3 ms·
The objection is, if I own a car, then the car manufacturer shouldn't be able to disable functionality. If I buy a car with heated seats, I should be able to us
by ARandumGuy 4y ago
The objection is, if I own a car, then the car manufacturer shouldn't be able to disable functionality. If I buy a car with heated seats, I should be able to use them as much as I want, and the manufacturer should have no control over that. The cost concern is secondary to losing control of devices that we ostensibly own.
- sokoloff 4y agoI agree, provided the purchase arrangement of the car included the perpetual (at least until it broke) heated seats functionality. If the car was instead sold/bought with the heated seats as a subscription, I don’t see any problem with them being, well, a subscription.
- mattnewton 4y agoThe problem is that, since subscriptions are more profitable and look better to accounting, soon I may no long be able to get that deal of buying basic functionality of my car upfront. It’s the classic subsidized printer gouged ink model, except it’s entirely artificial here (no new ink is being shipped to me, the printer is just turning on or not) for increased profits and hiding the trust cost to the customer. Strong and broad consumer rejection is the only recourse for people not being ripped off by turning what was an owned asset into a rental through this method of cost hiding, which is why I think people are being worked up.