The Peckish Synapse

[Grumpy Bear]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/other/world-s-largest-automaker-builds-cars-that-harvest-your-data-for-insurers-1m-vehicles-already-locked-in/ss-AA1Xvg0B?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=0ff32aadbc344588b51409475af52df5&ei=26#image=11

[asilverblazer]

11 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/other/world-s-largest-automaker-builds-cars-that-harvest-your-data-for-insurers-1m-vehicles-already-locked-in/ss-AA1Xvg0B?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=0ff32aadbc344588b51409475af52df5&ei=26#image=11

And we wonder why people post looking for the "onstar" fuse.

 

The first hint of an installed feature becoming a subscription or any identifiable drive data being shared... I'll be pulling that fuse, pulling an antenna, removing a module, cutting a wire too. 

[OnTheReel]

12 hours ago, asilverblazer said:

And we wonder why people post looking for the "onstar" fuse.

 

The first hint of an installed feature becoming a subscription or any identifiable drive data being shared... I'll be pulling that fuse, pulling an antenna, removing a module, cutting a wire too. 

Did exactly this with both my Ram and Jeep. Full telematics systems delete, zero cellular connection to the outside world anymore. I even blanked off where the SOS buttons used to be so there’s no trace of it ever being there lol.
 

Unfortunately the newer the vehicle, the harder it is to do but also the more necessary it will be. Because even having a clear title doesn’t really mean you own it anymore. Not if the mothership can still ping your vehicle to either spy on you or delete features you already paid for with the vehicle. 

[KARNUT]

I don’t have a problem with it. You just can’t get away from it if you tried. I have dash cams. Everyone by now has a smartphone and TV. How many people keep their phone by their bed? And there’s that little box on your counter you can talk to that can do almost anything. I thought about it, not bothered by it.

[Atlas]

I can't seem to get to the actual article in Grumpy's link. I see the headline but the story is buried somewhere in a mishmash of MSN clickbait. I truly do not like MSN, all their "news" is regurgitated from other sources anyway.

 

I don't understand ripping Onstar or Uconnect out of vehicles, but I don't have to. People are free to do with their vehicles as they wish. I think it's silly, but, here we are.

 

I'd rather the automakers and their hired data firms be punished by law when they do things like OnStar may have done. OnStar  apparently sold its data on driving behavior it collects which was supposedly de-personalized. It likely contained data about the vehicle itself, VIN, which insurers gobbled up via 3rd party. They matched the VINs in the data to VINs they insure and created risk advice for those policies based on risky/aggressive driving behaviors observed in the data. While they can't pinpoint WHO was driving the car during the risky behavior, doesn't matter, since they insure the VEHICLE, they felt it appropriate to charge additional premium to the policy holders.

 

Devil is in the details, you are typically passed privacy notices during sale or delivery, or simply USING the infotainment system or the vehicle communicates acceptance of Onstar's terms in some cases, including their various apps. I'm not sure how much of a leg consumers had to stand on in this fight, but the ugliness and bad PR, betrayed trust, caused them to stop selling that data--at least to that broker.

 

The sticky part, which I went through myself, was not knowing I was enrolled in their driving data collection program. It had a name which I forget, and you could toggle the program on or off via the onstar app. I was well aware of it, and was certain I had disabled it. I logged in one day to find it had been re-enabled either intentionally by GM or via code in a software update that defaulted the program to on. I called GM/OnStar at the time and logged a case with them for reasons of documentation and made them confirm the service had been turned off and would stay off. The program no longer exists, at least not under its old name and UI in the app.

Edited March 6 by Atlas

[asilverblazer]

1 hour ago, Atlas said:

I'd rather the automakers and their hired data firms be punished by law when they do things like OnStar may have done.

Was it illegal?

 

1 hour ago, Atlas said:

OnStar apparently sold its data on driving behavior it collects which was supposedly de-personalized. It likely contained data about the vehicle itself, VIN, which insurers gobbled up via 3rd party. They matched the VINs in the data to VINs they insure and created risk advice for those policies based on risky/aggressive driving behaviors observed in the data. While they can't pinpoint WHO was driving the car during the risky behavior, doesn't matter, since they insure the VEHICLE, they felt it appropriate to charge additional premium to the policy holders...

 

The sticky part, which I went through myself, was not knowing I was enrolled in their driving data collection program. It had a name which I forget, and you could toggle the program on or off via the onstar app. I was well aware of it, and was certain I had disabled it. I logged in one day to find it had been re-enabled either intentionally by GM or via code in a software update that defaulted the program to on. I called GM/OnStar at the time and logged a case with them for reasons of documentation and made them confirm the service had been turned off and would stay off. The program no longer exists, at least not under its old name and UI in the app.

This is why removing the vehicles means of communicating makes sense. 

 

The challenge for me would be to find who all I have business with that might have data that I didn't give them permission to have, like my insurer, would they ever admit to having the data, using it, using it adversely against me? Further, what other companies that I don't yet have a relationship with but might in the future? Further still, it's not like this information is remotely secure in the first place, at least once a week it seems I get notice of some 'data breach' that compromised my information... I have free identity theft monitoring offers for decades because of this. 

 

The indiscriminate gobbling up of data, to sell to other entities is egregious. During a recent loan application experience, the lender expected me to sign a document acknowledging I have an alias (I don't) it was an obvious case of 'junk data' that 'came up in their report'. Nope, I'm not signing it, have your 'data provider' attest to their information, they collected it (poorly), sold it and the lender paid for it. Then it becomes MY responsibility to correct this mess? Nope, not doing that either. 

[Atlas]

8 minutes ago, asilverblazer said:

Was it illegal?

 

This is why removing the vehicles means of communicating makes sense. 

 

The challenge for me would be to find who all I have business with that might have data that I didn't give them permission to have, like my insurer, would they ever admit to having the data, using it, using it adversely against me? Further, what other companies that I don't yet have a relationship with but might in the future? Further still, it's not like this information is remotely secure in the first place, at least once a week it seems I get notice of some 'data breach' that compromised my information... I have free identity theft monitoring offers for decades because of this. 

 

The indiscriminate gobbling up of data, to sell to other entities is egregious. During a recent loan application experience, the lender expected me to sign a document acknowledging I have an alias (I don't) it was an obvious case of 'junk data' that 'came up in their report'. Nope, I'm not signing it, have your 'data provider' attest to their information, they collected it (poorly), sold it and the lender paid for it. Then it becomes MY responsibility to correct this mess? Nope, not doing that either. 

 

I don't know, was it illegal? OnStar settled with the FCC on that specific issue, but state lawsuits and consumer class actions are ongoing. When settlements happen no wrongdoing is admitted.

 

Our data is all over including PII. The notion of privacy doesn't exist in the US like it does in other countries, not at the federal level, and at the state level it exists as a nebulous and complex patchwork. Some states have really weak data privacy laws and very lax consumer protections.

 

Rip out OnStar if you wish. Are you going to throw your cell phone in the trash when an app or service finds a new way to market and sell your information?

 

That's where it doesn't make sense to me... Without going completely dark and living off grid and never contacting civilization again, I can't control my information out there. I can only control certain safeguards against it being used maliciously, but I can't control data breaches.

[Grumpy Bear]

When a condition becomes a business model. 

 

https://www.gm-trucks.com/gm-truck-suv-incentives-pricing-2026/

 

Zane posted this in "Latest Articles". 

 

The honest bottom line

 

Truck buyers have spent three years assuming this is a temporary condition that will break once inventories normalize. GM just presented it to investors as a durable strategy, on a chart, as evidence of good management.

 

Inventory did normalize. GM is at 511,000 units and squarely inside its own 50 to 60 day target. The discounts still did not come back, because the low incentive number is the goal rather than a symptom of shortage.

 

Plan your purchase around that reality instead of waiting for it to change. Follow our ongoing GM News coverage for pricing and incentive changes as the next-generation trucks land.

[Atlas]

14 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

When a condition becomes a business model. 

 

https://www.gm-trucks.com/gm-truck-suv-incentives-pricing-2026/

 

Zane posted this in "Latest Articles". 

 

The honest bottom line

 

Truck buyers have spent three years assuming this is a temporary condition that will break once inventories normalize. GM just presented it to investors as a durable strategy, on a chart, as evidence of good management.

 

Inventory did normalize. GM is at 511,000 units and squarely inside its own 50 to 60 day target. The discounts still did not come back, because the low incentive number is the goal rather than a symptom of shortage.

 

Plan your purchase around that reality instead of waiting for it to change. Follow our ongoing GM News coverage for pricing and incentive changes as the next-generation trucks land.

 

On the other hand, GM is offering 0% for 5 years on various models including the 2026 Silverados. That's significant savings with current interest rates and average borrowing terms. While I don't doubt the truthfulness of the article, it's worth pointing out that fullsize trucks aren't exactly flying off the shelf right now with the highest and longest-sustained gas prices, lowest consumer confidence, and one of the periods of highest economic uncertainty. A certain level of incentive is still required to support sales at current pricing, even if GM's incentives are less than industry average.

 

The article points out inventory is down 3% YOY and supports its 50-60 day target. The visual impact of this, or, maybe it's another factor entirely, is stunning. Local dealerships simply don't have rows and rows of Silverados in every color and configuration imaginable anymore. A local dealer I recall having "normal" inventory of about 50 Silverado 1500's on its lot now regularly only carries about 10-20. The inventory reduction seems more than just a few percentage drop, but maybe that's recurring over several years.

Edited July 28 by Atlas

[Grumpy Bear]

3 hours ago, Atlas said:

A local dealer I recall having "normal" inventory of about 50 Silverado 1500's on its lot now regularly only carries about 10-20. The inventory reduction seems more than just a few percentage drop, but maybe that's recurring over several years.

 

Another take is that COVID19 interruptions reduced inventory (supply chain issues) and with intent that level has been maintained? 

[Atlas]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Another take is that COVID19 interruptions reduced inventory (supply chain issues) and with intent that level has been maintained? 

 

Sure, the article mentions GM is trading some volume for margin, i.e. sell fewer but make more. It just doesn't seem to add up that inventory at some of the biggest dealers around here for a popular rig like the Silverado 1500 would literally shrink in half. Maybe that's the only way they can sustain the margin, and they're just turning existing inventory more quickly.

 

I also wonder if borrowing cost has something to do with it. Dealers have to borrow to floor the vehicles and pay interest. I wonder if that has limited what they can ultimately keep on the ground at the dealership.

[asilverblazer]

I haven't seen inventory recovery from COVID. 

 

In the few random times I 'build my own' truck or SUV, no one has the exact one I want.

 

GM has been working to lower incentives too for a long time. 

 

A $500 incentive isn't getting me off the couch to go truck shopping.

[Grumpy Bear]

8 hours ago, Atlas said:

 

Sure, the article mentions GM is trading some volume for margin, i.e. sell fewer but make more. It just doesn't seem to add up that inventory at some of the biggest dealers around here for a popular rig like the Silverado 1500 would literally shrink in half. Maybe that's the only way they can sustain the margin, and they're just turning existing inventory more quickly.

 

I also wonder if borrowing cost has something to do with it. Dealers have to borrow to floor the vehicles and pay interest. I wonder if that has limited what they can ultimately keep on the ground at the dealership.

 

Do you remember that Harley Davidson was more successful (solvent) when it produced about 60% of the market demand (by design) and forced wait times of up to three years? Even when your turn came around it was, "Take what we are giving you or move to the back of the line and start over". HUGE markup's were 'normalized' and dealer killed. 40% markup and no floor plan? What's not to love? Greed will kill them yet. They have surplus production and customer base is tanking. And still they think nosebleed pricing will work.  

[Atlas]

10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Do you remember that Harley Davidson was more successful (solvent) when it produced about 60% of the market demand (by design) and forced wait times of up to three years? Even when your turn came around it was, "Take what we are giving you or move to the back of the line and start over". HUGE markup's were 'normalized' and dealer killed. 40% markup and no floor plan? What's not to love? Greed will kill them yet. They have surplus production and customer base is tanking. And still they think nosebleed pricing will work.  

 

I'm tangentially aware of what Harley used to be, back in my riding days, although I was into Italian sport bikes. Ducati seems to have gone the other way; still very expensive, but they've made a large subset of their bikes a lot more reliable and accessible, and they've diversified their lineup to include other riding sports too. IMO, a good example of where greed and growth might have also been beneficial to the consumer.

 

Although GM is charging a relative premium for its most popular pickups, I find that there are some excellent value propositions in its lineup as well.

 

The Colorado still strikes me as the most attractive midsize on the market, and also the most reasonably priced given capability and features. There's a part of me that wishes I would have bought one instead of my Silverado.

 

The Equinox ...I must be getting old. The ICE equinox is a great design IMO. Probably because it reminds me visually of an actual SUV aka an S Blazer. Underneath it's nothing even remotely close, but it LOOKS good. It's got all the modern features plus some at a very reasonable price. If I had to run out and buy myself a daily commuter to do everything except tow, an Equinox would be on my list.

 

It does bug me that mid-tier 1500's reach into the 50-60k range, and Tahoes and Burbs are even more expensive. Less than 10 years ago, dealers were sitting on rows of Tahoe LS and LT's for low 40's. You could even still find Tahoes with a front bench, still!

[Atlas]

For as much hate as Ms. Barra receives on here, she sure is a shrewd businesswoman....