5 ms·

If you're serious, there is a difference between ransoming a functionality that is already provided vs delivering something new. I know about the economic argum

by andy99 3y ago

If you're serious, there is a difference between ransoming a functionality that is already provided vs delivering something new. I know about the economic arguments, but both in perception and reality, it's not the same thing to say "pay us to turn this on" as it is to pay to buy something new. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

gruez 3y ago
>If you're serious, there is a difference between ransoming a functionality that is already provided vs delivering something new. Do you feel the same about software/SaaS that gate features to different license tiers? After all, the functionality is already in the code.
- DeathArrow 3y ago
  Yes if those features don't require using extra space, bandwidth, hardware.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    And if e.g. those extra costs are 15 cents then the only reasonable extra charge is 15 cents? It’s not free to do pretty much anything, even sending a single HTTP request, so curious how you calibrate.
    - yetihehe 3y ago
      Easiest calibration: if the feature is already present to the client, requires ONLY pushing a secret button or sending a special one time request, but doesn't require any ongoing http requests or unpaid maintenance on provider side, then it should be free. Like cabin heating or snow chain deployers.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        So if you have a mass-produced product and you want some variable features available for customers’ different preferences and price points, you ought to have different manufacturing processes even if you can actually create that variation in software? That seems very wasteful IMO.
        yetihehe 3y ago
        If it's cheaper to include hardware in all models than to make different hardware versions, that sounds like you shouldn't make users pay more for actually using the hardware that is already there.
  - gruez 3y ago
    In this case it's not really clear that they're adding it to all cars. In all likelihood if the subscription scheme exists (which there's also no clear evidence that it is), you'd have to opt in to the expensive tires first.

by andy99 3y ago

gruez 3y ago

>If you're serious, there is a difference between ransoming a functionality that is already provided vs delivering something new. Do you feel the same about software/SaaS that gate features to different license tiers? After all, the functionality is already in the code.

DeathArrow 3y ago
Yes if those features don't require using extra space, bandwidth, hardware.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  And if e.g. those extra costs are 15 cents then the only reasonable extra charge is 15 cents? It’s not free to do pretty much anything, even sending a single HTTP request, so curious how you calibrate.
  - yetihehe 3y ago
    Easiest calibration: if the feature is already present to the client, requires ONLY pushing a secret button or sending a special one time request, but doesn't require any ongoing http requests or unpaid maintenance on provider side, then it should be free. Like cabin heating or snow chain deployers.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      So if you have a mass-produced product and you want some variable features available for customers’ different preferences and price points, you ought to have different manufacturing processes even if you can actually create that variation in software? That seems very wasteful IMO.
      - yetihehe 3y ago
        If it's cheaper to include hardware in all models than to make different hardware versions, that sounds like you shouldn't make users pay more for actually using the hardware that is already there.
- gruez 3y ago
  In this case it's not really clear that they're adding it to all cars. In all likelihood if the subscription scheme exists (which there's also no clear evidence that it is), you'd have to opt in to the expensive tires first.