cars. The business has to make money somehow, or it stops existing, because those people handling money and reviewing paperwork have to be paid, too, and if they don't get paid, they leave.
Comparing the costs of loans of varying interest rates is just a time value of money calculation. It is easy to offer a zero-interest loan, by pre-computing the value of the interest you otherwise would have charged, and adding it to the principal at the start.
If you buy a car for $12000 with no down payment and a 24 payments at 0%, that's $250/month and a total cost of $12000. If you get a loan for $9250 for 24 months at 4% and make a $2000 down payment, that's ~$209/month and a total cost of ~$12032. If you make even a single payment earlier than scheduled, you will end up paying less.
When you are offered a 0% loan, know that the interest you would have been paying is probably implicitly being added to the purchase price up front, as a means of paying for the lending. You would be well justified in pressing for a discount for paying in cash (or bringing your own financing), and you will have more leverage to do so, because the dealer will not know exactly how much is in your budget.
For starters, read up on manufacturer incentives to dealers, and dealer holdback. The manufacturer has margin that the dealer cannot access, and the customer cannot negotiate with the manufacturer. Hidden incentives change monthly, and they are provided to the dealer separately for loan, lease, and cash. Knowledge of your own budget never matters when you always have the dealer’s numbers (easy to obtain with some research), BATNA, and competition.
You’re making a lot of assumptions that seem logical to someone unfamiliar with the business, but don’t hold true because these assumptions are either wrong or missing critical information.
I’m starting to think at a minimum it should be the floor of how data professionals ethically use user data.
We're so used to being abused by marketers that it's hard to see any other way to use the Internet.
Watch these ads for a reduced ride fee
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17990052/gm-radio-listen...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/18/17872198/ford-autonomous-...
1. Battery technology - 5%
2. Lighter weight materials - 5%
3. safer cars - 5%
4. Popup ads in the windshield - 85%
What could go wrong?!
Ford has committed to making a $200 million investment in the startup.
https://youtu.be/Bvi9zpHlrvg
"Well, sir, it seems young people today just aren't as enamored with cars as with previous generations."
"Is there anything to be done?"
"Privacy has been in the news a lot lately. What if...I'm just spitballin' here...but what if we made our products even less appealing? Have the CEO rattle off all the shit we know about customers, and then talk about how we're going to MON-OH-TIZE the shit out of those data? I mean, nothing else is working."
"Out-STANDING, Johnson. I see a promotion in your future!"
They are all the same roundish blob of mass, with no particular shape at all, no angles, HUGE and all around cheap and plasticky.
No, I think it has more to do with the collective realization that maybe a car is less a ticket to freedom and more an albatross around the neck of its owner. Expensive, dirty, and in urban areas an increasingly annoying way to get around. I was thinking just yesterday, as the fuel light came on in our ICE car, "gawd, what a pain in the arse these things are. I'll be glad when all of the vehicles in our house are electric." And I'm old.
Or more simply, maybe we collectively figured out that automobiles make a poor substitute for a penis.
There's never been a better time if you're a "car guy/gal", except maybe the 90s. The ZR1, ZL1, Shelby GT350, 911 991.2, Demon, M2, Stinger, Q70, Golf, WRX, Focus RS, etc. Like, damn, that list of solid cars could just go on forever. Haven't even mentioned any supercars, yet.
And the technology in cars is incredible. It's almost standard now to have 6-piston Brembo discs up front on a performance car. Suspension is insane, too, these days.
Embrace the electric!
That being said I welcome what i perceive to be the coming days of electric wrenching. Once someone make a an electric motor kit that works as a drop in replacement for an LS engine things I think will get really interesting. I'd love to build an all electric rat rod.
Agreed, I would love to retrofit an electric power train in a mk2 Supra - attach the motor directly to the rear diff and fill it with batteries to the weight of the ICE/gearbox plus full fuel tank, and it could be a really potent sleeper.
True, gasoline is an incredible pollutant. But, electricity has its environmental costs, too. Depending on our where your power comes from, e.g. coal, it could be very dirty indeed. As a whole, though, EVs are much greener.
As for racing, drag cars + EV = extremely fast. No doubt. The Telsa P100D in ludicrous mode can even beat a dodge demon. But, I'd say there'll be at least 15 years before a pure EV can match the consistent performance of, say, the Porsche 911 GT2 RS on the Nurburgring. Add another decade for any endurance style race e.g. Le Mans.
Right now, EVs struggle to come close to the top end speed of ICE supercars, despite their awesome torque figures.
No doubt, however, the move to EVs will coincide with greater use of renewables or nuclear.
Hopefully there will be a breakthrough in battery technology in the next decade; if we can improve on the power density of lithium, we might finally be able to rival the energy stored in a tank of fuel.
Make no mistake, I love the aggressive angular styling of my 80s Supra and the non-threatening, friendly look of my Outback, my issue is with cars becoming computers on wheels and now having uplinks back to the manufacturer, able to collect data in real-time. This article only hints at the possibility Ford may be exploring, they haven't admitted they would do so, but the option is certainly there.
We've got a 11 year old car. Not too long ago a car that age would be a broken down clunker and we'd be looking for an immediate replacement, now it's newer than average and running fine.
Love how Johnson is in this scenario XD . That guy seems to always find himself in the right place, at the right time I guess
The GDPR is likely only the first such law, other countries will also enact some form of privacy laws. And the first round of lawsuits from the GDPR are still underway. Once those have gone through, things should hopefully change quite a bit more still, as most companies are still in violation of the GDPR.
And if that all does go through, the business model of Google and Facebook is going to become much less profitable.
And make very nice hardware....
This is the very same reason I'll never use Windows. Telemetry is an invasion of privacy. It's also why the "right to repair" is such an important issue. Owners of cars (or any device, for that matter) should be able to go into the software (including breaking encryption) and disable or remove components that report data to external sources.
If I want cheap services in exchange for data, I'll go with Lyft. Fuck yourself, Hackett.
Well, to be fair all of the data the CEO was talking about wouldn’t be in play if you actually paid in cash - he specifically called out the data collected in the loan process, not data obtained from the vehicle itself.
Of course slippery slopes are a thing for a reason...
I am looking forward to my next car though. I am thinking I will probably get something from the 90s. Maybe a jeep.
ATM I'm quite happy to pay more to have a nice personal form of transport.
Public transport is slow, dirty and inconvenient. Uber and taxis are only ever so slightly less so. Car sharing cars are not as nice to drive as the one I own.
It would be awesome if there was a good alternative, but having my data mined or being subjected to ads in my own vehicle will never happen while I'm paying.
I think an easy next step would be to display ads on the console when the vehicle is stopped. Would be fairly easy software wise and that ad model is already working with Waze.