5 ms·

BMW isn't the only company doing this, Tesla actually began all this by building one hardware platform for manufacturing simplicity and then locking the functio

BMW isn't the only company doing this, Tesla actually began all this by building one hardware platform for manufacturing simplicity and then locking the functionality behind software paywalls. Several other car companies have since done things like this with their entertainment units, remote start and the like. It should be illegal. This is all just a new workaround to consumer protections by way of EULAs, if I buy the hardware there should be a lawful way for me to use it. If a product is pure software, fine, but if it's hardware I bought and it won't work without some specific software the manufacturer should enable me to use it with my own software.

dash2 4y ago
> It should be illegal. This is all just a new workaround to consumer protections by way of EULAs, if I buy the hardware there should be a lawful way for me to use it. OK, I'll bite. Why? This is a free transaction between two parties, why should it be banned? (There are several possible answers, I'm just interested which one motivates your comment.)
- this_was_posted 4y ago
  For me it's because ownership should mean true ownership, just like how you should be allowed to repair your own devices if you want.
  - mavhc 4y ago
    Don't buy a closed source car
    - selfhoster11 4y ago
      Great. Point me to the next closest open source/hardware car that's not a jalopy, is road-worthy and crash-safe, is globally available, and that doesn't cost 2x the retail price of a "consumer" car.
      - mavhc 4y ago
        How many closed source cars are approved for every country on Earth?
        selfhoster11 4y ago
        The point isn't that a particular closed source car is available, but that there are always a few locally-available models that do the basic things well no matter where you are in the world. With open source cars, this is unlikely.
        mavhc 4y ago
        No one said it would be easy, but offering a software suite to a hardware company shouldn't be too hard of a sell. Not like any of them really want to make software.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  So, when we talk naively about free markets we commonly ignore the Firm. In industries you have the propensity for cartels to form, or for "industry standards" to come to exist that enable actors to work against the interest of their consumers. You also get economies of scale that lead to capital concentration, razor thin margins and extreme efficiency reliant on capital intensive business models. As a result you wind up with massive barriers to entry for new competitors, and so the usual "someone will come along and outcompete" doesn't really work. It works when you're selling doodads and fruit, but semiconductors and car manufacturing aren't fruit. In particular, industries that become foundational to the workings of a society become impossible to avoid engaging in. In the US, cars are a given, you have to have a car. One car company does something and gets away with it with their customers, so the rest follow suit and now you're in an environment where everyone does it and there's no way out. There's no direct collusion here, just neither has an interest in competing on a front because the the practice benefits them both. This is where industry regulation comes in. It comes in only when it isn't an entirely free transaction between two parties. Where a party must use a product or service, or where competitors collude directly or indirectly, state action is warranted. Examples where the party must use a product would be cars, food and car insurance. Direct collusion is interactive, indirect is passive, such as an entire industry without direct cooperation engaging in practices like this.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    I suppose it can work to the benefit of consumers, too… sometimes. Remember when the cell service providers all charged per text message? And had plans with “minutes”?
    - rpadovani 4y ago
      Cries in German. In Italy, prices started going down for mobile only when, back in 2007, they introduced a law to make unlawful minimum duration of contracts. After that, given users could switch each month, prices went really down 'cause there was a _real_ market. Here in Germany, you are locked to an operator for 24 months, and prices are crazy high. So, yes, please, more regulations.
  - 4y ago
- Ygg2 4y ago
  A free transaction between parties is a horribly abstract term. I mean a gunman robbing you on a side of the road is a free transaction between two free parties. Gunman is free to shoot you, and you are free to run away or take the bullet. Free transaction between peers is what is actually useful considering.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- YeBanKo 4y ago
  Ok, I will bite too. The transaction is not free. First, there is a huge asymmetry in the relationship between a consumer and such a large entity as a car maker. Second, you can’t vote with your feet much, as the market is controlled by a very limited number players who can easily collude to manipulate the market without explicitly doing so. Third, many if not all car manufacturers receive subsidies from the government in various forms. Tesla as an example, selling regulatory credits plus consumer tax credit and rebates. If it is subsidized by tax payers, then why not attach strings to it prohibiting anti consumer behavior.
  - patrickk 4y ago
    > Second, you can’t vote with your feet much, as the market is controlled by a very limited number players who can easily collude to manipulate the market without explicitly doing so. Well said. There are a handful of entities which control all the major car brands. It's the illusion of choice. https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/car-manufacturer-brands-family-tree https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/car-manufacturer-bran...
- mike_hock 4y ago
  It shouldn't. But it most certainly also shouldn't be illegal for me to then go and hack the hardware that I own to do what I want.
- grapeskin 4y ago
  Imagine this. You buy a fan for $20. It works. It has a low, medium, and high setting. One of the most influential fan makers decides they want to make a new product. It’s fan 2.0. It’s $21 dollars and has a $1 a month fee to unlock high speed. The package says “optional settings for a monthly fee. Buy only what you need and save.” Other fan makers realize this is a great way to make money. 2 years later, all fans have this option. Influential fan corp puts a press release for their revolutionary new product that’ll change the world. Fan 3.0. Medium speed is $3 a month.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Because 'you must buy a product from one of 10 companies that frequently collude in order to participate in society because we systematically dismantled all other options for transport' is not a free transaction> Second reason: even if it were, 'free transaction' is not a measure of good. We ban carcinogens in food, lawn darts, and all sorts of other things because sometimes collective decisions for the common good are better for people than allowing society to be atomised and taken advantage of. This is the entire premise behind laws in the first place. Thirdly, if there are ongoing conditions for the use of something after it is sold, laws preventing certain modifications by the buyer, and/or secrets required for its ongoing use/editing of software that are not cha7ngeable or knowable by the buywr, then the product was not 'sold' and representing the $50k paid as anything other than rent is, in any sane society, fraud.
asiachick 4y ago
Tesla wasn't the first. I don't know who was but I know the differences in many printers are software only. The differences in many GPUs (Nvidia Quadro vs non-Quadro) are just drivers. I don't know where to draw the line. I hated that Tesla has a (pay $2k for a software upgrade for acceleration). Imagine it will escalate. Pay $1k to get your air-conditioner to 60f otherwise it stops at 68f. Pay $3k to turn 15 degrees sharper. Pay $1.5k for your defrosters to work twice as fast. On the other hand, my phones, computers, and game machines, all came with no software and I pay for apps and Apple in particular has made it popular to pay for individual features inside an app. Download a photo editing app and it will be $2 for the blur feature, $2 for the tilt-shift feature, or $10 for all features... though now it's escalated to $XX per year on most iOS apps that have top end features. I don't know how to feel about it. I used to pay ~$50 a year for photoshop (upgrading every other version for $200). Now I pay $120 a year. I mean, I like the idea of paying once but the truth is, for software I actually used, I'd pay for upgrades, even if only to get the software working on the latest OS version.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > The differences in many GPUs (Nvidia Quadro vs non-Quadro) are just drivers. Are they? I mean, the GPU might be the same, and it might run with Quadro drivers, but the board might be different (cooling, power management, etc)

dash2 4y ago

> It should be illegal. This is all just a new workaround to consumer protections by way of EULAs, if I buy the hardware there should be a lawful way for me to use it. OK, I'll bite. Why? This is a free transaction between two parties, why should it be banned? (There are several possible answers, I'm just interested which one motivates your comment.)

this_was_posted 4y ago
For me it's because ownership should mean true ownership, just like how you should be allowed to repair your own devices if you want.
- mavhc 4y ago
  Don't buy a closed source car
  - selfhoster11 4y ago
    Great. Point me to the next closest open source/hardware car that's not a jalopy, is road-worthy and crash-safe, is globally available, and that doesn't cost 2x the retail price of a "consumer" car.
    - mavhc 4y ago
      How many closed source cars are approved for every country on Earth?
      - selfhoster11 4y ago
        The point isn't that a particular closed source car is available, but that there are always a few locally-available models that do the basic things well no matter where you are in the world. With open source cars, this is unlikely.
        mavhc 4y ago
        No one said it would be easy, but offering a software suite to a hardware company shouldn't be too hard of a sell. Not like any of them really want to make software.
betwixthewires 4y ago
So, when we talk naively about free markets we commonly ignore the Firm. In industries you have the propensity for cartels to form, or for "industry standards" to come to exist that enable actors to work against the interest of their consumers. You also get economies of scale that lead to capital concentration, razor thin margins and extreme efficiency reliant on capital intensive business models. As a result you wind up with massive barriers to entry for new competitors, and so the usual "someone will come along and outcompete" doesn't really work. It works when you're selling doodads and fruit, but semiconductors and car manufacturing aren't fruit. In particular, industries that become foundational to the workings of a society become impossible to avoid engaging in. In the US, cars are a given, you have to have a car. One car company does something and gets away with it with their customers, so the rest follow suit and now you're in an environment where everyone does it and there's no way out. There's no direct collusion here, just neither has an interest in competing on a front because the the practice benefits them both. This is where industry regulation comes in. It comes in only when it isn't an entirely free transaction between two parties. Where a party must use a product or service, or where competitors collude directly or indirectly, state action is warranted. Examples where the party must use a product would be cars, food and car insurance. Direct collusion is interactive, indirect is passive, such as an entire industry without direct cooperation engaging in practices like this.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  I suppose it can work to the benefit of consumers, too… sometimes. Remember when the cell service providers all charged per text message? And had plans with “minutes”?
  - rpadovani 4y ago
    Cries in German. In Italy, prices started going down for mobile only when, back in 2007, they introduced a law to make unlawful minimum duration of contracts. After that, given users could switch each month, prices went really down 'cause there was a _real_ market. Here in Germany, you are locked to an operator for 24 months, and prices are crazy high. So, yes, please, more regulations.
- 4y ago
Ygg2 4y ago
A free transaction between parties is a horribly abstract term. I mean a gunman robbing you on a side of the road is a free transaction between two free parties. Gunman is free to shoot you, and you are free to run away or take the bullet. Free transaction between peers is what is actually useful considering.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
YeBanKo 4y ago
Ok, I will bite too. The transaction is not free. First, there is a huge asymmetry in the relationship between a consumer and such a large entity as a car maker. Second, you can’t vote with your feet much, as the market is controlled by a very limited number players who can easily collude to manipulate the market without explicitly doing so. Third, many if not all car manufacturers receive subsidies from the government in various forms. Tesla as an example, selling regulatory credits plus consumer tax credit and rebates. If it is subsidized by tax payers, then why not attach strings to it prohibiting anti consumer behavior.
- patrickk 4y ago
  > Second, you can’t vote with your feet much, as the market is controlled by a very limited number players who can easily collude to manipulate the market without explicitly doing so. Well said. There are a handful of entities which control all the major car brands. It's the illusion of choice. https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/car-manufacturer-brands-family-tree https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/car-manufacturer-bran...
mike_hock 4y ago
It shouldn't. But it most certainly also shouldn't be illegal for me to then go and hack the hardware that I own to do what I want.
grapeskin 4y ago
Imagine this. You buy a fan for $20. It works. It has a low, medium, and high setting. One of the most influential fan makers decides they want to make a new product. It’s fan 2.0. It’s $21 dollars and has a $1 a month fee to unlock high speed. The package says “optional settings for a monthly fee. Buy only what you need and save.” Other fan makers realize this is a great way to make money. 2 years later, all fans have this option. Influential fan corp puts a press release for their revolutionary new product that’ll change the world. Fan 3.0. Medium speed is $3 a month.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Because 'you must buy a product from one of 10 companies that frequently collude in order to participate in society because we systematically dismantled all other options for transport' is not a free transaction> Second reason: even if it were, 'free transaction' is not a measure of good. We ban carcinogens in food, lawn darts, and all sorts of other things because sometimes collective decisions for the common good are better for people than allowing society to be atomised and taken advantage of. This is the entire premise behind laws in the first place. Thirdly, if there are ongoing conditions for the use of something after it is sold, laws preventing certain modifications by the buyer, and/or secrets required for its ongoing use/editing of software that are not cha7ngeable or knowable by the buywr, then the product was not 'sold' and representing the $50k paid as anything other than rent is, in any sane society, fraud.

asiachick 4y ago

Tesla wasn't the first. I don't know who was but I know the differences in many printers are software only. The differences in many GPUs (Nvidia Quadro vs non-Quadro) are just drivers. I don't know where to draw the line. I hated that Tesla has a (pay $2k for a software upgrade for acceleration). Imagine it will escalate. Pay $1k to get your air-conditioner to 60f otherwise it stops at 68f. Pay $3k to turn 15 degrees sharper. Pay $1.5k for your defrosters to work twice as fast. On the other hand, my phones, computers, and game machines, all came with no software and I pay for apps and Apple in particular has made it popular to pay for individual features inside an app. Download a photo editing app and it will be $2 for the blur feature, $2 for the tilt-shift feature, or $10 for all features... though now it's escalated to $XX per year on most iOS apps that have top end features. I don't know how to feel about it. I used to pay ~$50 a year for photoshop (upgrading every other version for $200). Now I pay $120 a year. I mean, I like the idea of paying once but the truth is, for software I actually used, I'd pay for upgrades, even if only to get the software working on the latest OS version.

raverbashing 4y ago
> The differences in many GPUs (Nvidia Quadro vs non-Quadro) are just drivers. Are they? I mean, the GPU might be the same, and it might run with Quadro drivers, but the board might be different (cooling, power management, etc)