109 ms·

People overreact to this. If this didn't exist, they would just manufacture cars the old way where multiple version of the same car are produced at high and lo

People overreact to this. If this didn't exist, they would just manufacture cars the old way where multiple version of the same car are produced at high and low prices. I have seen no evidence provided this actually increases the total price of a high feature car. This might actually lower the average price paid because of the economies of scale achieved by making fewer different versions of the same car. Resale value can increase as well, since the person buying your car can get the features they want, even if you didn't originally purchase those features.

circuit10 3y ago
In an ideal world we could just give everyone those features if they didn’t cost any extra to add instead of creating an artificial pricing structure to get more money out of people. Maybe it can’t work that way but making people’s lives worse just to punish them for paying less in order to incentivise them to pay more, rather than as compensation to the company for doing more work, seems wrong
- caf 3y ago
  Doesn't the same sort of apply to eg. Microsoft should give you access to all of their existing software titles when you buy an xbox? It's not like you paying for Flight Sim now compensates them for doing more work.
- kevincox 3y ago
  But they do cost extra to add. Heating coils and controllers aren't free. Doing it this way has real benefits. 1. Lower total cost of manufacturing (which should be passed on to consumers as lower purchase price). 2. The cost of this hardware is only paid for those who value it. 3. You can add these features later (maybe your budget is tight when you bought the car but want to add it later). I am definitely not a fan of the subscription model for hardware features, but I think that locking features to the customers paying for it is a logical way to make these features available for less cost. If the unlock is one-time and reliable (doesn't rely on some external service to validate your subscription) then I don't have a fundamental problem with it. I don't think providing a cheaper model is "punish[ing] them for paying less". It is making the car accessible to a wider audience. If the cheapest model included heated seats, self driving and more then they base price would be higher and the car would be less accessible.
liendolucas 3y ago
I'm not overreacting to this. I'm absolutely tired to learn that subscriptions are being pushed everywhere. Having to pay for something that is already in a vehicle is insulting to me. Car manufacturers should sell cars, not subscriptions of ANY kind. What's going to be tomorrow? Will I have to subscribe to a service to actually let my speakers emit sound despite that I have payed for them? Ridiculous today, a business tomorrow.
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
  Any country with even half decent consumer protection would stop your imagined slippery slope scenario. You bought the speakers, as speakers? Then they need to operate like speakers, unless it was clear ahead of time that more is needed. Software locking like this is bad for environmental / waste reasons. All of this complaining about there being a disconnect between what you willingly paid for and what the physical hardware components in the product you receive can technically do, is just a nerd’s argument. I agree with it. Subscriptions suck when there’s no ongoing cost to the seller. But I’m not going to pretend that this is some moral crusade, or be as emotionally invested as you quite obviously are.
wpietri 3y ago
You have pretty strong opinions for somebody who has admittedly seen no evidence either way. Personally, I think it's a terrible idea in that it further changes the relationship between buyers and sellers toward a relationship of long-term exploitation. It takes the notion of enshittification [1] and extends it into the realm of physical goods. [1] https://kottke.org/23/01/the-enshittification-lifecycle-of-online-platforms https://kottke.org/23/01/the-enshittification-lifecycle-of-o...
afavour 3y ago
It strikes me as a far more fundamental shift: up until now I buy something and I own it. In the future I will effectively be renting part of my car. Instead of a one time payment I’m now I’m now required to make monthly payments until the day I stop using my car. That’s a massive difference. Unless it’s something that requires the car manufacturer to also spend money on an ongoing basis (e.g. a cell data connection or something) it strikes me as absolutely immoral that these companies are going to band together and force this arrangement upon us.

circuit10 3y ago

In an ideal world we could just give everyone those features if they didn’t cost any extra to add instead of creating an artificial pricing structure to get more money out of people. Maybe it can’t work that way but making people’s lives worse just to punish them for paying less in order to incentivise them to pay more, rather than as compensation to the company for doing more work, seems wrong

caf 3y ago
Doesn't the same sort of apply to eg. Microsoft should give you access to all of their existing software titles when you buy an xbox? It's not like you paying for Flight Sim now compensates them for doing more work.
kevincox 3y ago
But they do cost extra to add. Heating coils and controllers aren't free. Doing it this way has real benefits. 1. Lower total cost of manufacturing (which should be passed on to consumers as lower purchase price). 2. The cost of this hardware is only paid for those who value it. 3. You can add these features later (maybe your budget is tight when you bought the car but want to add it later). I am definitely not a fan of the subscription model for hardware features, but I think that locking features to the customers paying for it is a logical way to make these features available for less cost. If the unlock is one-time and reliable (doesn't rely on some external service to validate your subscription) then I don't have a fundamental problem with it. I don't think providing a cheaper model is "punish[ing] them for paying less". It is making the car accessible to a wider audience. If the cheapest model included heated seats, self driving and more then they base price would be higher and the car would be less accessible.

liendolucas 3y ago

I'm not overreacting to this. I'm absolutely tired to learn that subscriptions are being pushed everywhere. Having to pay for something that is already in a vehicle is insulting to me. Car manufacturers should sell cars, not subscriptions of ANY kind. What's going to be tomorrow? Will I have to subscribe to a service to actually let my speakers emit sound despite that I have payed for them? Ridiculous today, a business tomorrow.

tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
Any country with even half decent consumer protection would stop your imagined slippery slope scenario. You bought the speakers, as speakers? Then they need to operate like speakers, unless it was clear ahead of time that more is needed. Software locking like this is bad for environmental / waste reasons. All of this complaining about there being a disconnect between what you willingly paid for and what the physical hardware components in the product you receive can technically do, is just a nerd’s argument. I agree with it. Subscriptions suck when there’s no ongoing cost to the seller. But I’m not going to pretend that this is some moral crusade, or be as emotionally invested as you quite obviously are.

wpietri 3y ago

You have pretty strong opinions for somebody who has admittedly seen no evidence either way. Personally, I think it's a terrible idea in that it further changes the relationship between buyers and sellers toward a relationship of long-term exploitation. It takes the notion of enshittification [1] and extends it into the realm of physical goods. [1] https://kottke.org/23/01/the-enshittification-lifecycle-of-online-platforms https://kottke.org/23/01/the-enshittification-lifecycle-of-o...

afavour 3y ago

It strikes me as a far more fundamental shift: up until now I buy something and I own it. In the future I will effectively be renting part of my car. Instead of a one time payment I’m now I’m now required to make monthly payments until the day I stop using my car. That’s a massive difference. Unless it’s something that requires the car manufacturer to also spend money on an ongoing basis (e.g. a cell data connection or something) it strikes me as absolutely immoral that these companies are going to band together and force this arrangement upon us.