Jeep Claims 'Software Glitch' Disabled Opting-Out of In-Vehicle Pop-Up Ads in 'a Few' Cases (theautopian.com) 66
Remember Jeep's new in-dash pop-up ads which reportedly appeared every time you stopped?
"Since I'm a journalist, or at least close enough, I decided that I should at least get Stellantis/Jeep's side of things," writes car-culture site The Autopian: Would Stellantis do something so woefully misguided and annoying? I reached out to our Stellantis/Jeep contact to ask and was initially told that they were "investigating" on their end, which to me felt like a stalling tactic while the proper ass-covering plans were conceived. I eventually got this response from a Stellantis spokesperson:
"This was an in-vehicle message designed to inform Jeep customers about Mopar extended vehicle care options. A temporary software glitch affected the ability to instantly opt out in a few isolated cases, though instant opt-out is the standard for all our in-vehicle messages. Our team had already identified and corrected the error, and we are following up directly with the customer to ensure the matter is fully resolved..."
I suppose a glitch is possible, though I've not seen any examples of this ad popping up with the instant opt-out option available, but I guess it must exist, since not all Jeep owners seem to have had to deal with these ads. I suspect if this was happening to more people than these "few isolated cases" we'd still be cleaning up from the aftermath of the riots and uprisings.
Because, as they write, "Really, I can't think of a quicker way to incur the wrath of nearly every human..."
"Since I'm a journalist, or at least close enough, I decided that I should at least get Stellantis/Jeep's side of things," writes car-culture site The Autopian: Would Stellantis do something so woefully misguided and annoying? I reached out to our Stellantis/Jeep contact to ask and was initially told that they were "investigating" on their end, which to me felt like a stalling tactic while the proper ass-covering plans were conceived. I eventually got this response from a Stellantis spokesperson:
"This was an in-vehicle message designed to inform Jeep customers about Mopar extended vehicle care options. A temporary software glitch affected the ability to instantly opt out in a few isolated cases, though instant opt-out is the standard for all our in-vehicle messages. Our team had already identified and corrected the error, and we are following up directly with the customer to ensure the matter is fully resolved..."
I suppose a glitch is possible, though I've not seen any examples of this ad popping up with the instant opt-out option available, but I guess it must exist, since not all Jeep owners seem to have had to deal with these ads. I suspect if this was happening to more people than these "few isolated cases" we'd still be cleaning up from the aftermath of the riots and uprisings.
Because, as they write, "Really, I can't think of a quicker way to incur the wrath of nearly every human..."
In other words (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other words (Score:5, Funny)
More like some C-suite executive pulled his face up from the cocaine pile long enough to scream "OH SHIT! SOMEONE PUT OUT SOME LIES FOR DAMAGE CONTROL QUICK!"
Re:In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
Dangerous Distraction Ignored By Corruption (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Blind spot detection is similar - it's literally there to warn you before serving into a lane when there's something (a) you can't see and (b) you will hit.
Blind spot does not mean can't see. It means can't see with mirror alone.
Tire pressure monitor? You can't see, visually, if your tire is off pressure, especially if you picked up a nail or something mid-drive. This warning helps prevents people from getting into crash-causing blowout situations at high speeds.
TPMS is redundant for this purpose. Data to algorithmically detect meaningful tire problems is available via ABS for free.
It's amazing how the inbred fucking moron republicans will scream about things they claim aren't useful, but when investigated, every time it turns out that the things ARE useful and the republicans are just kid-killing retarded sacks of shit.
What is amazing to me is the lack of commensurate safety data. Death rates per either vehicle or miles driven have not meaningfully changed since the 80s despite four decades of piling on of new technology at considerable cost.
Re: (Score:3)
What is amazing to me is the lack of commensurate safety data. Death rates per either vehicle or miles driven have not meaningfully changed since the 80s despite four decades of piling on of new technology at considerable cost.
Lie. It fell around 2x: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/mo... [nsc.org] - from 2.5 to 1.3
Re: (Score:2)
What is amazing to me is the lack of commensurate safety data. Death rates per either vehicle or miles driven have not meaningfully changed since the 80s despite four decades of piling on of new technology at considerable cost.
This does not appear to be an accurate statement. In the US, at least, fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles are down by roughly 50% since the 1980s. Injury rates are down by half since the 1990s. The overall crash rate is down by a third since the 1990s. Those are significant gains.
https://www.bts.gov/content/mo... [bts.gov]
Note that aggregate data is listed first - the normalized data starts at row 7.
Re: (Score:2)
That account is a troll, routinely posting drivel
Re: (Score:2)
This does not appear to be an accurate statement. In the US, at least, fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles are down by roughly 50% since the 1980s. Injury rates are down by half since the 1990s. The overall crash rate is down by a third since the 1990s. Those are significant gains.
https://www.bts.gov/content/mo [bts.gov]...
I don't agree with the use of this type of metric. The reason is relatively small changes in small numbers can yield large percentages while relatively large changes in large numbers can yield small percentages. What matters to individuals is the change in their absolute risk as this reflects the real world risk they face.
Using data above average fatality rate per decade since the 80s is between 1.74 and 1.15 per 100m miles.
1990s - 1.74
2000s - 1.41
2010s - 1.15
2020s - 1.35
In previous decades the average fo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree with the use of this type of metric
That would be fine if it were something subjective, but what you are disagreeing with in this case is simple math and the most basic levels of reasoning. Your agreement does not matter.
What you are pointing out is that when safety standards began being mandated, they started with the largest, most obvious causes of death and regulated those first, then each successive decade they were concentrating on smaller and smaller problems since the large ones were mitigated.
It's an obscure, new technique known as pr
Re: (Score:1)
Death rates per either vehicle or miles driven have not meaningfully changed since the 80s despite four decades of piling on of new technology at considerable cost. FALSE. Kill yourself you child-murdering republican pedophile.
Re: (Score:3)
Not every time. Some of the rule actually are just "We want to appear to be doing something". And occasionally one will even make things not only more expensive, but also worse.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm one who does like most of the bells and whistles on my car. As long as I can turn the actual ringing and whistling part, I don't object to the presence of the ones I don't use. And I've actually become fairly fond of blind spot monitoring and the backup camera myself. But I don't NEED them. I *like* them. I still turn my head and look to check my blind spot before changing lanes. And when I reverse, my head is almost on a pivot, between the screen, my mirrors, and the back windows. They are usefu
Re: Dangerous Distraction Ignored By Corruption (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing that anyone needs is distracted drivers. Even when the vehicle is at rest, drivers need to regain situation awareness. Alas, we live in the age of Idiocracy, where the government looks the other way.
The reason the ads show when the Jeep is at rest is that it's likely the Jeep is stopped because it "broke down".
That's why the ads tend to be for extended warranty and repair services.
In the next upgrade, the ads will also be for the "A Able Aardvark Accident Attorney" firm in case your car was stopped by a collision..
Sure, blame it on the software (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, blame it on the software, people are dumb enough to believe this. Your brand is ruined to me, this is just one more big nail in your coffin.
For over 20+ years I drove Jeeps CJs. When Jeep went to Wrangler I decided if I am going to drive a car, I might as well drive a real car and get good mileage and aerodynamics.
For wilderness use like the old CJs were, there is nothing available today.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
When Jeep went to Wrangler I decided if I am going to drive a car, I might as well drive a real car and get good mileage and aerodynamics.
What do you mean car? Did you believe those internet rumors in 2017 about Wrangler going unibody?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
“New jeeps” you mean since 1986? You know that the Wrangler has been produced for about 1 year less than the CJs existence (1944 - 1986; 1986 - 2025). It’s kinda weird to complain on a tech blog, that new technology has been introduced in the vehicle over the past 40 years.
Yeah, you are’t going to find any manufacturer of anything using the same design and materials that they did in the 1940s.
Re: Sure, blame it on the software (Score:2)
Ah yes, good old leaf springs and beam axles that catch on rocks and crack. Who wouldn't want them instead of a modern suspension system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For wilderness use like the old CJs were, there is nothing available today.
Only for the poor. A G Wagon is as good as a CJ and better engineered. It is also more comfortable.
Extended Warranty (Score:2)
The Extended Warranty crew initially were chasing the car. They made it inside the car’s firmware at a traffic light stop .
Hanlon's razor (Score:5, Insightful)
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
And where software development is concerned, it's almost always a bug. In most other cases, malice is easy and free. Software malice is expensive and time-consuming to do right.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is stellantis after all - the software in their cars sucks donkey balls.
Re: Hanlon's razor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VW software is merely mediocre in comparison.
Grey's Law (Score:4, Funny)
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
Zero's razor (Score:3)
Any announcement by a publicly traded corporation that could benefit said corporation should be assumed to be a lie until proven otherwise.
It costs zero dollars to lie so publicly traded corporations do it whenever it is difficult to disprove their lie. History has shown that anyone who counters their messaging is targeted for retaliation.
Do note that this fell in the realm of "yeah, they could easily be that evil/stupid/greedy" as nobody was claiming that it was probably a glitch on Monday when the story broke. There is a fair possibility they thought people would put up with the ads but the blowback made them reconsider. Always assume they a
Re: (Score:2)
You want an adequate explanation? Read the EULA.
Re: (Score:2)
Creating the part of the code that made displaying an ad possible on the display, the software to push it to the car, and making an ad to put there was not caused by stupidity. A lot of planning and intentional malice went into this (forcing advertising to someone in other people's ad-free personal space after the money changed hands IS malice). Stupidity cannot explain this, Hanlon's razor does not apply.
Oh, sure, the minor mistake in turning the system on that way was possibly stupidity, but without malic
ads built in to cars is just wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want a vehicle that is even capable of displaying ads to me. You can keep the Navigation system and its big screen.
Modern vehicles are the worst kind of spyware while costing a fortune.
Re: ads built in to cars is just wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
I've had to jailbrake my own car, then patch firmware to remove all annoyances and flash back in.
Re: (Score:2)
jailbrake
Hey guys! Look at this! Everyone else spells brake as break. This guy wants to be utterly unique and spell break as brake! The blasphemy. Everyone knows brake is spelled like break.
can be sued in many states (Score:3, Insightful)
It is illegal for drivers to be watching media (or using cell phone) while driving. That "driving" includes sitting at stop lights where the driver has to be aware of pedestrians, bicycles coming up the side, errant vehicles pushing the yellow light who will still be in the intersection after the light changes
Jeep should be sued on this basis, they are illegally distracting the driver who needs to be aware of the surroundings even when stopped, even when getting ready to pull out of a parking place
Re: (Score:2)
Jeep should be sued on this basis
The courts mean NOTHING to anyone who is not a person. Even then, only poor people need to be concerned about the courts. Sue them, have a judge condense it into a class action, and get 5 dollars towards to your monthly payment for in-car services, which will include advertisements.
Drink a verification can (Score:2)
We’re one step away from this. https://www.reddit.com/r/4chan... [reddit.com]
Re: Drink a verification can (Score:3)
What do you mean "we"? You're already there. You gave your verification soul away in exchange for entering the walled garden of apple. Even if you somehow left, you've still got their branding permanently etched right above your ass crack.
limited software testing (Score:2)
Why would I test the features that I don't want the end-user using? Seems like time is better spent on testing features that will make us money, not the ones that simply avoid a lawsuit.
smells like lawsuits brewing (Score:2)
Bad reputation (Score:3, Informative)
Stellantis already has a very bad reputation.
"Consumer Reports Findings: In a study analyzing over 150,000 vehicles from model years 2014 to 2019, Consumer Reports ranked multiple Stellantis brands at the bottom for used car reliability. Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram were specifically noted for frequent mechanical problems and costly repairs. In contrast, brands like Lexus and Toyota secured top positions for reliability."
"Consumer Reports Findings: In a study analyzing over 150,000 vehicles from model years 2014 to 2019, Consumer Reports ranked multiple Stellantis brands at the bottom for used car reliability. Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram were specifically noted for frequent mechanical problems and costly repairs. In contrast, brands like Lexus and Toyota secured top positions for reliability."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Chrysler has also dragged down every other company that made the mistake of associating itself with them. Even Mercedes could not make Chryslers anything but garbage and suffered some Chrysler-isms in their own lineup during their association. Hell, Chrysler even made Fiat look good in comparison. Fiat! The "Fix It Again Tony" jokes all want away during its ownership of Chrysler! Again... FIAT... just how in the name of Great Cthulhu's butthole does another car company sink to such craptitude tha
Re: (Score:2)
Stellantis is a relatively new company that was founded about 4 years ago. That's probably why you never heard of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Stellantis already has a very bad reputation.
"Consumer Reports Findings: In a study analyzing over 150,000 vehicles from model years 2014 to 2019, Consumer Reports ranked multiple Stellantis brands at the bottom for used car reliability. Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram were specifically noted for frequent mechanical problems and costly repairs. In contrast, brands like Lexus and Toyota secured top positions for reliability."
"Consumer Reports Findings: In a study analyzing over 150,000 vehicles from model years 2014 to 2019, Consumer Reports ranked multiple Stellantis brands at the bottom for used car reliability. Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram were specifically noted for frequent mechanical problems and costly repairs. In contrast, brands like Lexus and Toyota secured top positions for reliability."
If it's worth saying, it's worth saying twice!
Consider a Bronco? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OJ Simpson approves this message!
PR drones are weird (Score:3)
"They're not ADs, they're just information about things we want to sell you".
How about fuck off, you got paid a lot of money for the vehicle, you're already going to make more on repairs, and that kind of display forward of the back of the driver's seat is already outright illegal in a lot of places due to the distraction risk.
I'm starting to think push advertising ought to be a capital crime, it is really degrading society. We can find other ways to fund things we want.
Even once is not acceptable (Score:1)
If you want to have an area for messages that I will never see if I don't go into that area of the interface, that's one thing. If you EVER pop up a single ad I have to bypass before I can do something else then you're fucking dead to me, at least as far as giving you money ever again is concerned. I might still use a product or service that does that, but only if it's free. If I paid for it, and it turns out I paid to be advertised to, fucking die.
Which, come to think of it, is what Stellantis seems to be
"All" (Score:2)
>"though instant opt-out is the standard for all our in-vehicle messages."
"All"? How many "messages" does one have to opt-out of? How many new "messages" will then appear later on a different topic that one has to opt-out of?
Re: (Score:2)
Your post made me think (somewhat tangentially) about a couple websites I've visited recently. They had the standard "manage your cookie preferences" pop-up... but, when I actually clicked on it, I was presented with something like 50-60 different nuanced toggles I would have had to clear!
As a Firefox user, I typically don't bother with those things since I don't allow sites to store persistent cookies anyway. But, still... I was struck by the sheer hubris of those companies!
fortunately... (Score:2)
Fortunately, no software glitch has prevented me from opting out of buying a Jeep,
a/b test? (Score:2)
Google doesn't allow (Score:1)
Sums up everything that is wrong with the US (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
in one simple phrase - it's opt out instead of opt in.
Au contraire mon frere, voting is explicitly opt-in. That is a feature, not a bug.
Can we please make advertising illegal already? (Score:2)
It's about time we make it illegal the concept of advertising as in "unsolicited request for attention for one or more brands". Our mental hygiene will skyrocket, and this will put a stop to the current situation. Everything turns to ads. Everything. Let's put a stop to this.
Why? (Score:2)
Why would anybody buy a Jeep considering how their quality has gone to shit [247wallst.com] over the past few years? The market is somehow shocked when Ads pop up on that large digital display? It was planned folks, it wasn't a glitch. Jeep and its sisters (Dodge, RAM) are dying as a brand. It's best to let them rot.
Jeep finished last with a score of 46. Consumer Reports tested seven of its models. Two other brands, often found at or near the bottom of many car brand evaluations, also did poorly. Land Rover had a score of 50, and Jaguar had a score of 52.
50 Ohm Terminator (Score:2)
Disable the antenna assembly by capping it with a 50 ohm resister.
No more RF signals, no more WiFi.
Peace of Mind.
So "accidentally on purpose"? (Score:2)
This clearly was a field test and now they are lying about it.
Thanks for the community service announcement (Score:1)
Confirmed (Score:1)