3 ms·

I think the point is a little over exaggerated. You could argue that automatic headlights, such as lights which automatically switch on at night time are also a

I think the point is a little over exaggerated. You could argue that automatic headlights, such as lights which automatically switch on at night time are also an optional extra in certain models of cars, do I therefore need to pay for people to see me on the road? How about cars where automatic braking is an option in higher models, am I therefore having to pay for my car to stop? At the end of the day, car companies create a market where you need to pay for better features and we're moving into a world where some of these features are simply disabled on the vehicle. The writer needs to move on and remember they can also dim their headlights on their own.

upbeat_general 6y ago
I agree the line is fuzzy between enabling a hardware feature built into the car and purchasing a software product but I think this case falls squarely into the first category. Automatic braking actually is going to be required on all new cars soon, so yes I take issue with charging extra for a feature like that when the hardware is built in. Maybe a decade ago when the hardware was more expensive and less common it would be totally reasonable to charge to have it added to the car, but I take issue with charging for software enables for hardware that you own. If the software really does change the product (like theoretically an update enabling self driving), that might be different but I think this case is clear.
- _carbyau_ 6y ago
  For me, if the software is simply flicking a feature switch for hardware already in place then it is purely a lame money grab. If the software has serious levels of thought and effort to do something significantly meaningful, then the software IS the engineering - and hence is worth something.
  - underwater 6y ago
    That line of thinking breaks down pretty quickly though. Should BMW just charge the marginal cost for hardware features, too? That would make the base model more expensive and remove options for people who are price sensitive.
- NoPicklez 6y ago
  I think that's a fair point and perhaps I was a little harsh. If the hardware is already in the car that you have paid for and its simply a software toggle then it is definitely just a cash grab, unless there are other services attached to it such as 3G/4G. Realistically what I can see is that BMW would make it standard on all models and the price would be slightly higher. So arguably yes you would be paying for it, but you wouldn't have a choice. The point I was trying to make originally was that as new safety developments are made you will always be able to make the argument that "They're making me pay xxx to be safer". Now I appreciate that there is a balance, but saying that a company is making you pay extra not to blind people is nonsense.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dimadow 6y ago
I agree. Especially in the higher end everything is an option. Just look at Porsche, while I really like their cars, they charge a lot for features found on a higher-than-entry model of a non luxury brand. The article ignores that it is still the responsibility of the driver to not blind other drivers. Though having unused hardware built into your car sucks, I can imagine buying features and receiving them with an Over The Air update effortlessly is compelling for many people.

upbeat_general 6y ago

I agree the line is fuzzy between enabling a hardware feature built into the car and purchasing a software product but I think this case falls squarely into the first category. Automatic braking actually is going to be required on all new cars soon, so yes I take issue with charging extra for a feature like that when the hardware is built in. Maybe a decade ago when the hardware was more expensive and less common it would be totally reasonable to charge to have it added to the car, but I take issue with charging for software enables for hardware that you own. If the software really does change the product (like theoretically an update enabling self driving), that might be different but I think this case is clear.

_carbyau_ 6y ago
For me, if the software is simply flicking a feature switch for hardware already in place then it is purely a lame money grab. If the software has serious levels of thought and effort to do something significantly meaningful, then the software IS the engineering - and hence is worth something.
- underwater 6y ago
  That line of thinking breaks down pretty quickly though. Should BMW just charge the marginal cost for hardware features, too? That would make the base model more expensive and remove options for people who are price sensitive.
NoPicklez 6y ago
I think that's a fair point and perhaps I was a little harsh. If the hardware is already in the car that you have paid for and its simply a software toggle then it is definitely just a cash grab, unless there are other services attached to it such as 3G/4G. Realistically what I can see is that BMW would make it standard on all models and the price would be slightly higher. So arguably yes you would be paying for it, but you wouldn't have a choice. The point I was trying to make originally was that as new safety developments are made you will always be able to make the argument that "They're making me pay xxx to be safer". Now I appreciate that there is a balance, but saying that a company is making you pay extra not to blind people is nonsense.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dimadow 6y ago

I agree. Especially in the higher end everything is an option. Just look at Porsche, while I really like their cars, they charge a lot for features found on a higher-than-entry model of a non luxury brand. The article ignores that it is still the responsibility of the driver to not blind other drivers. Though having unused hardware built into your car sucks, I can imagine buying features and receiving them with an Over The Air update effortlessly is compelling for many people.