5 ms·

And for £18/month. Subscriptions for car features need to die.

by shazzy 3y ago

TulliusCicero 3y ago
Subscriptions for self-driving actually make sense, since the company is probably taking on liability if the car crashes or something else goes wrong. Just makes sense for self driving to have a "combined" subscription that is or functions as insurance.
- sadhorse 3y ago
  It is called insurance and is a heavily regulated thing.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    Actually I think they're onto something, the company being required to get insurance [too] means they have more financial skin in the game. A crash when the car is being driven by the company's algorithm should be paid for by the company and not the driver. Same as if any other engineering defect causes an accident.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Actually I think they're onto something, the company being required to get insurance [too] means they have more financial skin in the game. No, a company that is liable has skin in the game, insurance mitigates rather than enhances that—its the whole point of insurance, swapping out risk for a fixed cost. OTOH, the insurer then has skin in the game.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        In bulk, there's no real difference between the company getting insurance for the user, versus the company being insurance for the user. Either way, the cost they pay will be directly related to how safe it is. They have almost all the skin in the game.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    Insurance as it currently exists makes no sense if the human 'operator' is not actually driving the car.
owlbite 3y ago
Owning one of these cars I can tell you it's not worth the money. Drops out of hands free mode every few minutes. The only way I'm paying a goddamn subscription for something like this is when it gets me from A to B without me needing to pay any attention beyond setting the destination and watching a movie.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  If it doesn't work, under the Consumer Rights Act you need to ask for your money back, paying for stuff that doesn't work encourages companies to half-arse things.
- veec_cas_tant 3y ago
  I live in the US but disagree entirely. Works solid where I’m driving, rarely dropping out. I bet I get an average of 55min hands free per hour of interstate driving and it is very smooth. Would definitely pay monthly for the convenience, but so far it’s still free from purchase for me.
gruez 3y ago
Everyone would rather pay $0/month rather than $18/month, but those aren't the choices actually being offered. Realistically it's either $x/month or $y upfront. Seeing tesla's track record of selling "full self driving" as an upfront charge, I prefer the subscription model more because it allows me to stop paying if the feature ends up being a dud.

And for £18/month. Subscriptions for car features need to die.

by shazzy 3y ago

And for £18/month. Subscriptions for car features need to die.

Subscriptions for self-driving actually make sense, since the company is probably taking on liability if the car crashes or something else goes wrong. Just makes sense for self driving to have a "combined" subscription that is or functions as insurance.

sadhorse 3y ago
It is called insurance and is a heavily regulated thing.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  Actually I think they're onto something, the company being required to get insurance [too] means they have more financial skin in the game. A crash when the car is being driven by the company's algorithm should be paid for by the company and not the driver. Same as if any other engineering defect causes an accident.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Actually I think they're onto something, the company being required to get insurance [too] means they have more financial skin in the game. No, a company that is liable has skin in the game, insurance mitigates rather than enhances that—its the whole point of insurance, swapping out risk for a fixed cost. OTOH, the insurer then has skin in the game.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      In bulk, there's no real difference between the company getting insurance for the user, versus the company being insurance for the user. Either way, the cost they pay will be directly related to how safe it is. They have almost all the skin in the game.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  Insurance as it currently exists makes no sense if the human 'operator' is not actually driving the car.

owlbite 3y ago

Owning one of these cars I can tell you it's not worth the money. Drops out of hands free mode every few minutes. The only way I'm paying a goddamn subscription for something like this is when it gets me from A to B without me needing to pay any attention beyond setting the destination and watching a movie.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
If it doesn't work, under the Consumer Rights Act you need to ask for your money back, paying for stuff that doesn't work encourages companies to half-arse things.
veec_cas_tant 3y ago
I live in the US but disagree entirely. Works solid where I’m driving, rarely dropping out. I bet I get an average of 55min hands free per hour of interstate driving and it is very smooth. Would definitely pay monthly for the convenience, but so far it’s still free from purchase for me.

gruez 3y ago

Everyone would rather pay $0/month rather than $18/month, but those aren't the choices actually being offered. Realistically it's either $x/month or $y upfront. Seeing tesla's track record of selling "full self driving" as an upfront charge, I prefer the subscription model more because it allows me to stop paying if the feature ends up being a dud.