6 ms·

There's a lot of missing the point in these threads about software locks. Building a car in a uniform way for economy of scale savings, fine. Having a softwar

There's a lot of missing the point in these threads about software locks. Building a car in a uniform way for economy of scale savings, fine. Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine. Using software to rent-seek on one time costs like heated seats. Not fine. Less fine too if the seat subscription can't carry to secondary market. This can he used to cripple secondary markets: sorry, the BMW account you have isn't linked to this VIN. Heated seats and android auto are disabled. Let's stop the third.

hot_gril 3y ago
What's the difference between the second and the third?
- dr_orpheus 3y ago
  Second is "I pay $50 once to unlock heated seats in my car forever. This car now has heated seats and anyone that I sell it to also gets heated seats" Third is "I pay $5/month for heated seats for the entire time I own the car. Anyone that I sell the car to would also have to pay $5/month for heated seats." Edit: The other version of the third option (your BMW account is not tied to this vin) is something like "I pay $50 once for heated seats in my car. If I sell it to someone, they also have to pay $50 to unlock the heated seats"
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    Third seems slightly better, cause at least the secondary buyer clearly knows it's $5/mo instead of having to make sure the one-time payment sticks.
    - eganist 3y ago
      In fairness, the second method should probably be implemented with an e-fuse. That way once it's paid, there's no taking it away.
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        Yeah, otherwise I don't trust it.
- lajamerr 3y ago
  Probably the same sentiment between DLC vs Expansions in gaming. But fundamentally no difference because you are getting a discounted price in exchange for the soft locked feature. So 2 and 3 are the same imo.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    I'm not asking what's the conceptual difference, I just don't get what the two options are. Is #2 one-time purchase and #3 subscription?
sdfignaionio 3y ago
>Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine. Tolerable, perhaps, but pretty far from fine. It's pretty shocking to me that people in our society build things and then deliberately break them so they can make more money. Is this really the best system we can come up with? We have built a society where what is plainly crazy is rational.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  > It's pretty shocking to me that people in our society build things and then deliberately break them so they can make more money. Is this really the best system we can come up with? All part of cost tradeoffs. Previously, they'd build the car with the ability to support all those add-ons even if the customer isn't getting them. Turns out it's cheaper not to do that.
  - circuit10 3y ago
    I wish the solution was to just give everyone those features. Maybe it can’t work like that but this feels very wasteful
    - jimmyk2 3y ago
      I assume it’s all to game the starting MSRP. Like the barebones Tesla 3 that existed on paper but was basically impossible to order. OE’s know most people will spring for that creature comforts.
      - circuit10 3y ago
        That reminds me of this video: https://youtu.be/cLGcGnGJvL0 https://youtu.be/cLGcGnGJvL0 where they say how one of the reasons laptops are getting harder to upgrade is probably so they can make you buy an expensive configuration and still advertise a low starting price
        hot_gril 3y ago
harry8 3y ago
>Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine. Ok as long as /any/ end run around that garbage made by the car's /owner/ is specifically: legal, legitimate and not-warranty voiding. Because you know the step from there to not being able to repair the things you own without paying more to allow you to do so is nonexistent.
Panzer04 3y ago
The solution to these problems? Don't be a customer of said abusive company. If they don't present value for money at a given price point (including these sorts of shenanigans), don't buy it. So long as you know about these issues up front I don't think it's that problematic (even if it feels a bit wasteful in a holistic sense)
- satao 3y ago
  Individual solutions are never going to fix collective problems.
  - filoleg 3y ago
    Collective solutions to collective problems are often just individual solutions applied at scale by many unrelated individuals (on their own).
ravenstine 3y ago
The third is exactly why the second is NOT fine. The second naturally leads to the third. Until legislation is passed, you will only pry my dumbcar from my cold dead hands.
- kevincox 3y ago
  I think the third is fine depending on how it is implemented. For example if the heated seats have a simple controller that requires a passphrase to enable and when I purchase the feature I get that passphrase then it seems reasonable. If the feature is implemented by locking down the whole infotainment system or I need a new passphrase every month and its going to break when Tesla servers are down then I am less fine with that. I think if you can accurately lock off a feature without affecting the rest of the user's freedom than that is pretty fair. (Sort of like CPU manufactures burning fuses to disable cores or features) But if the lock depends on locking down the entire system and restricting how I use the bits that I did pay for then I start to have a problem with it.

hot_gril 3y ago

What's the difference between the second and the third?

dr_orpheus 3y ago
Second is "I pay $50 once to unlock heated seats in my car forever. This car now has heated seats and anyone that I sell it to also gets heated seats" Third is "I pay $5/month for heated seats for the entire time I own the car. Anyone that I sell the car to would also have to pay $5/month for heated seats." Edit: The other version of the third option (your BMW account is not tied to this vin) is something like "I pay $50 once for heated seats in my car. If I sell it to someone, they also have to pay $50 to unlock the heated seats"
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Third seems slightly better, cause at least the secondary buyer clearly knows it's $5/mo instead of having to make sure the one-time payment sticks.
  - eganist 3y ago
    In fairness, the second method should probably be implemented with an e-fuse. That way once it's paid, there's no taking it away.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      Yeah, otherwise I don't trust it.
lajamerr 3y ago
Probably the same sentiment between DLC vs Expansions in gaming. But fundamentally no difference because you are getting a discounted price in exchange for the soft locked feature. So 2 and 3 are the same imo.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  I'm not asking what's the conceptual difference, I just don't get what the two options are. Is #2 one-time purchase and #3 subscription?

sdfignaionio 3y ago

>Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine. Tolerable, perhaps, but pretty far from fine. It's pretty shocking to me that people in our society build things and then deliberately break them so they can make more money. Is this really the best system we can come up with? We have built a society where what is plainly crazy is rational.

hot_gril 3y ago
> It's pretty shocking to me that people in our society build things and then deliberately break them so they can make more money. Is this really the best system we can come up with? All part of cost tradeoffs. Previously, they'd build the car with the ability to support all those add-ons even if the customer isn't getting them. Turns out it's cheaper not to do that.
- circuit10 3y ago
  I wish the solution was to just give everyone those features. Maybe it can’t work like that but this feels very wasteful
  - jimmyk2 3y ago
    I assume it’s all to game the starting MSRP. Like the barebones Tesla 3 that existed on paper but was basically impossible to order. OE’s know most people will spring for that creature comforts.
    - circuit10 3y ago
      That reminds me of this video: https://youtu.be/cLGcGnGJvL0 https://youtu.be/cLGcGnGJvL0 where they say how one of the reasons laptops are getting harder to upgrade is probably so they can make you buy an expensive configuration and still advertise a low starting price
      - hot_gril 3y ago

harry8 3y ago

>Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine. Ok as long as /any/ end run around that garbage made by the car's /owner/ is specifically: legal, legitimate and not-warranty voiding. Because you know the step from there to not being able to repair the things you own without paying more to allow you to do so is nonexistent.

Panzer04 3y ago

The solution to these problems? Don't be a customer of said abusive company. If they don't present value for money at a given price point (including these sorts of shenanigans), don't buy it. So long as you know about these issues up front I don't think it's that problematic (even if it feels a bit wasteful in a holistic sense)

satao 3y ago
Individual solutions are never going to fix collective problems.
- filoleg 3y ago
  Collective solutions to collective problems are often just individual solutions applied at scale by many unrelated individuals (on their own).

ravenstine 3y ago

The third is exactly why the second is NOT fine. The second naturally leads to the third. Until legislation is passed, you will only pry my dumbcar from my cold dead hands.

kevincox 3y ago
I think the third is fine depending on how it is implemented. For example if the heated seats have a simple controller that requires a passphrase to enable and when I purchase the feature I get that passphrase then it seems reasonable. If the feature is implemented by locking down the whole infotainment system or I need a new passphrase every month and its going to break when Tesla servers are down then I am less fine with that. I think if you can accurately lock off a feature without affecting the rest of the user's freedom than that is pretty fair. (Sort of like CPU manufactures burning fuses to disable cores or features) But if the lock depends on locking down the entire system and restricting how I use the bits that I did pay for then I start to have a problem with it.