Edmunds Editor-in-Chief Karl Brauer apparently shares our ambivalence about GM’s in-car nanny, Onstar. And not for paranoid reasons either. He explains:
See, I like to think of myself as relatively self-sufficient. Sure, I’ll ask for help but I have to really need it first. However, on a semi-regular basis, when I’m in an OnStar-equipped car I find myself unintentionally activating the system, which in turn causes tremendous guilt because I feel I’m bothering an OnStar employee who could be helping another driver, maybe even someone with a true emergency.
Brauer goes on to recount a few incidents which led to his conclusion that Onstar’s benefits don’t outweigh its annoyances.
I hit the button outside my house, asked for directions to the nearest Wells Fargo ATM, and was directed right past a nearby Wells Fargo bank (with two ATMs) to a Ralph’s grocery store a few miles away. I thanked OnStar, hung up, and drove back to the bank to make a withdrawal.
While I was disappointed in OnStar’s knowledge of my local ATMs, I was far more troubled by the concept of bothering another human just to get driving directions (insert your ” the difference between men and women” joke here). My overriding feeling after hanging up?
“Oh…um…sorry to bother you…disembodied OnStar voice. Hope I didn’t interrupt any truly important calls.”
And that last line seems to define Brauer’s experience with Onstar.
My next OnStar experience came in a Chevrolet Malibu Maxx, circa 2003. I was at our test track making slalom runs, which as you might guess involved a lot of high G, back-and-forth activity. About halfway through my third run I heard the OnStar tone and then a female voice asking me if I was okay. Apparently the slalom run agitated the car’s stability sensors, which then initiated a call to OnStar to see if the car had crashed.
“Oh…um…sorry to bother you…disembodied OnStar voice. Hope I didn’t interrupt any truly important calls.”
There are more of these irritating interludes, but what’s most interesting is the realization Brauer comes to:
It’s not that I don’t appreciate the safety and security services it offers. It is easily the best solution to a host of problems, such as a real emergency situation that incapacitates the driver, or when a GM vehicle is stolen.
But when I drive a GM car I always feel like I’m no the verge of activating OnStar, and short of being in a serious accident I simply don’t want to bother anyone.
Which is why God invented cellular telephones. And Brauer is absolutely right. Hating on Onstar for potential governmental big-brotherism misses the point. Big Brother isn’t objectionable because of “his” specific political leanings or because we may or may not have something to hide. Rather the Orwellian phrase is appropriate because it speaks to the stifling environment of omnipresent surveillance. Whether you do have something to hide or you simply don’t want to bother anyone, the reality of living with a disembodied voice playing nanny wherever you go is a kind of apolitical totalitarianism of our own making.
To which I’d add one more point: Brauer finds Onstar annoying because he sees himself as being “relatively self-sufficient.” Those who are not bothered by the incidents he describes see them as the price one pays for what they perceive to be total security. But that mindset is, in itself, an abdication of self-sufficiency. Neither Onstar nor any other system can promise true security in a random, dangerous world. What it does offer is the option of abandoning the alert, aware, defensive posture that every motorist should embody when taking to the road. And it can be a distraction. Unfortunately, safety (or the perception thereof) is rapidly becoming a commodity… and nobody seems to be thinking of the non-monetary price.
He had to ask OnStar how to get to the bank FROM HIS OWN HOUSE!!?? Sounds like a case of poor impulse control to me… Not that EN’s final point isn’t valid, but complaints about compulsive blue-button-pushing are trifling annoyances at most.
Before passing judgment, readers would do well to read the original article.
Karl uses OnStar to get to Wells Fargo as a test of the system, since he was testing the Caddy. Obviously, OnStar fails. It’s worth noting this test was in 2000.
The issue with the Maxx is valid, though it’s less about OnStar nannying you, and more about exercising a feature of the system. Specifically, accident notification, wherein OnStar would alert authorities in the event of a collision. The cars don’t have sensors to detect deformation of the body panels, and airbag deployment isn’t guaranteed in a collision. So they resort to various sensors in the vehicle. Cell phones were indeed invented to allow for remote communication, but if a collision occurs wherein you are knocked unconscious, a cell phone will do you little good. A system integrated into your vehicle that does not require your intervention will still function so long as your car has not been torn to pieces.
It’s also worth noting that the system has two sides: automated and staffed. The “Ding! OnStar Ready” Karl is referring to is the automated half, the one activated by the phone button. Pressing that button is not bothering anyone or anything except the little module in the back of your car, which is giving you a few options in its own limited menu. If you press the blue OnStar button, you get a very different and very distinct tone which says “Connecting to… OnStar”.
Sorry, but this article takes Karl’s article out of context, and I would argue that Karl’s discomfort with the system is based partially upon ineptitude with regard to its operation.
I hit the button outside my house, asked for directions to the nearest Wells Fargo ATM…
This is a sure sign that what was once intelligence in America is gone. I fear there is probably no hope for us, as a nation. Perhaps Balkanization into smaller, self-sufficient tribal units is preferable to a mass citizenry of lame, ineffectual sheep. God I wish I hadn’t read this depressing article.
This is a sure sign that what was once intelligence in America is gone.
RTFA, people.
From the article:
My first experience with OnStar came in 2000, shortly after the technology was offered in high-end GM cars. I felt nervous hitting the button right from the start, but I was doing a story on a Cadillac equipped with OnStar, so I figured I needed to try it out and report my findings.
I hit the button outside my house, asked for directions to the nearest Wells Fargo ATM…
He was testing the system.
What it does offer is the option of abandoning the alert, aware, defensive posture that every motorist should embody when taking to the road.
Sorry but that is just ridiculous. How does OnStar make people unalert, unaware, with an aggressive posture? Simple. It doesn’t. If you think it does, by your own reasoning, cell phones do the same thing. If you need help, there is your cell phone. Now don’t worry about getting into an accident, just drive that car as fast as you want and as dangerous as you want because that cell phone will save you.
Cell phones do distract people, far more than any OnStar system could. But there is no way it makes people drive less safely.
I understand that he didn’t like the fact that he could have found a closer ATM. In 2000, I don’t recall how good GPS based maps were at the time.
The sensors asking if he was ok… what is the problem with that? I really don’t see a problem there. The system is a good system. I don’t personally subscribe to it, but if it was priced better, I would probably have the safety version of it.
So let me get this right. We are basing an opinion of OnStar from 9 years ago?
EidolWays :RTFA, people.He was testing the system.
Obviously he was testing. That was not my point. You see, his experience is representative of what is going down today with too many people; people who do not mind being directed by a “voice” from nowhere. People who actually feel comfortable letting some unknown “other” take control of their lives. There is something very uncanny in all this, if you ask me.
…people who do not mind being directed by a “voice” from nowhere.
With all respect, this really can be taken to any level, and even to extremes. Those road signs must be done away with, for they tell people what they would otherwise discover for themselves! While I jest, I do intend to make a valid point.
Microwaves have arguably had the effect of diminishing the number of individuals who know how to cook. The growth of the Internet has diminished the number of individuals who read books (arguably without diminishing the number of individuals who actually read). The appearance of the automobile itself has the diminished the number of individuals that know how to care for horses and utilize them for transportation.
With each of these advances, something was lost, but more was arguably gained. Direction assistance in your vehicle is such an advance.
There’s a dividing line between self-reliance and ease of retrieval of information. OnStar brings the map information right into your car, just as any GPS would, and saves you the time and frustration of having to look up the map ahead of time and pray that it’s detailed enough to get you to your destination. It’s a modern convenience that saves us time and frustration. It could even be argued that, because your last resort with OnStar is a real live person, it’s less harmful to social relations!
… But that would be a stretch.
I was following a brand-new Cadillac CTS wagon earlier this week here in lovely southeastern Michigan traffic. It was spewing oil fumes or something.
I had the temptation to let the driver know and advise him to call OnStar.
I decided not to do that, because I prefer my life as it is (I drive an import here). However, I decided the share the joke with you, in order to enrich our lives.
I think him asking OnStar for an ATM was more in the guise of his job as a reviewer. The way I read the sentence, he already knew the locations but was testing OnStar
I interned at Delphi in the late 90s while in college. There were some interns near me that were tasked with testing the upcoming new version of Onstar. The test cases almost always started with them talking to the system in a calm voice and ending with them screaming “self destruct” as the command.
I’m sure they eventually got it working…
Back then I actually thought that it didn’t take much time for a product to show up in the cars that people could buy. At that time we were testing the second generation of the radar-based adaptive cruise control system for a European manufacturer that preferred not to let anyone know they were hiring an American company to do some engineering work (this was pretty common – Delphi made a lot of electronics components without their name stamped on it – and there were interns in our office that spent their whole time translating testing documents from Japanese, German and French into English…)
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Somehow it doesn’t surprise me that this quote was raised. I have one enormous issue with its use.
You have NOT surrendered your rights to a governing authority, never to receive them back again.
You have instead contracted – of your own free will – with a private firm – of their own free will – to provide you with a service in return for payment. This does not constitute an abrogation or surrender of your rights or liberty. It is in fact a beneficial, freely chosen exchange between private parties.
“I was following a brand-new Cadillac CTS wagon earlier this week here in lovely southeastern Michigan traffic. It was spewing oil fumes or something.
I had the temptation to let the driver know and advise him to call OnStar.”
That’s funny. Just the other day I passed a brand new Hyundai by the side of the road with hood up and flashers on. And I used my Onstar to call hyundai roadside for the young lady!
You have instead contracted – of your own free will – with a private firm – of their own free will – to provide you with a service in return for payment.
I’ve never had nor driven an OnStar vehicle, but my understanding is that it comes enabled, and there is no way to totally disable it short of removing the parts. And GM has tacitly admitted to using data collected from drivers to model possible usage of the Volt. But beyond that, surrendering basic control of your actions (Which way should I turn?), even when voluntary, is the beginning of the end of personal liberty.
The best one we’ve come up with here at work is this: “Sir, this is onstar, your hair is messed up in the back, and it looks silly. Good-bye sir.” When will it end with Onstar? It has one useful function, crash detection. Otherwise, I don’t want it in my life, which is why I’m thankful true European brands still understand my wants while quazi-american-made(rebranded Daewoos) do not. No response from EidolWay a.k.a. Onstar salesman will be necessary.
OnStar was conceptualized in a time when individual, fully-featured GPS units were not available for $100 or built into every cell phone.
It’s like WebTV of GPS. I can’t think of any good reasons it’s survived.
I will never buy a car with OnStar. That’s probably a purely academic proclamation, though, since in a few years I likely won’t be able to.
I’ve used Onstar to find restaurants and give me directions around construction zones in unfamiliar areas. My parents use it often when they’re traveling out of their local area and aren’t sure where they’re going.
I also got in an accident once and immediately someone was on the line, asking if I or anyone else was hurt, and they called the police and got them there so I didn’t have to worry about finding wherever my cell phone had launched itself to, leaving me free to worry about myself and the other folks involved in the accident.
Other than the accident, I have never had Onstar do something intrusive. Never been driving along and gotten a call from them asking how I’m doing or how my prostate exam turned out.
I have a hard time understanding what the big negative is. As others have noted, this isn’t the only system of it’s kind, it’s just the first and best one. Of course it’s from GM, so lets all line up and find SOMETHING to complain about.
The big brother stuff is simply crap. I’m sorry, but unless you live in a cabin in the woods without electricity, most of the actions you take are trackable. Got a phone? Someone knows who you’re talking to. Got a cell phone? Someone knows who you’re texting and what you said. Got a cell phone with GPS? Someone knows where you are. Drive past a traffic camera? Someone knows.
Use a credit card? Someone knows. On a website? Someone knows. Use Google? Someone knows what you want to know.
And guess what…nobody cares. Unless you’re scheming some kind of terrorist activity or have such an inflated ego that you really think anyone is taking the time to see what YOU as an individual are doing, I don’t really understand the concern.
If you’re worried and paranoid enough that because of Onstar your insurance company is gonna find out that you stopped at Wendy’s to get a Triple with cheese and large fries, hey…guess what…they already know because you had your cell phone in your pcoket when you showed up. And you used the ATM across the street to get the cash to buy it. And the traffic camera caught you. Plus the satellite in the sky is trained on you. Plus the surveillance cameras are watching.
Can we move along now?
I’ve always thought that Onstar was first, a little silly and unnecessary, what with cell phones and all, and second, a sign of the problems with GM. What other company would market stuff that promised (via Onstar) to have somebody find you when the product conked out and other stuff (remember Mr. Goodwrench) that would fix the stuff when it conked out. The operative term here is ‘conked out’ and why would any sentient company even consider such a thing to be good marketing?
“he operative term here is ‘conked out’ and why would any sentient company even consider such a thing to be good marketing?”
Its called practicality.
It’s more practical to have things that don’t break in the first place.
Addressing the original comment, I don’t think driving into a utility pole (or being broadsided by a delivery truck) is really considered “conking out.”
On*Star has always been marketed for safety and convenience, not product support when the car inevitably fails.
Besides, GM cars are perfect, remember? Howie Long told me.
I don’t own a car with OnStar, but I really wonder though…how many near-death accidents do you have to experience to justify having the service?
While I can understand the inconveniences, I can also see the priceless benefit in the worst-case scenario.
An analogy:
Would you disable your anti-virus because it slows down your computer or takes a long time to scan? Maybe protecting yourself against that one really nasty virus that wipes out all of your family photos and business documents is worth that 1300hrs of scan time (assuming 1 full scan takes 5 hrs, scanning once per week, for 5 years).
Criminalenterprise: Why OnStar? Because GM blew billions trying to develop it and now has to make a business case for it.
“Web TV of GPS systems”. That’s good. And funny because it’s so true.
More GM electronic crap to go wrong down the road.
Onstar: [like the Avalanche and Buick mini van] another answer to a question nobody asked.
If you need to know how to get somewhere, use a map. If you’re not smart enough to know how to use a map in relations to your surroundings, maybe you don’t belong behind a steering wheel.
If you don’t have a map, or it’s crappy, use a GPS thingie. If you need to make an emergency call, use a cell phone. To have surveillance systems like OnStar that you basically have no control over is a recipe for a disaster when the people in power are corrupted, as the politicians and many business leaders are.
Idiots need others to watch over them, but idiots shouldn’t drive (and make decisions that affect all of us, that in the end lead to freedom limitting laws and devices).
“To have surveillance systems like OnStar that you basically have no control over is a recipe for a disaster when the people in power are corrupted, as the politicians and many business leaders are.”
Talk about lunacy and paranoia…
Drive past a traffic camera? Someone knows.
Perhaps you didn’t notice, but a lot of us don’t like traffic cameras for the very reasons that don’t concern you.
I have a hard time understanding what the big negative is.
As it turns out, there already are incidents when OnStar has reported actions by GM vehicle owners to the police, which has resulted in those owners being prosecuted. Similarly, the same technology used with OnStar would be readily compatible with some plans, such as those in Oregon, to tax vehicles based upon mileage as determined by GPS systems. The technology clearly has a lot of room for abuse.
Just so long as we have had some consciousness of a right to privacy, we have always had those who don’t understand privacy, don’t think that anyone else needs privacy protection, and are even suspicious of anyone who would prefer to have their privacy.
You need to accept that some of us may not want to live their lives as an open book. I don’t want your low expectations for privacy applied to my life. If you want to live your life in public, go right ahead, but don’t drag me into it.
No response from EidolWay a.k.a. Onstar salesman will be necessary.
You, sir, have a career in politics awaiting you. You have mastered the ad hominem.
You need to accept that some of us may not want to live their lives as an open book. I don’t want your low expectations for privacy applied to my life. If you want to live your life in public, go right ahead, but don’t drag me into it.
And this is where the lot of us arguing “no big deal” take issue.
No one is dragging you into it. No one. Some of us don’t mind the technology, so we don’t mind having GM cars that have it. We find the guidance convenient, the emergency notification a confidence-booster, and the ease of reaching a real person a godsend. The directional assistance is why I opted to pay the fee for a year’s service. Meanwhile, if you find the technology intrusive and don’t want to worry about it peering over your shoulder, divest yourself of your GM car or avoid purchasing one that has OnStar onboard. Vote with your wallet, as always.
No one is being forced to purchase OnStar-equipped vehicles.
If you complain about OnStar’s ability to “Watch you” even as you purchase a GM vehicle, then the price you pay for OnStar is obviously not too high for you to avoid the vehicle. So stop your belly-aching! If you don’t want a car with OnStar, you don’t have to buy one. So stop your belly-aching!
Chevrolet Malibu Maxx …. slalom runs …. high G
Surely the whole article was an attempt at comedy?
No one is being forced to purchase OnStar-equipped vehicles.
And you can bet that I won’t buy one.
But many cars, GM and otherwise, now have black box type recorders that are being used for similar reasons. These systems are being expanded at a steady pace, as we speak. This is becoming nearly impossible to avoid.
Point 1- Edmunds will never say something fully positive from something that came out of General Motors. There recent 2010 Equinox writeup is proof of that.
Point 2- Onstar has both a recorded automated side and a live human staffed interface.
Point 3- Karl apparently doesn’t fully understand the Onstar system
Point 4- Onstar serves other purposes than just notifying of an accident or turn by turn directions. It also can notify authorities the whereabouts of a stolen vehicle. It can remotely pop your trunk if you accidentally locked your keys in there and it can notify of various malfunctions in your powertrain that could lead to larger problems down the road.
Point 5- I do believe that Onstar should be an across the board option an all GM cars and never made as std equipment. It’s called choice, something we used to have before the 90’s advent of forced option packages and Government mandates.
The equipment comes standard on GM cars, but the subcription doesn’t. If you don’t like it, don’t pay for it, and you won’t have it.
Problem solved.
Personally, I’m not nuts about it, but I don’t think it’s overbearing either.
Unfortunately, safety (or the perception thereof) is rapidly becoming a commodity… and nobody seems to be thinking of the non-monetary price.
Along the same line, computer security guru Bruce Schneier states, “Security is a process, not a product.”
Pch101:
But many cars, GM and otherwise, now have black box type recorders that are being used for similar reasons.
Given their proprietary nature, black box security is an unknown.
Worse, if these boxes are going to be used against people, they had better be properly secured against tampering. (And before this is dismissed as paranoia, consider the incentive for speeders to hack these boxes as a tool for proving innocence once the state start using them to prove guilt.)
And good luck preventing hacks to wiping the data completely… Will it be a crime to wipe the data on a vehicle you own???
Patapon : An analogy:
Would you disable your anti-virus because it slows down your computer or takes a long time to scan? Maybe protecting yourself against that one really nasty virus that wipes out all of your family photos and business documents is worth that 1300hrs of scan time (assuming 1 full scan takes 5 hrs, scanning once per week, for 5 years).
Yes, I would. I haven’t used any anti-virus in seven years, and I’ve never been infected because I don’t visit sketchy sites or run sketchy programs. My files are backed up on an external hard drive and on a second computer. If the only thing you rely on to protect your files is an anti-virus program, you probably don’t know how common hard drive failure is.
I was once on the receiving end of a severe collision. It took three hours from the time of the accident for them to arrive, cut me out of the vehicle, and get me to the hospital. Despite that, I would not buy a vehicle with OnStar.