5 ms·

"We thought that we would provide an extra service to the customer by offering the chance to activate that later, but the user acceptance isn’t that high. Peopl

"We thought that we would provide an extra service to the customer by offering the chance to activate that later, but the user acceptance isn’t that high. People feel that they paid double, which was actually not true, but perception is reality, I always say. So that was the reason we stopped that," Nota told Autocar. Wow. They still don’t get it

nottheengineer 3y ago
Let's hope they did get it and this is just marketing blabber to avoid admitting any mistakes.
angarg12 3y ago
>People feel that they paid double, which was actually not true That's some serious gaslighting.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > That's some serious gaslighting Devil's advocate: how would you know if BMW subsidized what would have been an add-on package?
  - Etrnl_President 3y ago
    The user subsidizes that package with every day of fuel spent per pound of that package.
  - joshspankit 3y ago
    “What’s subsidized” is completely detached from the vehicle owner already. Cost to design, prototype, manufacture, pass standards, finish, sell in a dealership, and provide warranty for are all basically trade secrets. There’s no way for a car owner to know whether their $120k car cost $300k to make or $20k, so how can we have a genuine discussion about the cost of anything else?
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  That's a very popular take, but if it's laid out clearly in the contract that heated seats (or whatever feature) are not part of what you're buying up front, then technically they're in the right. The fact that buying big solid things like cars has typically, thus far, in our society, meant owning every physical piece of that thing, doesn't and shouldn't override what it says in the contract. Maybe an argument can be made that the contract is deceptive, or so long and detailed that it amounts to a DoS on the potential buyer. I think those are important topics that deserve a lot more scrutiny and weight in the courtroom than they get. But that's a different topic.
  - Doxin 3y ago
    > The fact that buying big solid things like cars has typically, thus far, in our society, meant owning every physical piece of that thing, doesn't and shouldn't override what it says in the contract. I think I'm not alone in saying that yes it SHOULD override what it says in the contract. You can write whatever you like in contracts, but that does not make it reasonable behavior.
    - akoboldfrying 3y ago
      Many would agree. More generally, what restrictions should the law place on contracts, in your opinion? That is, can you describe a general rule that would rule out BMW's heated car seats from being a valid contact clause (but, presumably, not rule out every possible contract)?
      - Doxin 3y ago
        > Can you describe a general rule You can't charge a subscription for something someone already physically owns. That ought to stop this sort of nonsense while still allowing most all SaaS stuff to keep going. Heck you could still charge a service contract for the seat heaters. You just can't go "No we won't enable this thing that's already fully wired up and ready to go and fully owned by you" Though honestly the "correct" way to fix this sort of nonsense is to rework or possibly repeal DMCA entirely. It's absurd a manufacturer can put a lock on my stuff and have it be illegal for me to remove the lock.
starbugs 3y ago
> Wow. They still don’t get it People paid double. They did get it. Even before they tried.
ghusto 3y ago
Oh they got it. Let me rephrase it for you: "People realised they were paying double. So that is the reason we stopped"

nottheengineer 3y ago

Let's hope they did get it and this is just marketing blabber to avoid admitting any mistakes.

angarg12 3y ago

>People feel that they paid double, which was actually not true That's some serious gaslighting.

sangnoir 3y ago
> That's some serious gaslighting Devil's advocate: how would you know if BMW subsidized what would have been an add-on package?
- Etrnl_President 3y ago
  The user subsidizes that package with every day of fuel spent per pound of that package.
- joshspankit 3y ago
  “What’s subsidized” is completely detached from the vehicle owner already. Cost to design, prototype, manufacture, pass standards, finish, sell in a dealership, and provide warranty for are all basically trade secrets. There’s no way for a car owner to know whether their $120k car cost $300k to make or $20k, so how can we have a genuine discussion about the cost of anything else?
akoboldfrying 3y ago
That's a very popular take, but if it's laid out clearly in the contract that heated seats (or whatever feature) are not part of what you're buying up front, then technically they're in the right. The fact that buying big solid things like cars has typically, thus far, in our society, meant owning every physical piece of that thing, doesn't and shouldn't override what it says in the contract. Maybe an argument can be made that the contract is deceptive, or so long and detailed that it amounts to a DoS on the potential buyer. I think those are important topics that deserve a lot more scrutiny and weight in the courtroom than they get. But that's a different topic.
- Doxin 3y ago
  > The fact that buying big solid things like cars has typically, thus far, in our society, meant owning every physical piece of that thing, doesn't and shouldn't override what it says in the contract. I think I'm not alone in saying that yes it SHOULD override what it says in the contract. You can write whatever you like in contracts, but that does not make it reasonable behavior.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    Many would agree. More generally, what restrictions should the law place on contracts, in your opinion? That is, can you describe a general rule that would rule out BMW's heated car seats from being a valid contact clause (but, presumably, not rule out every possible contract)?
    - Doxin 3y ago
      > Can you describe a general rule You can't charge a subscription for something someone already physically owns. That ought to stop this sort of nonsense while still allowing most all SaaS stuff to keep going. Heck you could still charge a service contract for the seat heaters. You just can't go "No we won't enable this thing that's already fully wired up and ready to go and fully owned by you" Though honestly the "correct" way to fix this sort of nonsense is to rework or possibly repeal DMCA entirely. It's absurd a manufacturer can put a lock on my stuff and have it be illegal for me to remove the lock.

starbugs 3y ago

> Wow. They still don’t get it People paid double. They did get it. Even before they tried.

ghusto 3y ago

Oh they got it. Let me rephrase it for you: "People realised they were paying double. So that is the reason we stopped"