6 ms·

> charging a subscription for Apple CarPlay Well that's a scam if there ever was one. Who wants a subscription for basic functionality in a car? Might as well

by tomp 6y ago

> charging a subscription for Apple CarPlay Well that's a scam if there ever was one. Who wants a subscription for basic functionality in a car? Might as well buy an iPad and solder it over BMW's control panel.

city41 6y ago
In my 2016 BMW, CarPlay was so incredibly buggy. Unsure who's at fault on that, but the thought of paying a subscription for it makes me chuckle.
- burlesona 6y ago
  Interesting. In my Mazda it works really well. The only thing that bothers me is that the car has a no-phone system that is the default, and you always have to switch to Car Play. But Car Play is much, much better, so it would be nice if I could just make it always be on.
  - corty 6y ago
    The big German car makers go out of their way to reinvent the digital wheel at any opportunity. The next series will have completely different electronics from different cheapest OEMs with a whole new set of bugs in all components and their integration. In Japan, electronics seem to be more evolutionary and software reuse is practiced more, so while the rotating-car-animation-bling-factor might be lower, bugs are also ironed out over time.
  - ak217 6y ago
    Press and hold Home to switch to CarPlay quickly on Mazda.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> Who wants a subscription for basic functionality in a car? I don't get this fundamental objection. It's just a different way to pay. Either you pay up-front or you pay a subscription. Work out the total cost of ownership (you'll need to estimate how long you likely keep the car either way.) Now take that final figure and either it's worth it to you or it isn't. How that final figure gets paid doesn't seem like a big deal?
- schmorptron 6y ago
  For subscriptions they can just change the price at a whim, stop offering your the service whenever they want or change it in a way that you don't want to. When you own / own the license to the software / feature, they can't just pull a fast one as easily.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Wait this seems like an argument for subscription. If the product is changed with an update you don't like, or becomes incompatible with your new phone, or an update to your phone, or stops being useful to you for some other reason, you can stop paying. If you pay £2k up front for CarPlay as an option and then Apple changes the protocol and you can't use it you're stuck with a lemon you already paid for. As a subscription you can stop paying.
    - tomp 6y ago
      > the product is changed with an update you don't like Well, you're just left with a 30-50k car with reduced functionality. And, to be honest, CarPlay functionality (or similar) is pretty much fundamental - music, maps - and there's a clear upside of having it integrated with the car (vs. the driver looking down at the phone while driving) and trivial cost (cheaper that developing own software & OS). The reason I want CarPlay in the first place is because I don't trust carmakers to make good software (borne out of experience!). I'm buying a car to be a car, I want to BYOS (Bring Your Own Software).
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        But this is the case whether you pay up front or as a subscription. So what is the upside to paying up front?
        tomp 6y ago
        Ah right, I might have missed your point, if "subscription" is the only thing you're objecting to. First, it's obviously a scam. I'm not getting extra value in exchange for money, the product is done. It's even worse than various software subscriptions - at least there your code is continuously being improved and updated to the latest version. Therefore, literally the only reason the company is doing that, is to scam me out of more money. Second is the trust issue - and I'm not just talking about legal scams - e.g. changing terms and conditions in the future - which could in theory be solved via courts / customer protection laws (but in practice, won't be) but more about the fact that the car company has the ability to disable (parts of) my car! So I wouldn't be buying such a car (asterisk) even if they gave me a "special offer" of $0-forever subscription! They can still change the terms at any point in the future, and it would require massive effort on my part to fix that. Edit: Having said that, paying $2k up front for CarPlay is also a scam - but at least it makes it easier to estimate the total cost/value of the feature, hence reducing the risk (and mental drag) of owning it... Edit2: Btw, I have this objection with any "subscription" service... e.g. buying leasehold (subscription) house (although even buying freehold (ownership) house isn't without risk in the UK, you never know who has a preexisting claim on the property...) (asterisk): assuming other options are available... which is the whole reason we must fight against this, sooner or later... in M$ Office and non-smart TVs, this train has already left the station!
dgemm 6y ago
I believe they are planning to sell heated seats as a subscription service as well. Makes no sense and really transparently benefits the company over the actual "owner" of the car. Why would I ever buy something like that.
- judge2020 6y ago
  A heated seat subscription makes sense when they sell the car to you as if it didn't have heated seats and are allowing you to purchase them at a later date, much like how Tesla's rear heated seats can be bought long after the purchase of the vehicle. It allows the manufacturer to decrease MSRP $x amount (for Tesla, $300) while also saving money on the back-end by not having to handle more part choices being involved in the manufacturing processes. The same generally applies for Carplay but it makes less sense given carplay is easy to integrate, only needs to be done once, and is then-on maintained by Apple/Google (for Android Auto), and the measly subscription cost for Carplay most certainly wasn't considered when determining MSRP. The same probably applies for the heated seats argument (did BMW really take into account the subscription costs when determining MSRP), with Tesla probably being the only manufacturer actually doing this since they already take into account things like FSD being unavailable on SR+ Model 3's and no EAP on SR Model 3's, even though all models have the same sensors and cameras and HW3 (although non-plus SR models are no longer being produced, so I'm not sure if they ever got hw2.5 or hw3 included).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - hda2 6y ago
    No, it really doesn't.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    No, I don't want to "subscribe" to everything. Only bean counters think that. I don't mind subscribing to a music service because they have constant royalty fees, new music, etc and it's a classic "thing". Heated seats are a functionality that once paid for should be yours if you paid for the option. They aren't coming out every year and replacing the heating coils with newer fancier coils, it's a freakin' heater. It also sets a horrible precedent.

by tomp 6y ago

city41 6y ago

In my 2016 BMW, CarPlay was so incredibly buggy. Unsure who's at fault on that, but the thought of paying a subscription for it makes me chuckle.

burlesona 6y ago
Interesting. In my Mazda it works really well. The only thing that bothers me is that the car has a no-phone system that is the default, and you always have to switch to Car Play. But Car Play is much, much better, so it would be nice if I could just make it always be on.
- corty 6y ago
  The big German car makers go out of their way to reinvent the digital wheel at any opportunity. The next series will have completely different electronics from different cheapest OEMs with a whole new set of bugs in all components and their integration. In Japan, electronics seem to be more evolutionary and software reuse is practiced more, so while the rotating-car-animation-bling-factor might be lower, bugs are also ironed out over time.
- ak217 6y ago
  Press and hold Home to switch to CarPlay quickly on Mazda.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> Who wants a subscription for basic functionality in a car? I don't get this fundamental objection. It's just a different way to pay. Either you pay up-front or you pay a subscription. Work out the total cost of ownership (you'll need to estimate how long you likely keep the car either way.) Now take that final figure and either it's worth it to you or it isn't. How that final figure gets paid doesn't seem like a big deal?

schmorptron 6y ago
For subscriptions they can just change the price at a whim, stop offering your the service whenever they want or change it in a way that you don't want to. When you own / own the license to the software / feature, they can't just pull a fast one as easily.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Wait this seems like an argument for subscription. If the product is changed with an update you don't like, or becomes incompatible with your new phone, or an update to your phone, or stops being useful to you for some other reason, you can stop paying. If you pay £2k up front for CarPlay as an option and then Apple changes the protocol and you can't use it you're stuck with a lemon you already paid for. As a subscription you can stop paying.
  - tomp 6y ago
    > the product is changed with an update you don't like Well, you're just left with a 30-50k car with reduced functionality. And, to be honest, CarPlay functionality (or similar) is pretty much fundamental - music, maps - and there's a clear upside of having it integrated with the car (vs. the driver looking down at the phone while driving) and trivial cost (cheaper that developing own software & OS). The reason I want CarPlay in the first place is because I don't trust carmakers to make good software (borne out of experience!). I'm buying a car to be a car, I want to BYOS (Bring Your Own Software).
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      But this is the case whether you pay up front or as a subscription. So what is the upside to paying up front?
      - tomp 6y ago
        Ah right, I might have missed your point, if "subscription" is the only thing you're objecting to. First, it's obviously a scam. I'm not getting extra value in exchange for money, the product is done. It's even worse than various software subscriptions - at least there your code is continuously being improved and updated to the latest version. Therefore, literally the only reason the company is doing that, is to scam me out of more money. Second is the trust issue - and I'm not just talking about legal scams - e.g. changing terms and conditions in the future - which could in theory be solved via courts / customer protection laws (but in practice, won't be) but more about the fact that the car company has the ability to disable (parts of) my car! So I wouldn't be buying such a car (asterisk) even if they gave me a "special offer" of $0-forever subscription! They can still change the terms at any point in the future, and it would require massive effort on my part to fix that. Edit: Having said that, paying $2k up front for CarPlay is also a scam - but at least it makes it easier to estimate the total cost/value of the feature, hence reducing the risk (and mental drag) of owning it... Edit2: Btw, I have this objection with any "subscription" service... e.g. buying leasehold (subscription) house (although even buying freehold (ownership) house isn't without risk in the UK, you never know who has a preexisting claim on the property...) (asterisk): assuming other options are available... which is the whole reason we must fight against this, sooner or later... in M$ Office and non-smart TVs, this train has already left the station!

dgemm 6y ago

I believe they are planning to sell heated seats as a subscription service as well. Makes no sense and really transparently benefits the company over the actual "owner" of the car. Why would I ever buy something like that.

judge2020 6y ago
A heated seat subscription makes sense when they sell the car to you as if it didn't have heated seats and are allowing you to purchase them at a later date, much like how Tesla's rear heated seats can be bought long after the purchase of the vehicle. It allows the manufacturer to decrease MSRP $x amount (for Tesla, $300) while also saving money on the back-end by not having to handle more part choices being involved in the manufacturing processes. The same generally applies for Carplay but it makes less sense given carplay is easy to integrate, only needs to be done once, and is then-on maintained by Apple/Google (for Android Auto), and the measly subscription cost for Carplay most certainly wasn't considered when determining MSRP. The same probably applies for the heated seats argument (did BMW really take into account the subscription costs when determining MSRP), with Tesla probably being the only manufacturer actually doing this since they already take into account things like FSD being unavailable on SR+ Model 3's and no EAP on SR Model 3's, even though all models have the same sensors and cameras and HW3 (although non-plus SR models are no longer being produced, so I'm not sure if they ever got hw2.5 or hw3 included).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hda2 6y ago
  No, it really doesn't.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  No, I don't want to "subscribe" to everything. Only bean counters think that. I don't mind subscribing to a music service because they have constant royalty fees, new music, etc and it's a classic "thing". Heated seats are a functionality that once paid for should be yours if you paid for the option. They aren't coming out every year and replacing the heating coils with newer fancier coils, it's a freakin' heater. It also sets a horrible precedent.