5 ms·

> I’m amazed a car manufacturer could resort to these games. If they want to increase profits, why not just focus on customers and give customers what they want

> I’m amazed a car manufacturer could resort to these games. If they want to increase profits, why not just focus on customers and give customers what they want? The name of the game now in more and more industries is rent-seeking and extracting money long term, on a regular basis. This new business practice disincentivizes building quality products because then you can sell a shoddy product and include "maintenance" and "updates" into your subscription plan. If it's not stopped legally, it'll only get worse.

sneak 4y ago
That’s mostly in industries without meaningful competition. In competitive industries, customer-hostile choices are much less common.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  That’s the party line. In reality cars are one of the most heavily competitive consumer markets, and guess what? They still behave like assholes.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    The brands compete. The dealers are local monopolies. Usually by law.
    - elihu 4y ago
      The brands compete on the kinds of cars they want to sell. When it comes to less profitable kinds of vehicles, that's where lobbying and regulatory capture comes in to kill competition. Thus we have the chicken tax, much stricter fuel economy standards for small trucks than big trucks, and the extreme protectionism in the inflation reduction act when it comes to EV tax credits.
    - menage 4y ago
      But the locality is typically only a town. Emailing all the dealers in the area for a quote and driving a bit out of your way to pick up the car isn't that hard.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      It's the brands trying so sell you subscription seat warming, not the local dealers.
      - BurningFrog 4y ago
        Interesting point!
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      There’s a dozen GM brand dealers within 15 miles of where I’m sitting right now. They absolutely compete.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Silhouette 4y ago
  In competitive industries, customer-hostile choices are much less common. How many brands of TV are there? How many of those brands still make even one consumer model that isn't "smart" in user-hostile ways? Having lots of suppliers doesn't necessarily create effective competition in the customer interest. If there's a customer-hostile practice that makes lots of money and is sufficiently obvious that all suppliers can adopt it without any need for legally questionable forms of cooperation then what is going to happen? Effectively forcing subscriptions or other after-purchase limitations and costs on customers when there is nothing in it for those customer to balance what they lose is exactly the kind of predatory behaviour that government regulation should protect against.
xbar 4y ago
Precisely. This is the kind of legislation that benefits all the residents of a state. Subscription predation is poorly regulated. Starting with cars seems like an obvious target.
- splistud 4y ago
  Considering the volume, why not start with software?
  - domador 4y ago
    The kind of software that truly depends on a server or some live resource that must be actively maintained and kept running can genuinely make a claim to charge a reasonable recurring fee to use said software. But for software that is essentially a standalone product which needs no upgrades, one should be able to buy the current version of the software and keep using that specific version of that software indefinitely, just as if one had bought a hammer or some other tool that will permanently belong to you, with no monthly subscription.
    - JamesianP 4y ago
      That just creates a loophole. Perhaps it is a "smart" heated seat. You can make anything need a live internet connection by putting some adaptive "benefits" in it. Now they'll just monetize your minute-to-minute-butt-temperature data too.
fsckboy 4y ago
> rent-seeking and extracting money long term, on a regular basis recurring revenue is what you're talking about, it's a financially desirable thing for them, but it's not the same thing as rent seeking. Rent seeking is not receiving payments over and over on a regular basis, rather it's a term economists use to mean making money from your position in the market without contributing anything of value to the market (without putting in any work, so to speak). For example, "monopoly rents" are the extra parts of the prices that monopolies can charge because they face no competition. add-ons to a major expense like an automobile can qualify as rents because once you buy the car, you are essentially trapped into buying the add-ons from the one manufacturer, like being forced to get your car serviced at the dealer.
- amatecha 4y ago
  hrm, interesting... by that definition I would argue that the business model of car dealerships is specifically rent-seeking. They not only don't contribute anything of value, they actively detract from the value proposition by marking up far over MSRP and, like someone posted in another comment, engaging in shady tactics like selling your vehicle to someone else after waiting for 3mo because your bank isn't open until tomorrow. Just to scratch the surface.
  - JamesianP 4y ago
    The vendor still had to invest money to put the feature there, so it's a legit business transaction, even if it sounds silly. Presumably the monthly cost will be a lot less than the hundreds it would cost to buy the feature outright. Or are they charging people twice?

sneak 4y ago

That’s mostly in industries without meaningful competition. In competitive industries, customer-hostile choices are much less common.

Spooky23 4y ago
That’s the party line. In reality cars are one of the most heavily competitive consumer markets, and guess what? They still behave like assholes.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  The brands compete. The dealers are local monopolies. Usually by law.
  - elihu 4y ago
    The brands compete on the kinds of cars they want to sell. When it comes to less profitable kinds of vehicles, that's where lobbying and regulatory capture comes in to kill competition. Thus we have the chicken tax, much stricter fuel economy standards for small trucks than big trucks, and the extreme protectionism in the inflation reduction act when it comes to EV tax credits.
  - menage 4y ago
    But the locality is typically only a town. Emailing all the dealers in the area for a quote and driving a bit out of your way to pick up the car isn't that hard.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    It's the brands trying so sell you subscription seat warming, not the local dealers.
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      Interesting point!
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    There’s a dozen GM brand dealers within 15 miles of where I’m sitting right now. They absolutely compete.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Silhouette 4y ago
In competitive industries, customer-hostile choices are much less common. How many brands of TV are there? How many of those brands still make even one consumer model that isn't "smart" in user-hostile ways? Having lots of suppliers doesn't necessarily create effective competition in the customer interest. If there's a customer-hostile practice that makes lots of money and is sufficiently obvious that all suppliers can adopt it without any need for legally questionable forms of cooperation then what is going to happen? Effectively forcing subscriptions or other after-purchase limitations and costs on customers when there is nothing in it for those customer to balance what they lose is exactly the kind of predatory behaviour that government regulation should protect against.

xbar 4y ago

Precisely. This is the kind of legislation that benefits all the residents of a state. Subscription predation is poorly regulated. Starting with cars seems like an obvious target.

splistud 4y ago
Considering the volume, why not start with software?
- domador 4y ago
  The kind of software that truly depends on a server or some live resource that must be actively maintained and kept running can genuinely make a claim to charge a reasonable recurring fee to use said software. But for software that is essentially a standalone product which needs no upgrades, one should be able to buy the current version of the software and keep using that specific version of that software indefinitely, just as if one had bought a hammer or some other tool that will permanently belong to you, with no monthly subscription.
  - JamesianP 4y ago
    That just creates a loophole. Perhaps it is a "smart" heated seat. You can make anything need a live internet connection by putting some adaptive "benefits" in it. Now they'll just monetize your minute-to-minute-butt-temperature data too.

fsckboy 4y ago

> rent-seeking and extracting money long term, on a regular basis recurring revenue is what you're talking about, it's a financially desirable thing for them, but it's not the same thing as rent seeking. Rent seeking is not receiving payments over and over on a regular basis, rather it's a term economists use to mean making money from your position in the market without contributing anything of value to the market (without putting in any work, so to speak). For example, "monopoly rents" are the extra parts of the prices that monopolies can charge because they face no competition. add-ons to a major expense like an automobile can qualify as rents because once you buy the car, you are essentially trapped into buying the add-ons from the one manufacturer, like being forced to get your car serviced at the dealer.

amatecha 4y ago
hrm, interesting... by that definition I would argue that the business model of car dealerships is specifically rent-seeking. They not only don't contribute anything of value, they actively detract from the value proposition by marking up far over MSRP and, like someone posted in another comment, engaging in shady tactics like selling your vehicle to someone else after waiting for 3mo because your bank isn't open until tomorrow. Just to scratch the surface.
- JamesianP 4y ago
  The vendor still had to invest money to put the feature there, so it's a legit business transaction, even if it sounds silly. Presumably the monthly cost will be a lot less than the hundreds it would cost to buy the feature outright. Or are they charging people twice?