> It could also identify your voice and recognize you and your ad preferences, and those of your passengers.
This must be a quote from Ford right? Here's a hint Ford, you don't need voice recognition for that because the ad preference of everyone in the car is always that you don't push ads at us.
I think you are misundrrstanding the 'your' in the qoute. It is not refering to 'what you prefer', but to what ad-preference profile is associated with you in the adiverse.
Everything is becoming about ads. Ads, ads everywhere. On phone, on computer, now even car. This despite everyone knowing that consumers HATE ads. It's like companies are using ads as a ransom. Pay us more money on a regular basis else we will make your life miserable with ads and more ads.
And then, once everyone is paying more, they pull the coup de grace, and show you ads again! Netflix and Prime and Spotify started with this a while ago; I guess the temptation is just too big to let corporate greed run free.
I guess we’ve come full circle, and the next iteration will see people pirating stuff again. It’s going to be interesting to see what we can do against ads on devices like cars though…
> They take valuable resources from legitimate functionality
Including our own. Ads are designed to pull our attention to them and away from what we want to be focused on. The goal is to forcibly embed something in our thoughts and/or feelings. Maybe it's a lie, or a false association, or an impression, or a fear. One way or another ads seek to manipulate us and like it or not we are all changed by them. We'll have a cure for cancer long before we get a cure for advertising.
Well, I don’t know. Buying a dumb TV is more expensive than getting a „smart“ one these days, and I understand why. Doubt it will be different with cars.
In the car industry? If they aren't yet, I'm sure they'll soon have an onboard chip decoding encrypted audio, doing a cryptographic handshake with the car to verify they came from the manufacturer and the car refusing to drive anywhere more than 1 km off the calculated shortest path to the nearest dealership until the "broken" part is replaced with a new Genuine one.
Eagerly waiting for the potty bowl to start playing ads depending on the chemical composition of the particular waste… it would go: “Your zinc ratio is low, have you tried blah blah? After my doctor prescribed blah blah I can focus on my life more and is more productive and …”
That's what happens when innovation is dead and you need to pay the bills: you have to make current products profitable and the easiest way is to pack them with ads
If the current products aren't profitable already, how does does the company exist?
This doesn't really apply in the Ford case, but the real question is why we let companies burn money to get market share, killing existing sustanable businesses in the process? Once no competition is left, they raise prices and decrease quality, ending up with a worse product than we had before.
> Once no competition is left, they raise prices and decrease quality, ending up with a worse product than we had before.
That's the goal of literally every company. They all want to charge you as much as they can possibly get away with, while giving you as little as possible in return because it lowers their costs. Our society has decided that greed is the greatest virtue and the most important consideration in every facet of life. That inevitably results in a race to the bottom.
It’s not that we’ve decided that greed is virtuous; you’ll find critique of the rich throughout our culture. The issue, rather, is that the people with money intrinsically have so much more influence than everyone else, and the incentive to push things in a direction that’s favorable for them, eg direct lobbying and media bias. From an outside perspective, isn’t it insane that news outlets are mostly owned either by billionaires or corporations, given that these all have a shared interest in maintaining a specific economic status quo? It’s a major bug (or feature haha) in the system, and as a consequence effective change is often impossible. It’s not that there’s overt censorship, rather that there’s a constant pressure that pushes threatening ideas to the fringes, leaving only a residue of somewhat harmless social activism as a pressure release valve. I’m not sure how we get out of this; it’s a direct consequence of how the structure works that it’s hard to change.
Innovation in the automotive industry is far from dead, this is just the greed from investors seeping through every pore of the company, trying to squeeze as much money as they can get away with.
Making maximum profits for their shareholders should not be the highest goal of corporations nowadays, if they're persons they've become sociopaths.
It's more like "we are going to kidnap your children to make them some brain washed slaves, extract money from you with mass spying, ask a ransom with no intention to change what we plane to do if you pay or not"
Wall Street demands infinite growth. The Fed raised interest rates above zero, so money isn't free* anymore. Treating your customers like human beings, rather than bags of money with legs that it is your bounden duty to drain dry, just isn't popular anymore.
I just hate how disgustingly time wasting and pointless they are. Modern marketing is so piss poor.
Especially on mobile, endless ads for regular apps I already have installed but mostly for shitty ripoff trash games.
I am always 0% interested in downloading it, so why the FUCK has it become de rigeur to force the ad to be shown for 30-60 seconds.
I've read into it a little and apparently even negative reaction to an ad still has a positive effect on brand recognition, but how does this apply to shitty mobile games.
Our governments are failing us by not regulating this utter bs, it's so incensing. But then again that's all smiling politicians ever do, take money under the table while the grinning general population votes for em again and again.
Consumers don’t hate ads. HN readers hate ads. Given the choice, most people prefer ads to paying more to not have ads. FAST (free ad-supported TV) is taking over (again). It’s comparable to how a contingent of HN readers think there is a problem with using Google, while nearly everyone else uses nothing but Google.
While I do agree that HN readers are not representative of the general population, and we almost certainly are more ad-averse on average, hating ads is still common overall. Don't be fooled by the fact that less-technically-skilled individuals may find it harder to block ads than we do, or are less likely to identify covert advertisements disguised as legitimate search results.
Case in point, when I was a kid my dad (of "Boomer" age, but from a country where the generational name does not apply) really, really, really insisted on muting advertisements on TV whenever they came on. He made an effort to instill in me the idea that advertisements were lies trying to sell rubbish, and even though I do not have such an emotionally charged reaction to the concept of ads as he does, I still radically block them by all means necessary.
I would love to see ads on the search platform which is supposed to be used only for searching something you usually end up buying. I have a clear intention there and I am looking for something. Otherwise, I don't want to see ads.
But that will likely never happen. For it to work you would need to track behavior based on other sources than that site. And it does not make people buy something that they actually don't need.
Well whole country has pleasantly few ads everywhere. No ads along roads and highways for example. Drive to eastern more primitive parts of EU and many massive billboards will try to steal your attention constantly, everywhere.
One of easy examples of corruption in plain sight, yes mostly nobody cares.
People do care, but institutional corruption is just to hard to fight once ingrained. Others may simply just not know anything different because that's how its always been.
> Submitting patent applications is a normal part of any strong business as the process protects new ideas and helps us build a robust portfolio of intellectual property. The ideas described within a patent application should not be viewed as an indication of our business or product plans.
Who are they kidding seriously ?
In my country they sell Dacia car, that's the cheapest and 'shitiest' car you can buy that is made in Europe. It has very few electronic so few bullshit, even the windows doesn't have electrical motor for the passenger
> even the windows doesn't have electrical motor for the passenger
I guess this may depend on the specific trim you purchase? I personally have a 2022 Jogger something or other and all of my windows are push-button electric.
How is this patentable?
This is existing tech used in a way that has been speculated about for nearly 20 years.
This is not an innovation or invention.
I always feel weirdly conflicted about people patenting things that I’d rather nobody use at all.
There was a “clever” CSS trick a coworker did to take a simple task and make it into a daredevil stunt. Just baffling that someone would want to do it that way. I guess someone thought it was novel because they talked about patenting it. My response was, “by all means please do. I never want to see this again in the next 19 years.”
They interpreted that as criticism and decided not to pursue it. I’m not sure how they saw through my subterfuge. It’s a mystery.
Had a decision earlier this year to buy a Tesla vs a dumber car. 2019 Silverado I think has the best middle ground on terms of "smart" tech that is still easy to repair and doesn't sell my info to insurance companies.
By the time you get to 2019 and the GM T1XX platform the entire drivetrain is as complex as any modern vehicle: AFM/DFM, VVT, E85, Active Thermal Management, Start/Stop, 10L80/90, dynamic stability, etc. In other words, once it starts breaking down out of warranty, repair is uneconomic: non-dealer shops and owners don't have the tools, can't get affordable parts and aren't qualified to do the work, just like all other modern vehicles.
The last years that GM trucks were actually easy and cost effective to repair, but still relatively "modern" (decent PCM, effective air bags, standard anti-lock, etc.,) were 1999-2006 (GMT800) and 2007-2014 (GMT900), the former more so than the latter. Any professional mechanic can successfully repair almost anything on the vehicle and parts are readily available at reasonable cost.
Mid-2000s era car technology seems to have been the sweet spot across most brands for technology improvements while still having practical serviceability and maintainability.
I'd agree with that timeline with regard to US domestic truck platforms, which famously lagged cars in complexity by about a decade. A lot of 2000's cars definitely do not qualify.
The notion of a "sweet spot" is valid. All the classic safety and reliability problems were solved, yet the vehicles (again, truck platforms) are tractable in terms of service.
I don’t think manufacturers are purposely making the cars harder to repair - they have to meet stricter and stricter fuel and air quality standards, so need more and more tech to squeeze out more /same performance while burning less fuel, or burning more thoroughly.
Sure. This is all self evident. Understanding the motivations of manufacturers, however, yields little value: the products they're making now are post-warranty disposable, despite the staggering cost and whatever intent manufacturers might have.
All of this has produced amazing ICE engineering. GM's base model gas truck engine, the L3B, is making 325hp from 166ci under 27psi of boost. Such ratios tell you everything you need to know about the long term fate of that drivetrain: there is zero margin for error, because everything is operating very near the limit of materials science and the capabilities of advanced manufacturing. When it fails, shortly after the warranty expires, fixing it will not be economic.
If you know the vaguest thing about the topic he is talking about, you will know that he frequently omits critical context in order to get clicks. I am guessing that is what you mean by “mostly talks sense”
There’s an effect (forgot the name) when you read an article about your area of expertise and think it’s awful. But then you read something you don’t know in the same journal and its okay. Are you sure that’s not the case here?
I mean, I don’t watch Louis and blocked him due to my non-interest and him being populist-ish with auditory, but talking this way about him is too much, imo.
When I'm filling my gas tank and the screen on the pump is blaring ads at me I want to smash it. Car companies, please don't also make us want to smash our dash-boards.
Those gas station ads are so offensive to the senses. I want so desperately for them to stop.
I used to live near Cupertino, and the Valero station on De Anza and Prospect always played the local classical radio station. Driving a car is pretty tiring, and to take a break and have loud ads projected at you only adds to the stress. To instead step out of your car to modestly amplified classical music is really much better. I always made a point to stop at that specific station for gas. We really need to be more mindful of the world we create for one another.
What we really need is to stop praising CEO and marketing idiots who do that and normalize punching bad people in the face. There’s too much of them in the world who do bad things consciously and cover behind ignorance and inaccessibility. Atrocious interactions by technical means should be considered misdemeanors and treated respectively. There’s no difference between a flashing ads screen and a street sales guy buzzing in your ear, a car playing ads at you and a guy knocking on your window selling nonsense. Voting with your money doesn’t work when you normalize screaming at you with no consequences.
The other gas stations don't play pop, they play ads. The point is this business made a choice not to bombard people with ads, and I wish more places did that.
Whether you think it is bad or not is typically a question of your personal politics. My point is not to litigate that but to mention that the gas station isn't playing it because they want you to have a better day, but for the same reason why they might blast an ad: because they see is as a solution to a problem that they solve independently of you.
Is it immoral to, for instance, design a "planned city" to be as boring as possible in order to not attract thrill-seekers?
Now, mind you, I'm asking solely about design. There would be no enforcement of any kind. No "we don't want your kind here". Nothing like in the opening to First Blood.
Just boring AF. Everything closes at 8pm excluding a few bars and restaurants. Lots of playgrounds, good schools, and walking paths to attract a population of young families with children.
Good news for EV makers: they take longer to refill than ICE vehicles, so there will be even more opportunities to "monetise" the drivers while they wait.
Many have a mute button: the unmarked, flat, square buttons at the edges of screen, usually 2nd on top right. If not that one, try the others; not like you will break it. Some newer designs have hidden it somewhere or removed it.
This used to work. But it has not worked at any gas station in my area for a couple years now.
They all stopped working at about the same time (different brands and locations). I imagine there's a common vendor for at-pump entertainment systems, and that vendor decided to scrape the last fractional percent of ad revenue.
Jesus, what?!? Never seen anything like that, but I guess it’s just a matter of time for all the "innovations" to diffuse from the land of the free to this side of the pond.
The dystopian future of mobility will be free-to-ride, self-driving cars operating as taxis where we have to pay to exit and are incentivized to pay to opt-out of ads.
Non-premium subscription users will be driven through less efficient routes and dirt roads to increase ad watchtime and reduce congestion for premium customers. If you don't tip the driverless car in advance, it may choose to eject you at any point, potentially leaving you even further from your destination than you were
I bet the more likely option is that it will force you to drive through a restaurant drive through whether you want to buy something there or not. Most people are gonna be like "I'm here and having to wait anyway, I may as well". I know it'd work on me if I wouldn't refuse out of the principle of it
That sounds like a maintenance nightmare. Owners maintain vehicles, renters have no incentive to, but people who feel trapped in a vehicle that requires an exit fee and treats them adversarially with ads will feel incentivized to vandalize the vehicle.
Honestly, the sort of future wouldn’t bother me where the unsustainable mode (cars) would have to use ads to help cover what are now negative externalities, and walking, biking, and transit would be the ad-free options. But of course it won’t be like that.
How can you design a car with safety in mind and then propose this? Driver's attention is not available for anything but the road in principle. At anytime. Ford is Boeinging or what?
"Boeinging"? How sad is it for Boeing that they've become a verb representing willful incompetence? Their upper management should be utterly ashamed (as should Ford's at this point for even considering such a vile thing, let alone trying to patent it).
Music is something people want. It can help people concentrate and stay alert.
Cup holders allow you to have a good place to put your drink without being distracted. They help you keep attention on the road by not spilling your coffee on your lap.
Ads don't help anybody with staying alert or doing any other tasks in the car. They're meant to capture your attention for selling you something.
If ads jolt the driver awake because they're so jarring, doesn't that help with the staying alert thing? Though if the ads cause the driver to go into fits of rage, that's probably negative on the car being driven safely, though that would again help them with the being alert thing.
If driver alertness is the key factor, cars should have inward facing cameras that can detect the drivers eyes so it can play a horrible noise when the driver starts micro-napping. Or ads for nearby hotels. I think Teslas already have such a camera. New revenue stream!
>If driver alertness is the key factor, cars should have inward facing cameras that can detect the drivers eyes so it can play a horrible noise when the driver starts micro-napping.
This exists already [1] and is in pretty much every new car in the EU at least.
In principle eating and drinking is a major safety concern, a choking driver is not able to behave as per the minimum standard. And yes, radio can grab your attention, so it's fine in light traffic, maybe less in awkward situations. I guess racers don't listen to music when they race, but they drink for other reasons. Dunno.
One could argue that the whole point of ads is to draw your attention and put things into your memory, which is not necessarily the case for those other things. Some radio programs probably are meant to draw attention, but you could notice this and switch away, which brings us to...
> Where does the line get drawn?
Ideally by the person who knows most intimately how badly you're being distracted, i.e. you. (Until they get the ability to scan your brain.)
Self reporting of distraction doesn’t seem to work so good, as evidenced by the number of people texting, scrolling social, or whatever else on their phone, while driving.
Before phone, we still saw men shaving and women putting on their makeup.
I have 0 faith in people to self regulate and avoid distractions while driving. At least at a population level.
I'd argue the line gets drawn when the driver is barred from stopping the distracting element themselves. Everything else can be stopped, disabled,refused, or removed by the driver. If an element is designed to be another source for focus (the entire infotainment system is this) it must be able to be turned off by the driver. In theory simply disabling the infotainment system should cover this, but now you have to argue if removing things like modern navigation is an acceptable option, and frankly, these ads only serve to line pockets. This isn't a radio situation where the feed is free, the car is (in theory) already paid for. (and don't try to argue that the car is cheaper because of the ads. TV manufacturers already turned that argument into swiss cheese when they stopped bothering to sell TVs without preloaded ads.)
> there’s a recognition that an occupant’s “natural inclination to seek minimal or no ads” should be balanced with “maximum opportunity for ad-based monetization.”
Or, you know, you just don't try to monetize every fucking second your users interact with your (expensive, paid-for) product.
I'm not sure how unexpected audio/video will go with driving regulations. I've got a 2009 car that makes me click "agree" before i can change the radio station.
In the US at least, it would be the patent holder’s choice if they want to license their patent (in most situations, if I understand correctly). When I patent advertising on vegetables, I won’t let anyone license it.
What does the patent being granted have to do with anything? At all? Whether Ford is granted or not granted the patent is irrelevant in this conversation, the fact it attempted to patent it is the issue. What the patent office does has no relevance here at all. None. Nada.
And every company that even thinks like this should be publicly lambasted, raked over the coals, and shunned!
That's fine. I would not have responded if you simply stated this.
However by discussing how the patent may not be approved, in the same post where you say ford may not use it, you give the impression you think there is a moral or ethical difference for Ford between the patent being approved or not.
I'd be more sympathetic to this response if the article didn't begin with:
> Yeah, you read the headline right. Ford has patented a system...
The fact is that it is not protected by a patent. That said, the fact that they are _trying_ to and investing in their attempts is indeed worth attention, as it indicates they think it's a good idea. Just without the sloppy reporting.
Patents can be licensed, and automakers are already effectively at a patent stalemate, so any enforcement is unlikely.
Just like Microsoft's various patents on Linux haven't stopped companies from making Android phones, just resulted in some of them paying Microsoft money for patent licensing.
I wonder if you will get car radios with an 'ad-blocker' that will cut out radio ads and play their own in the gaps created. Sort of like Brave browser was trying to do.
wheres it going to get the ads from if your not connected to any data channel? is it going to store them on the car? get them from wireless towers? or just assume a data channel perhaps.
I only listen to ad free radio while driving. The thought that the tranquility of Radio 3 would be interrupted by an advert disgusts me. I would never buy a car that had this, no matter how smart it was.
KA-CHING - now everybody who wants to make an eavesdropping car system that plays you ads will have to pay Ford in order to add this feature to their cars!
This must be a quote from Ford right? Here's a hint Ford, you don't need voice recognition for that because the ad preference of everyone in the car is always that you don't push ads at us.
reply