3 ms·

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 s

by 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?