4 ms·

>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 shoc

>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
        Laptops have real physical limitations involved, similar to smartphones don't have RAM slots, so I don't buy the video. But silly as it is, at least you can "download" heated seats later if you change your mind.
        sdfignaionio 3y ago
        Perhaps it is reasonable to solder parts to the motherboard. It's less reasonable to charge a massive markup on storage and memory. The margins on those upgrades are well over 100%.
        hot_gril 3y ago
        Yeah, even if the soldering isn't intentional for non-upgreadability, they certainly took advantage of it in the pricing. And with the heated seats, the margin is infinite.
  - kevincox 3y ago
    If you did this then everyone would have to pay the premium price. This may price out some people. At the end of the day someone has to pay for this extra hardware. When there is one physical model that price is being paid for those that pay extra to unlock these features. If all features where unlocked for everyone then the cost would have to be spread across everyone rather than just those who actually value the feature enough to pay for it. The core idea is that if some amount of people want heated seats the most cost effective way to do that may be to add the seats to every car, then those who want it pay that cost. (So if 1/5 cars want the heated seats each car have effective cost of 5x the per car cost because for each person paying they also have to cover the cost to install the hardware into 4 cars that wont pay for it) However that cost is still likely much cheaper than setting up a completely new physical model (especially if you consider feature combinations). But if you enable this feature for everyone then no one is paying the "premium" price so the cost needs to be spread out across all sales.
- femto 3y ago
  Being a tradeoff it works both ways. Customers get broken add-ons for free if it's cheaper to not pursue the customers that fix them.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    Yeah, same with how I watch YouTube ad-free for free.
wingworks 3y ago
Kinda what the chip Intel (and others chip makers?) have been doing for years. Make the best next gen chip, then strip out parts to slow it down and sell cheaper ones. Not 1:1 the same, but pretty similar.
someplaceguy 3y ago
> 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? It's not as bad as it looks. If you think about it, it's basically a form of wealth redistribution. Rich people will pay the premium, which subsidizes the cost of the car for others. In other words, poorer customers will get a cheaper car. It's a pretty good deal for those who are less wealthy and don't really need the extra functionality. Also, these poorer customers can always upgrade later if want to (because circumstances change and they want the functionality or because they get richer and can afford more luxury). This is not always possible with hardware-based customization, or even if it is, it would be more expensive. The alternative would be to only install the extra hardware in the cars of the wealthier customers, but presumably this would make the car more expensive for everyone (both the poor and the rich owners), due to the added costs of hardware-based customization. So everyone would lose. And even if the latter is not true, a similar car manufacturer could just offer you a better deal by selling you a similar, cheaper car without installing the hardware, which means that the manufacturer/brand that does the shenanigans would lose customers. Competition is pretty awesome like that.
- jjulius 3y ago
  >Rich people will pay the premium, which subsidizes the cost of the car for others. In other words, poorer customers will get a cheaper car. This sorta thing is usually done because retooling an assembly line so the car can have different features can be incredibly costly. It's often the case that all cars are built with the same features and the cost of this hardware is also included the price of the cheaper car with the features disabled. The "rich people" just pay a premium to have 'off' switched to 'on'.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    Still, there are only 2 options: 1. This scenario makes the car cheaper for the poorer customers, so they benefit from it. Or at least, it doesn't increase the price, so they get the added benefits of being able to upgrade their car more easily and cheaply than going to back to the shop to install the extra hardware. 2. Or, this situation makes the car more expensive for the poorer customers, but since they are much more price sensitive, it is very likely that they will choose to go to a competitor who actually sells them a similar car without the additional hardware (therefore cheaper), or without subscriptions. Unless of course, there was a monopoly or cartel, but I don't think we are in that situation. The fact that these companies are going in this direction, indicates that they are able to profit more in this situation, which indicates that they are providing more value (again, unless their customers didn't have a reasonable choice). It's not proof, but it's evidence that there are advantages. That said, it's not as simple as I've just put, because sometimes it can be easy to trick people into making a worse choice for themselves in the long term, e.g. due to marketing, or buying things with credit or as subscriptions instead of one-time payments, for example.... which can definitely apply in this case!

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
      Laptops have real physical limitations involved, similar to smartphones don't have RAM slots, so I don't buy the video. But silly as it is, at least you can "download" heated seats later if you change your mind.
      - sdfignaionio 3y ago
        Perhaps it is reasonable to solder parts to the motherboard. It's less reasonable to charge a massive markup on storage and memory. The margins on those upgrades are well over 100%.
        hot_gril 3y ago
        Yeah, even if the soldering isn't intentional for non-upgreadability, they certainly took advantage of it in the pricing. And with the heated seats, the margin is infinite.
- kevincox 3y ago
  If you did this then everyone would have to pay the premium price. This may price out some people. At the end of the day someone has to pay for this extra hardware. When there is one physical model that price is being paid for those that pay extra to unlock these features. If all features where unlocked for everyone then the cost would have to be spread across everyone rather than just those who actually value the feature enough to pay for it. The core idea is that if some amount of people want heated seats the most cost effective way to do that may be to add the seats to every car, then those who want it pay that cost. (So if 1/5 cars want the heated seats each car have effective cost of 5x the per car cost because for each person paying they also have to cover the cost to install the hardware into 4 cars that wont pay for it) However that cost is still likely much cheaper than setting up a completely new physical model (especially if you consider feature combinations). But if you enable this feature for everyone then no one is paying the "premium" price so the cost needs to be spread out across all sales.
femto 3y ago
Being a tradeoff it works both ways. Customers get broken add-ons for free if it's cheaper to not pursue the customers that fix them.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Yeah, same with how I watch YouTube ad-free for free.

wingworks 3y ago

Kinda what the chip Intel (and others chip makers?) have been doing for years. Make the best next gen chip, then strip out parts to slow it down and sell cheaper ones. Not 1:1 the same, but pretty similar.

someplaceguy 3y ago

> 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? It's not as bad as it looks. If you think about it, it's basically a form of wealth redistribution. Rich people will pay the premium, which subsidizes the cost of the car for others. In other words, poorer customers will get a cheaper car. It's a pretty good deal for those who are less wealthy and don't really need the extra functionality. Also, these poorer customers can always upgrade later if want to (because circumstances change and they want the functionality or because they get richer and can afford more luxury). This is not always possible with hardware-based customization, or even if it is, it would be more expensive. The alternative would be to only install the extra hardware in the cars of the wealthier customers, but presumably this would make the car more expensive for everyone (both the poor and the rich owners), due to the added costs of hardware-based customization. So everyone would lose. And even if the latter is not true, a similar car manufacturer could just offer you a better deal by selling you a similar, cheaper car without installing the hardware, which means that the manufacturer/brand that does the shenanigans would lose customers. Competition is pretty awesome like that.

jjulius 3y ago
>Rich people will pay the premium, which subsidizes the cost of the car for others. In other words, poorer customers will get a cheaper car. This sorta thing is usually done because retooling an assembly line so the car can have different features can be incredibly costly. It's often the case that all cars are built with the same features and the cost of this hardware is also included the price of the cheaper car with the features disabled. The "rich people" just pay a premium to have 'off' switched to 'on'.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  Still, there are only 2 options: 1. This scenario makes the car cheaper for the poorer customers, so they benefit from it. Or at least, it doesn't increase the price, so they get the added benefits of being able to upgrade their car more easily and cheaply than going to back to the shop to install the extra hardware. 2. Or, this situation makes the car more expensive for the poorer customers, but since they are much more price sensitive, it is very likely that they will choose to go to a competitor who actually sells them a similar car without the additional hardware (therefore cheaper), or without subscriptions. Unless of course, there was a monopoly or cartel, but I don't think we are in that situation. The fact that these companies are going in this direction, indicates that they are able to profit more in this situation, which indicates that they are providing more value (again, unless their customers didn't have a reasonable choice). It's not proof, but it's evidence that there are advantages. That said, it's not as simple as I've just put, because sometimes it can be easy to trick people into making a worse choice for themselves in the long term, e.g. due to marketing, or buying things with credit or as subscriptions instead of one-time payments, for example.... which can definitely apply in this case!