4 ms·
Contrary to HN I think it's a very good idea. Some people buy cars for status and bragging, so you need the car to be expensive. Others don't care. So instead
by 323 4y ago
Contrary to HN I think it's a very good idea.
Some people buy cars for status and bragging, so you need the car to be expensive. Others don't care. So instead of having too separate cars, you just sell the "base version" for $X and then sell "status upgrades". Like "skins" in video games.
The bragging person will brag about the expensive subscription, just like some brag about their AMEX/Centurion/... credit card, while the regular person will get a cheaper car since it's price won't be artificially inflated to cater to the luxury segment.
- mnd999 4y agoThat’s what they’ve been doing for years, without subscriptions. It even makes more sense since the car doesn’t contain the things you don’t want. It’s just pure greed and collusion and abuse of their position in the market to facilitate these things.
- joosters 4y agoThat's a good point - I reckon Mercedes haven't thought this through fully yet. All cars have their branding and model number on display, perhaps what new cars will have is some kind of fancy electronic display on the back that shows the current model number. When you subscribe to the added extras, the display will show something different to let others know that your car is one of the special faster ones and, by extension, that you are better than the others !
- mattgreenrocks 4y agoA status tax is an excellent idea. Is it horrible and anti-consumer? Absolutely. Status hunger is a vice, and companies will figure out a way to exploit this in a more nuanced fashion, as it opens more revenue streams.
- bandyaboot 4y agoBlue check?
- have_faith 4y agoYou think it's a good idea that the performance of your car (and other features behind simple software flags) is remotely controlled by the manufacturer locking you into a relationship with them, giving them the ability to reduce the resale value of the car you "own" if you don't pay them an ongoing subscription? I don't think this is a model worth cheering about unless you're a shareholder.
- 323 4y agoYour Google Drive/DropBox/OneDrive storage space or your IntelliJ IDEA feature level (Basic/Pro/Ultimate) is also remotely controlled by how much you pay. What's the resale value of the IntelliJ IDEA that you "own"? Funny how HN thinks that's perfectly fine, but if you do this to cars suddenly it's a dystopian nightmare.
- MegaThorx 4y agoGoogle Drive/DropBox and OneDrive has continued costs for the hosting provider and for this reason a subscription makes complete sense. IntelliJ IDEA can be bought as a perpetual license [1] and the subscription just gives you access to the latest version. The increased acceleration would make sense if it was a one time payment but as a subscription its nonsense. Mercedes has no costs for it after they produced the car. [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/idea/buy/#commercial https://www.jetbrains.com/idea/buy/#commercial (All yearly subscriptions include a perpetual fallback license.)
- PaulWaldman 4y agoA better analogy is Office 365. Traditionally preputial licenses were purchased. Now consumers have become accustomed to purchasing access to the desktop applications through a subscription.
- MattDemers 4y agoAdvocating for this is the equivalent of going "Yeah man, it's not a big deal that you don't 'own' those movies/games/books on a digital service, and a company can decide to rescind them without refund if they didn't like the post you made on Twitter." That's where this is going to head.