4 ms·

>Saving lives or not, you can't blame a company for not giving you for free features you haven't paid for. Who's fault is it? The person who dies because they

by serf 6y ago

>Saving lives or not, you can't blame a company for not giving you for free features you haven't paid for. Who's fault is it? The person who dies because they couldn't afford a firmware unlock which in most cases is a sunk-cost that's locked purely to produce profit? Sorry -- that's too much of an ethical/moral opinion -- and honestly edges near victim-blaming; making lots of money in life isn't something that is guaranteed by any shot. I'm of the opinion that anyone with actionable ability to change a situation -- and then chooses not to act on that ability -- is to blame for the situation progressing. I hope and wish for public companies to attempt to act altruistically -- and the ones that don't should be held responsible by their audiences. The BioMed profit schemes out there are devious and for-profit-engineereed, no doubt about that; commonality doesn't make those practices morally appropriate, though.

estaseuropano 6y ago
Unless you are telling me that tesla sells cars for a loss (like an inkjet printer), the Tesla owners already paid for the feature. It just has been limited for some extra margin which clearly is not essential else the car would not have been sold to begin with. Its plain rent seeking and frankly should be illegal.
- vincnetas 6y ago
  Walk a mile in manufacturer shoes. Let's say you run a company producing a hardware product. And you invest in developing a software feature which improves your product. It costs money. This software feature also needs tiny modification of original hardware product by replacing couple parts with better ones with price difference of 0.001 cent/per piece . So your options are: Start producing two separate models of you product, greatly complicating supply chain and logistics Discontinue old product and produce only improved version Produce only new HW but introduce software switch, to allow users to keep purchasing cheaper product without new feature, while simultaneously allowing users who need new feature to pay premium to cover your development costs

by serf 6y ago

estaseuropano 6y ago

Unless you are telling me that tesla sells cars for a loss (like an inkjet printer), the Tesla owners already paid for the feature. It just has been limited for some extra margin which clearly is not essential else the car would not have been sold to begin with. Its plain rent seeking and frankly should be illegal.

vincnetas 6y ago
Walk a mile in manufacturer shoes. Let's say you run a company producing a hardware product. And you invest in developing a software feature which improves your product. It costs money. This software feature also needs tiny modification of original hardware product by replacing couple parts with better ones with price difference of 0.001 cent/per piece . So your options are: Start producing two separate models of you product, greatly complicating supply chain and logistics Discontinue old product and produce only improved version Produce only new HW but introduce software switch, to allow users to keep purchasing cheaper product without new feature, while simultaneously allowing users who need new feature to pay premium to cover your development costs