5 ms·

I am not disagreeing with you - I believe that you should be able to use something you bought however you wish - but I think it is worth noting that the lower y

I am not disagreeing with you - I believe that you should be able to use something you bought however you wish - but I think it is worth noting that the lower you allow depth of discharge, the more cycles you can squeeze out of a pack. So it’s not dead weight per se, its trading weight and range for pack longevity, which equates to economy over the life of the motorcycle.

lelandbatey 3y ago
Eh, no it's not. It's getting a monthly fee out of what could be a button or switch, a monthly fee that could be just an unpaid, free to use feature of the bike. This is some serious "c-suite message to help you fall asleep at night territory".
- acters 3y ago
  It's the monthly fee I have a problem with. Unless the monthly fee guarantees a new pack if the battery degradation from an increased DoC, then it is good. As it currently stands, it is literally a jerk move on the company's side.
- ratg13 3y ago
  Even the phone in your pocket isn't using it's full battery potential (by design). You can hack this with software to "get more out of your battery", but really all you're doing is shortening the length of your battery life and creating a fire hazard.
  - kiddico 3y ago
    He understands it just fine. He doesn't care how long the total life span is. It's perfectly capable of it (access to the option can be paid for so it's not equivalent to a hack) and he wants to go further on a single charge, so this is a perfectly reasonable tradeoff to make. Just let the user make that choice without an absurd subscription.
  - pdpi 3y ago
    Right. "By design" is doing all the work there, because the design goals are different. Phones are designed that way as a way to prolong the longevity of the phone. This bike is designed this way as a way to extract a subscription. These two things are not the same.
  - tjoff 3y ago
    It's the other way around, you can hack it and get longer battery life. But that is not an option because phone manufacturers prefer that their non-user-replacable batteries get worn out.
- roland35 3y ago
  Having worked in hardware, I can imagine most customers would 1) push the button, then 2) complain that their battery performance is reduced.
  - swifthesitation 3y ago
    > most customers would 1) push the button, then 2) complain that their battery performance is reduced. In this scenario, have them do step 3.. 3) push the button a second time.
    - fatfingerd 3y ago
      How will you un-wear a battery with a press of a button? I don't see anything inconsistent with a subscription if the manufacturer is responsible for replacing the battery during a warranty time. I prefer large ecosystems with 3rd party parts to dealing with proprietary manufacturing and warranties though.
- oefrha 3y ago
  “This limitation is good for you! Never mind we’re charging extra to remove it!” Yeah, I’d be a sucker to believe that.

lelandbatey 3y ago

Eh, no it's not. It's getting a monthly fee out of what could be a button or switch, a monthly fee that could be just an unpaid, free to use feature of the bike. This is some serious "c-suite message to help you fall asleep at night territory".

acters 3y ago
It's the monthly fee I have a problem with. Unless the monthly fee guarantees a new pack if the battery degradation from an increased DoC, then it is good. As it currently stands, it is literally a jerk move on the company's side.
ratg13 3y ago
Even the phone in your pocket isn't using it's full battery potential (by design). You can hack this with software to "get more out of your battery", but really all you're doing is shortening the length of your battery life and creating a fire hazard.
- kiddico 3y ago
  He understands it just fine. He doesn't care how long the total life span is. It's perfectly capable of it (access to the option can be paid for so it's not equivalent to a hack) and he wants to go further on a single charge, so this is a perfectly reasonable tradeoff to make. Just let the user make that choice without an absurd subscription.
- pdpi 3y ago
  Right. "By design" is doing all the work there, because the design goals are different. Phones are designed that way as a way to prolong the longevity of the phone. This bike is designed this way as a way to extract a subscription. These two things are not the same.
- tjoff 3y ago
  It's the other way around, you can hack it and get longer battery life. But that is not an option because phone manufacturers prefer that their non-user-replacable batteries get worn out.
roland35 3y ago
Having worked in hardware, I can imagine most customers would 1) push the button, then 2) complain that their battery performance is reduced.
- swifthesitation 3y ago
  > most customers would 1) push the button, then 2) complain that their battery performance is reduced. In this scenario, have them do step 3.. 3) push the button a second time.
  - fatfingerd 3y ago
    How will you un-wear a battery with a press of a button? I don't see anything inconsistent with a subscription if the manufacturer is responsible for replacing the battery during a warranty time. I prefer large ecosystems with 3rd party parts to dealing with proprietary manufacturing and warranties though.
oefrha 3y ago
“This limitation is good for you! Never mind we’re charging extra to remove it!” Yeah, I’d be a sucker to believe that.