So anyway, I'm radicalized, rule

IMO, for a safety system, anything sitting between the device's sensors (to say it's time to deploy the safety system, regardless of what it is), and the actual deployment of that safety system, is too many things sitting between those systems. There's should always be a direct and uninterrupted connection from the safety deployment sensors and the safety deployment system. Nothing in between so the delay in deployment is as close to zero as possible, with no complications that could, in any way, shape, or form, delay or otherwise interrupt the connection between those two systems.

I really wonder what the mechanism for this license model is, I'm sure their engineers are intelligent and there's no obvious issues, but say, for example, the sensors that trigger the airbag and the airbags deployment trigger, has something like a relay in between. The relay is controlled by a management computing device that has verified the license and so it closes the relay (so everything works). Say, for example, during a crash, one of the first things that happens is that you're struck with debris, and in that debris is a very small, very powerful magnet. It happens to land, right where that relay sits, and because of where it impacts, it causes the relay to open... Disabling the airbag. You get wrecked because you were hit with a magnet.

I'm sure that is not realistic and they're not using a magnetic based relay for something like this, but I think it demonstrates the point. Anything sitting between (detect) and (deploy) is a risk to life and limb. That includes, but is not limited to, lines of code, relays, disconnects, computers, electronic lockouts, switches, and buttons. Even significant lengths of wire, more than a few inches could be a problem due to induced current or the risk of them being pulled and/or broken. Ideally, the system for detecting that it should deploy and the deployment mechanisms trigger should be in the same, protected box or chassis on the vest, with nothing in-between to inhibit the signal. IMO, the only good way to do this kind of lockout is to control the arming/disarming of the system, where when the system arms (and therefore ready to be used and secure the life and limb of the user), it checks for the presence of a license, first locally (with a license that has been cached that informs when the subscription is set up expire, if that expiry is after now, then arm), and failing that (expiry is before now), check for a license via a link through the app to the web and/or service provider. Providing useful feedback to the user about the system and whether it has armed correctly and therefore ready to deploy.

Have they done it this way? I don't know. I don't trust that they have. I'd rather pay more for a safety system and not have it require a subscription than pay monthly to use the system and potentially have it fail a fucking license check when I need it the most. Bluntly, I don't trust them to get this right. So fuck this, fuck them, and fuck anyone who supports this with their money. Any company putting a financial condition on the safety of your life isn't a company that should continue to operate.

All of this is to say nothing of: what happens if the license servers fail? Can't check in for a new license at renewal time because the servers are fucked.... Well, good luck in that crash you're about to have. 🖕

Fucking idiotic to trust a subscription model with your life.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Here's a great vid on airbags for motorcycles

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

Be the change you want to see in the dark.

the option of a subscription is fine IMO

That is bullshit. If they want to lower the price by renting it out, they could perfectly well licencese local dealers to rent it out, who can go after the customer in the same way, like they could for people who rented vehicles and didnt pay/return them.

The subscription based model instead proves that the production costs cannot be that high, that in case of a run out subscription, they'd rather lose the product.

Also the development costs of the subscription and the technical equipment to validate subscriptions, including running the servers etc. are a significant cost factor, without which they could lower the price of the product.

It's argue it still shouldn't even be a "subscription". A payment plan would be a simpler and more safety-conscious implementation. If the buyer fails to keep up with required payments, then you're focused on collections, not disabling functionality.

The seller could even just not offer payment plans, because plenty of other third parties already specialize in personal loans. They're just reinventing a stupider wheel.

What is important to remember is that subscription doesn't save you money, it delays payment.

Subsceiptions do NOT make things cheaper, they only lower barrier to entry and then allow to drain you even for the cash you don't have. Similar to how credits changed the world, but way more sinister.

It certainly should.

It's a subscription service for an airbag vest. They'd rather have you die than not pay for a product you already purchased. I'd say that whether or not there's a mechanical failure, the billing department does want to kill poor people.

Limited liability. Negotiate with the family of the victim, ideally don't pay at all if you can get away with it, and move on. Product management and marketing had a great idea to increase user retention, more in the meeting at 11.

Sure we'll just have to remove those useless bits of flesh and bone you have at the moment and then you pay $23.84 per km travelled on your fantastic new stealth legs.

I'd guess the airbag doesn't go off.

This is 100% speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if it checks the length of the subscription when connected to a network, then tracks that with a built in clock. There's also incentive to frequently connect it to a network since the company constantly "updates the algorithm" it uses to detect crashes and deploy.

I suspect it would stop working once you hit the end of whatever period it knows you're "paid up" for.

This isn't a required safety device

I just checked the site, it says the subscription includes a new detection module every three years. So at least some new gear is included.

Subscription for a product like this definitely feel very shady. But at least you can just straight up buy it. They say the subscription is intended for people who can't afford the full price out of pocket.

They are reusable, they use replaceable argon cannisters, those cannisters cost 130bucks a pop though.

My t9p of mid-range baby car seats that I BOUGHT (ie. No subscription) come with a replacement agreement that each accident the seat is involved in above a certain threshold, they will replace the car seat for free as they are not safe to operate again after a crash -would need to check the manual in the car for deets, obviously not for a fender bender.

As many times as accidents could happen in the life time of the car seat, probably 8 years or so. For free. Which I think it's smart as it gives them great pr in general, and it helps keeping their brand out of the news in case of a damaged item gets involved in a second crash and someone gets hurt.

I am sure they factored the cost of replacements into the seat price based on statistics, to me it tells you don't need to be a soulless piece of shit to make a good and reliable business model without being a dick.

My mother, an asthmatic, jokes that Air is already a subscription service 🙂

.... Or move somewhere with universal healthcare...

When I was broke the only motor vehicle I owned was a motorcycle -- it was significantly cheaper than a car.

If you can't afford healthcare you likely can't afford a car either.

Or just buy one of the other vests that use a simple tether and doesn't require a stupid fucking subscription and a additional, complex point of failure?

This is exactly my train of thought.