It’s time once again to talk about possibly the most hated thing in the entire automotive industry: subscription-based features. While some are useful, there’s something irksome about paying five or even six figures for a new car, only for automakers to ask if you want to pay a separate monthly fee to use certain connected services. However, it seems like drivers are starting to push back.
As a recent S&P Global Mobility study states (bold ours):
Subscription-based services (navigation, Wi-Fi, etc.) are increasingly being met with resistance from price-sensitive consumers who may not see the value in paying recurring fees for features they do not frequently use. Users are frustrated when hardware (e.g., cameras, sensors) is present but features are paywalled. Consumers are also pushing back against “feature fragmentation” where basic functions are split into multiple paid tiers.
As with anything in a major industry, people study in-car subscription services, and some of those people work for S&P Global Mobility. The data firm takes a closer look at how consumers are viewing and using connected services every year to quantify desirability, price sensitivity, and other factors useful for product planning. From S&P:
S&P Global Mobility conducts an annual survey to understand automotive industry trends in consumer sentiment toward connected car services. By asking vehicle owners of certain model years a series of questions to gauge activation decisions, subscription lengths and costs, feature desirability and willingness to pay, we develop the “Feature Desirability & Willingness to Pay” indices, along with activation rates.
Through statistical analysis and machine learning, analysts extract key factors and weights (coefficients) that explain an application’s feature desirability score and how much consumers are willing to pay.
According to this latest 2025 edition of the study, consumer sentiment toward paid connected services — which were meant to be gold mines for automakers — took a significant turn over the past year, signifying that more drivers don’t want to be juiced after they roll off the lot.
Connected services are not necessarily a primary consideration when purchasing new vehicles, so technology-oriented customers may be more proactive and intentionally seek out these services directly from the dealer or buy online. However, the number of respondents who would pay for connected services has significantly decreased, from 86% in 2024 to 68% in 2025.
That sort of drop in one year is precipitous, but also unsurprising. Not only has online backlash to paid subscription features been swift, paid connected services are easy subscriptions for many belt-tightening consumers to cut as most telematics packages consist largely of non-essential features like in-car Wi-Fi and concierge services. Granted, some telematic services can be useful, like stolen vehicle tracking and some advanced driver assistance features that require an active internet connection, but having those features frequently bundled with less essential operations feels like a questionable deal. Plus, consumers are starting to see less enjoyment from these subscription services, as per the study.
Once consumers experience connected car services, they are generally satisfied and likely to recommend them to others. That said, consumers have shown declining satisfaction levels in nearly all connected car services categories over the past two to three years.
Could part of the decline in satisfaction be due to the 3G sunset of 2022 cutting off services to many connected cars, or recent instances like Honda and Acura sunsetting connected features on some models as new as the 2021 model year? S&P Global doesn’t say, but it wouldn’t be surprising if these experiences left a bad taste in drivers’ mouths. Unsurprisingly, data privacy concerns may also play a role in reducing consumer demand, as drivers have a right to be concerned about what automakers do with their data.
Data privacy has been the biggest industry concern as automakers seek recurring revenue and monetization opportunities. Consumers are wary of how their driving data (location, habits, etc.) is being collected, stored, and used, especially given the potential for misuse or unauthorized access. Lack of transparency in data policies has been proven to reduce consumer trust, especially among privacy-conscious users.
Oh, and don’t even get me started on how much it sucks to manage subscriptions. If they aren’t on auto-renew, the service could drop out. If they are on auto-renew, that’s another bite taken out of your credit card. Want to cancel? That’s tedious, and in some cases, unnecessarily difficult. With everything from music to movies to fitness to shared spaces seemingly being subscription-based now, people are tired. A subscription for car features is the last thing many of us need on our plates.
Despite this decline in desirability for connected services, automakers won’t stop trying to make money from drivers beyond the initial purchase so long as they’re seeing a take rate that’s worth the expense of supporting these features. So, what sort of take rates are we actually looking at for paid connected services?
According to the study, 35 percent of American respondents with connected cars report paying for connected services, although the sample size of 1,000 American respondents is quite small. Still, the United States leads the study when it comes to the share of respondents with active paid subscription services, with the figure falling to 33 percent in India, 32 percent in mainland China, 30 percent in Korea, 29 percent in both Brazil and the United Kingdom, and 25 percent in Germany. Japan and France are coolest to paid telematics, with just 18 percent of Japanese respondents and 19 percent of French respondents having active paid subscription services.
What happens if those take rates fall further? It’s tough to make any predictions beyond declining revenue for automakers. With nearly all modern cars being over-the-air updatable and feature internet connections capable of remedying certain software-related recalls and adding new features, some level of connected services support will always exist. However, it’s possible some of the paid subscription features end up falling off the face of the earth, should they become unprofitable to offer.
Top graphic credit: Subaru
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
So, what you’re saying is: consumers want subscription features, got it.
Everyone walks around with a connected computer in their pocket. There is no reason for my car to be independently connected to anything else. I can benefit from Android Auto purely for the convenience of keeping my phone in my pocket instead of hanging it from a little clip on my dashboard.
OTA updates do not benefit the customer. They exist for the benefit of the manufacturer, who can roll out software recalls quietly and without using dealership resources or alerting the customers. This encourages the launch of vehicles with unfinished software, so they can save money on testing and launch earlier, which again only benefits the manufacturer. The ease with which software is patched also means it’s more affordable to tie more critical systems to software so that they can be updated if necessary.
This encourages engineering practices whereby EVERYTHING is tied to the same central system, making maintenance and upgrades far more difficult than necessary. Upgrades aren’t just for weirdoes that want to turn up the boost or get 2-step noises, they also include simple things like updating a radio head unit when it becomes obsolete or retrofitting higher-trim seats on a used vehicle. All of that now either needs back-end software access or is entirely impossible.
It also means critical systems are now accessible remotely, by anyone with the means to connect to the vehicle. In a standard MY 2025 vehicle with automatic emergency braking, EPAS and cruise control, that means the connected brain has access to all drive systems. Of course there’s some encryption, but cyber security is a Sisyphean exercise in obsolescence, an uphill battle that should only be engaged in when absolutely necessary. Unless connectivity is central to the item’s function, like a cellphone or a global company’s server, it’s nothing but a liability.
I don’t think anyone will take the time to hack your personal vehicle for nefarious purposes, but I’ll take impossible over unlikely every time, especially seen as these things will last for decades to come.
OTA updates as a methodology and subscription based lock in is all modeled directly off of gaming and cell phone cost structures which is why they suck so badly. Game studios love being able to launch a new title early and use the customer to beta test. Similarly, tech companies (Apple/Google) are trying to hoover up as much personal data they can and lock you in to their ecosystem as much as possible.
While the second half kind of makes sense when you have a magic computer box with an always on internet connection in your pocket all day, automakers are trying to duplicate everything to get as much control as possible. Best way I’ve explained it to older family members: it’s just like home audio receivers that try to be the master device instead of the TV. Hopefully someone builds an automotive equivalent of the sound bar and we can get away from this mess.
Very well-put, I especially like to compare cars before and after OTA updates to games before and after live service. Previously, devs had to make sure the game was playable before launch, because it was impractical to recall and modify millions of cartridges after the fact. A glitch was a permanent flaw, and they took the necessary measures to prevent that.
Now, they release an unfinished product and make the users pay to test it for them.
Consumers hate being fleeced…
When I own a car, I own everything attached to it, and everything those things can do. If I don’t, I don’t buy.
Automakers can go straight to hell with their subscription addiction. I will daily drive a 1974 Ford LTD, or retrofit an 8-track player in place of the infotainment head in a brand new 2025 car, before I will pay one red cent for any feature that is charged by the month after the car already belongs to me free and clear.
My first car was a ’74 LTD… I dunno $5 a month to NOT drive it might be a bargain.
Okay – 1974 Eldorado drop-top. With steer horns on the hood. ????
This is why I don’t plan on buying anything newer than mid 2000’s. Most cars had good enough mileage/reliability but are still pre-touchscreen-that-controls-everything for audio/hvac. I can swap in a bluetooth head unit without much fuss, or even a touchscreen airplay/android auto unit if I wanted it. Heated seats are an option on most. AC is new enough to work well. Parts are available in junkyards.
My 2012 G37X represents the absolute hard limit of how much built-in car tech I will ever buy again, ever. Period.
My Ioniq 5 came with some nonsense in-car wifi. The only reason I was tempted to keep it is that I thought I may lose other features like turning on climate control remotely through the app.
I let it lapse after never having used the in-car wifi on a single occasion – not even just to try it out. The remote app control remained intact without the wifi subscription.
While I do subscribe to Sirius/XM, I don’t do in car Wi-Fi. I mean I have a phone that does that. Why would I? I’ve never seen the point of Honda Connect.
But I would be really annoyed to have to pay a fee to access things like seat heaters.
My 2017 GTI came with VW Car-Net and it was free for a while and then there was a subscription.
Using your phone you could remotely lock/unlock doors, and show you your car’s current location. Other than that it was basically OnStar.
I couldn’t imagine paying money for this, and assume the majority of people feel the same way.
“consumer sentiment toward paid connected services — which were meant to be gold mines for automakers — took a significant turn over the past year”
Meant to be a gold mine? What ignominous moron decided this? More genius from a ‘board of directors’? Perhaps an investor did some rudimentary calcultations? Hubris.
Some freshly-minted MBA made a slideshow for his final project.
His remote AI professor gave him an A and said it was a sure goldmine.