@borski. I read your reply to me and to others in this particular post and I thought, "Now we are making progress." You wrote on April 12:
"They [the fobs] do [work]. If you click the button. Which is how fobs work. Which has nothing at all to do with proximity unlock".
My takeaway from that was (probably mistakenly) the fobs are not used for proximity unlock, just for button clicking. We're coming from Tesla and the assumption is the fobs are supposed to work to effectuate proximity unlock. But, I now think what you are saying is that the fobs have (at least) two functions: button unlock
and proximity unlock. If that's correct...that the fobs have two functions...that it isn't splitting hairs when unhappy customers say the fobs don't work 100% of the time. They don't work 100% of the time for one of their intended functions. They do work 100% of the time with fresh batteries and button pushes.
Correct. I was referring
solely to the question of whether the issue was fit for a lemon law case, which it isn't, because the addition of proximity unlock is a
convenience feature, and not the main (or only) method of entry. The main method of entry is clicking the button, as that is how fobs are expected to work, in general. Fobs that have buttons are expected to have the button work. If that feature failed, you might have a real lemon law case. Fobs that
don't have buttons are expected to have proximity unlocking that works. Fobs that have both, but where only proximity unlock has failed (which is the convenience feature), may suck... but wouldn't qualify for a lemon law claim.
I'm not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of the law. That is
all I was trying to say.
There's really no need for the snark you use when customers are simply trying to get what they expect from their expensive cars. And no need to try and ridicule customers who think (perhaps mistakenly) that the fob should work reliably when used as proximity unlock. If the fobs should not be used as a proximity unlock, then that's the statement I think Lucid should make. If phone key proximity unlock is not a reliable way to unlock the car, then Lucid should say so. That's another part of the statement I think Lucid should make.
I was asking for a statement from Lucid on the unlocking issue. If the fob's proximity unlock works x% of the time, isn't it reasonable for Lucid to state what x is? You chose to mock me when I asked for clarification from Lucid....something about rocks in the windshield.
No, no, please don't misunderstand. I was not trying to mock or ridicule you at all; we apparently got our wires crossed. My point is and was
solely about legal claims. I agree completely with you that from a PR, customer service, and customer happiness perspective, Lucid should be more communicative about this (and in general, though they're making a lot of progress with
@nicktwork).
By the way, the disdain for people who do not simply reach into one's pocket to click the fob does not take into account people with purses. If a person is carrying, for example, a bag of groceries and a purse, it is indeed a nuisance to put the grocery bag down somewhere and then fish through the purse to find the fob. It doesn't help to see the world solely from your personal situation. Yes, other cars need button pushes. But if the Lucid's owner's expectation is reliable proximity unlock, it would be quite appropriate for Lucid to disabuse customers of that notion. Be open and upfront about it and a good part of the dissatisfaction would melt away.
I have no disdain. I never said it was an ideal situation. I simply was stating my opinion about whether or not you could realistically craft a legal case around it.
I obviously agree it is much less convenient to have to reach into a purse or pocket and have to find the fob and click the button. That is precisely why proximity unlock is a
convenience feature.
I agree it should work better. For me, it works fine. Apparently for some, it works much worse. Lucid should either fix it (if they can), or state something about it (if they can).
But I still don't think there's a legal claim. That's all.
For clarity, and as an appeal, here is what I believe Lucid should address publicly:
*The fob is a reliable way to unlock the car when it it used with its buttons. The fob is (or is not) a reliable way to unlock the car when used for proximity unlock.
Sure.
*The mobile phone app and associated mobile key is not a recommended method for unlocking the car.
I don't think that's true. Mine has been flawless for many months. You just have to wake up the phone. I don't think this particular problem is as widespread as one would surmise based on the amount we hear about it on the forum. That's my suspicion/guess.
*We do (or do not) have any plans to make the proximity lock more reliable. Same for unlocking via the mobile app.
They obviously want to make it more reliable, and have made many gains in mobile key, so I don't know what kind of statement you'd want here
*The reason for unreliable unlock both from the fob and mobile phone key is...."
I would love this.
*Battery life of the fob is approximately x months. Customers are expected to remember to replace their fob batteries that often to achieve reliable unlock.
I would love this, or if they actually said something about the goddamn bitterant, which I know for a fact is an issue but is still not written anywhere by Lucid.
*Turning off Wi-Fi is (or is not) recommended for improving proximity unlocking both from a mobile phone key or fob.
My wifi has not been turned off once, since I bought the car. I strongly suspect this is a very person-dependent/location-dependent/environment-dependent issue, so a
general recommendation might not apply here? Also, it may entirely be a red herring, lol. Who knows. Maybe they should clarify.
I don't think you and I disagree as much as you'd think; I think where it got crossed is that I was only talking about the legal claims. The minimum Lucid has to prove "works" works 100% of the time. That's my point. There's no real claim.
That has nothing at all to do with
whether or not I think the experience sucks.
