Summary of the Core Content
Mr. Liu, a car owner from Henan, purchased a Jikr smart vehicle in full payment. After entering Kazakhstan, the vehicle's intelligent functions were remotely locked by the manufacturer (the storage compartment and fuel tank cap could not be opened, and the navigation system stopped working), leaving only basic driving capabilities available. He was trapped for over 30 hours. The car company claimed it was due to "regional security risk control," which sparked a heated debate online: in the era of smart vehicles, does purchasing a vehicle in full payment mean buying the ownership outright, or merely the hardware along with limited access to software functions? This incident revealed issues within the smart vehicle industry, such as excessive remote control by manufacturers and unclear boundaries for user rights. Jikr subsequently introduced self-service unlocking measures, but discussions about the division of responsibilities and rights regarding smart vehicles continue.
Detailed Analysis
1. The Owner's Experience: A Fully Paid Vehicle Suddenly Becomes Inoperable?
Mr. Liu's experience was a nightmare across borders: he had purchased a Jikr vehicle in full payment and planned to drive it to Kazakhstan. However, as soon as he entered the country, the vehicle's intelligent systems were locked remotely—storage compartments and electronically controlled fuel tank caps became unusable (leaving his documents and supplies trapped inside), and the navigation system stopped working. Even refueling was problematic, leaving only mechanical functions like the steering wheel and brakes available. He was trapped for over 30 hours before the vehicle could be unlocked.
Key Points: The locking was not due to hardware failure or the owner's violation of any rules (no smuggling or modifications); it was triggered by pre-set "regional control" settings by the car company. There were no prior warnings, and no emergency unlocking options, forcing the owner to wait for manual review by the company.
2. Why Did the Car Company Lock the Vehicle?
The car company explained that the locking was a common security measure to prevent theft and loss. However, there are practical considerations behind this:
- Preventing Resale and Profitting: There can be significant price differences between vehicles in different countries. For example, the same model might cost 250,000 yuan domestically but 300,000 yuan abroad, leading to potential smuggling.
- Compliance Issues: Different countries have varying regulations regarding vehicle data collection. Domestic car systems may collect location and driving data that could violate local laws (such as the EU's GDPR), so manufacturers lock intelligent functions to avoid fines.
The problem is that the company did not inform the owner in advance about the locking mechanism. Legitimate risk control measures should not burden law-abiding owners. It's like buying a phone only to find that the manufacturer remotely locks your WhatsApp and Alipay services while you are abroad, allowing you to use only basic functions.
3. The Owner's Discontent: Why Does the Car Company Have Control Over My Vehicle?
The core issue is the shift in understanding of property rights:
- With traditional fuel vehicles, full payment means ownership, and the manufacturer cannot restrict your use (unless you break the law).
- With smart vehicles, while you own the hardware, the software, intelligent functions, and remote control are under the manufacturer's control. It's similar to buying a house but having the property management company lock your doors or cut off your utilities for "safety reasons."
The owner's demands are straightforward:
- Right to Information: Clearly inform buyers about when the vehicle will be locked.
- Boundary Protection: Manufacturers should not use technical means to restrict private property unless there is a legal violation.
- Emergency Solutions: Provide quick unlocking methods in case of remote locking while abroad.
4. What Do You Really Buy When You Purchase a Smart Vehicle?
Smart vehicles are now more like combinations of hardware and software services:
- You own the physical components (body, chassis, battery), but the manufacturer licenses you to use certain software functions (navigation, autonomous parking, remote control).
- Manufacturers can adjust these functions at any time (e.g., locking them or charging subscription fees).
For example, it's like buying a gaming console with licensed games; the manufacturer can lock access to new levels and charge for unlocking them. In the past, fuel vehicles were fully your property, but with smart vehicles, you must rely on the manufacturer's terms for software use.
5. Solutions: Manufacturers Need to Set Limits, and Regulations Are Needed
After the incident, Jikr made improvements by adding a self-service unlocking option through its app and providing 24/7 customer support. However, long-term solutions require:
- Transparency: Manufacturers should disclose all risk control measures in the purchase contract or user manual.
- Proactive Notifications: Provide alerts before crossing borders.
- Emergency Access: Establish quick unlocking processes for users.
6. The Importance of Clear Regulations
The maturity of smart vehicles depends not only on technology but also on clear regulations. Manufacturers must balance their control over vehicle functions with users' rights. Users should know under what circumstances the vehicle will be locked and have access to emergency unlocking methods.
In conclusion, while smart vehicles offer convenience, they should not come at the cost of users' property rights. When purchasing a smart vehicle, it's important to understand the terms of use for these intelligent functions and their duration.