2 ms·

Why though, it's a feature they did not pay for. It is horrible UX to show the button for disabled features of course, but if you've been told from the get go t

by abenga 5y ago

Why though, it's a feature they did not pay for. It is horrible UX to show the button for disabled features of course, but if you've been told from the get go that you need to pay for feature X, why would you be pissed that feature X doesn't work when you didn't?

kkfx 5y ago
Because it's in the vehicle and the vehicle it's mine. I can not pay for A/C then receive a vehicle with no A/C at all, not one with a present but disabled feature. And not only for this particular case but in general it should be forbidden and hurt really much anyone who try to sell something deliberately bound to services/secondary payments after the formal buying and selling. Similar things apply for software licenses: if I accept something as I pay that's ok, if at home I'm asked to accept something after the payment that's MUST BE illegal because once formally bought something that's mine, at all. Some cases like that already passed court trials like famous Windows reimbursement fee for computers, I see no differences for cars. Such practices must be annihilated with so much force that no ones for many years to come would try pushing them again. Similarly ads from a device, not a third party service like ads built-in in SmartTVs or modern Windows desktop must be illegal and societies who try to push them sanctioned so badly that no one else for many year to come would not try the same again. The meaning of private property need to be reinforced and extended to the "digital"/"hybrid" world before the infamous and criminal "in 2030 you'll own nothing".
- abenga 5y ago
  I don't see any functional difference between an unpaid-for feature that is disabled by lack of hardware or software. I can see an argument that hardware for stuff I haven't paid for adds weight and hurts my mileage. Or maybe the slippery slope argument: for now it is an option that you pay for up front, next year it's an option that you pay for every month.
  - kkfx 5y ago
    The point is: I bought the hw, the OEM must not have any form of control on it, it can protect intellectual property imposing non-duplication of it's tech but nothing more than that. If something is not there it's not mine. If it's there and disabled it's mine but I can't use it, and that's totally unacceptable.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >The point is: I bought the hw, the OEM must not have any form of control on it What does "control" mean in this context? Obviously there's nothing preventing you from modifying/manipulating the car by whatever means you see fit. The software that's included with the car is simply refusing to operate the AC. I don't see how that's any different than buying a piece of software that refuses to do a given functionality, even though all the requisite hardware (ie. a CPU) is present.
    - frumper 5y ago
      They don't have control over it. They sold the guy a car that has a button that does nothing, and they asked him if he wanted to buy the hardware to make the button work and he said no. The hardware isn't on the car. Even if the tri climate syncing hardware was present, it'd be silly for you to decline to purchase that option, go home, press the button, then drive it back to the dealer to demand a refund. Why would you buy it in the first place?

by abenga 5y ago

kkfx 5y ago

Because it's in the vehicle and the vehicle it's mine. I can not pay for A/C then receive a vehicle with no A/C at all, not one with a present but disabled feature. And not only for this particular case but in general it should be forbidden and hurt really much anyone who try to sell something deliberately bound to services/secondary payments after the formal buying and selling. Similar things apply for software licenses: if I accept something as I pay that's ok, if at home I'm asked to accept something after the payment that's MUST BE illegal because once formally bought something that's mine, at all. Some cases like that already passed court trials like famous Windows reimbursement fee for computers, I see no differences for cars. Such practices must be annihilated with so much force that no ones for many years to come would try pushing them again. Similarly ads from a device, not a third party service like ads built-in in SmartTVs or modern Windows desktop must be illegal and societies who try to push them sanctioned so badly that no one else for many year to come would not try the same again. The meaning of private property need to be reinforced and extended to the "digital"/"hybrid" world before the infamous and criminal "in 2030 you'll own nothing".

abenga 5y ago
I don't see any functional difference between an unpaid-for feature that is disabled by lack of hardware or software. I can see an argument that hardware for stuff I haven't paid for adds weight and hurts my mileage. Or maybe the slippery slope argument: for now it is an option that you pay for up front, next year it's an option that you pay for every month.
- kkfx 5y ago
  The point is: I bought the hw, the OEM must not have any form of control on it, it can protect intellectual property imposing non-duplication of it's tech but nothing more than that. If something is not there it's not mine. If it's there and disabled it's mine but I can't use it, and that's totally unacceptable.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >The point is: I bought the hw, the OEM must not have any form of control on it What does "control" mean in this context? Obviously there's nothing preventing you from modifying/manipulating the car by whatever means you see fit. The software that's included with the car is simply refusing to operate the AC. I don't see how that's any different than buying a piece of software that refuses to do a given functionality, even though all the requisite hardware (ie. a CPU) is present.
  - frumper 5y ago
    They don't have control over it. They sold the guy a car that has a button that does nothing, and they asked him if he wanted to buy the hardware to make the button work and he said no. The hardware isn't on the car. Even if the tri climate syncing hardware was present, it'd be silly for you to decline to purchase that option, go home, press the button, then drive it back to the dealer to demand a refund. Why would you buy it in the first place?