Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscribe’ for basic features

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 215 posts

Re: Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscribe’ for basic features

#141

Post by kgermino »

chrisseaton wrote: post #137
kgermino wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is less to do with blackmail than to do with optimising manufacturing. It is cheaper for manufacurers to produce all the cars with the same heated seats, but not allow you to use them if you don't pay the recurring charge (as long as enough % of customers opt-in), than to manufacture two versions of the car, one with the seats and one without, just so that you can feel like you aren't being blackmailed. But th…

> But there's no connection between adding it to every car and charging a subscription to use it. There is - it means someone who bought the car not intending to use the feature, or who bought the car second-hand, can enable it later.

No, again you can charge people a one time cost to enable it. Whether that happens at initial purchase or years later (in app purchase style) doesn’t affect whether it’s a one time or recurring cost.

Re: Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscribe’ for basic features

#142

Post by neogodless »

chrisseaton wrote: post #107
omniglottal wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the contract is already broken when what is purchased is not owned.

That’s not what the article says - they aren’t going back on features you already purchased. It’s for new purchases only. They aren’t breaking any contracts.

I have to wonder if that's part of the paperwork at a dealership now.

"Sign this paper that says BMW/GM/Toyota/etc still owns and retains control over hardware X/Y/Z. You may utilize this part of your car as long as you continue paying $xx subscription fee."

In the good old days, you paid a dealership for a car and you had a car. Everything in the car was yours to use within the legal system of the country in which you reside. That you're now signing away your own rights in order to buy a car is not a good direction.

Re: Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscribe’ for basic features

#143

Post by josephcsible »

chrisseaton wrote: post #139
josephcsible wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost to them of the owner of the car using the heated seats is zero. The cost of making the car doesn't get used here because that would be double-counting it, since it was already counted in how profitable the sale of the car was.

They have to pay to put the heater into the car in the first place.

But since they paid that even if the owner never uses the heated seats and so never subscribes, it should be counted against the sale price of the vehicle itself and not against the subscription.

Re: Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscribe’ for basic features

#144

Post by chrisseaton »

kgermino wrote: post #141
chrisseaton wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But there's no connection between adding it to every car and charging a subscription to use it. There is - it means someone who bought the car not intending to use the feature, or who bought the car second-hand, can enable it later.

No, again you can charge people a one time cost to enable it. Whether that happens at initial purchase or years later (in app purchase style) doesn’t affect whether it’s a one time or recurring cost.

Just multiply the monthly cost by how many months you intend to use the car. Are you happy with that cost? Then what's the issue? Why does the monthly-ness wind everyone up so much?

Re: Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscribe’ for basic features

#145

Post by GuB-42 »

jacooper wrote: post #4

The smarter cars get, the worse they are for consumer rights and Privacy. Unfortunately its a general trend, everything that is getting "smartified" is becoming an anti consumer black box, and If you care about your privacy or owning the device you bought, you are out of luck. It happened with TVs, and now its coming for cars too, there might be options now but they won't last long, is there a dumb TV in your local s…

TVs became cheaper thanks to smartification, because networks pay for the privilege of having built-in support, and it more than compensates for the small increase in material cost.

The reason we don't have dumb TVs anymore is that very few people want to pay more for less.

About privacy, regulation is an option, but you have to realize that it goes against the will of most customers. The market has told us that people are ready to sell their private life to the highest bidder. We are often saying that it is greedy companies that do that, but in reality, by prioritizing price and features over privacy, that's our choice. There are companies that target the privacy market, and they have their niche.

Now, it is wouldn't be the only incidence of regulations that go against what consumers want because of higher goals. For example, people typically don't care about the environment, but it is important, that's why there are regulations in place to force consumers to pay for "greener" things. Same thing for safety, people don't always want to pay for safety (but they still complain later when an accident happen...), so they regulate it. And drugs, people like drugs, but since it is considered bad for them, these are regulated. Should we protect people privacy against themselves? Maybe, there are arguments for and arguments against, culturally, the US would be more likely say "no" and Europe would be more likely to say "yes", I don't really have an opinion.

Re: Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscribe’ for basic features

#146

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #127
chrisseaton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah they’re trying to get as much money as possible from you. They’re a business - that’s their reason for existing. When it’s a luxury good I can’t see any ethical issue in that. When I ask for a pay rise for doing the same job from my employer am I being unethical?

> When I ask for a pay rise for doing the same job from my employer am I being unethical? You're generally not doing the same job year over year. Your roles and responsibilities grow and evolve the longer you are there, so it makes sense that your pay would also grow with you.

What if your responsibilities/capabilities didn't change, and you merely realized that you're worth more to the business than what you're currently being paid?

Re: Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscribe’ for basic features

#147

Post by chrisseaton »

josephcsible wrote: post #143
chrisseaton wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have to pay to put the heater into the car in the first place.

But since they paid that even if the owner never uses the heated seats and so never subscribes, it should be counted against the sale price of the vehicle itself and not against the subscription.

> it should be counted against the sale price of the vehicle itself

But why? Why should they do that?

For example a band that plays a concert counts on extras like merchandise sales to cover costs. Should the ticket price cover all their costs and is it unethical to also offer merchandise if they need it to cover costs?

I can't understand the logic in this thread.

Re: Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscribe’ for basic features

#148

Post by mikewave »

horsawlarway wrote: post #122
vasco wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is less to do with blackmail than to do with optimising manufacturing. It is cheaper for manufacurers to produce all the cars with the same heated seats, but not allow you to use them if you don't pay the recurring charge (as long as enough % of customers opt-in), than to manufacture two versions of the car, one with the seats and one without, just so that you can feel like you aren't being blackmailed. You shou…

> This is for example how CPUs and GPUs are sold This is not true. They are binned by capability, and sold at different price points. I don't mind that idea - if it turned out installing heated seats failed in say... 28% of installations, fine - charge me more for a model with functioning heated seats. Instead - this is introducing a fixed, recurring charge, and undermining the concept of ownership. That heated seat…

> I don't mind that idea - if it turned out installing heated seats failed in say... 28% of installations, fine - charge me more for a model with functioning heated seats.

I know you just chose this as an example, but clearly it wouldn't be acceptable to anyone to have a failed installation of something like this. On one extreme, it could cause a fire; but otherwise, it's just a button that doesn't work, and damages the quality reputation of the car.

Processor binning only works because it is a black box, indistinguishable from the outside. You can purposely disable components if your yields get high enough, etc. and nobody will ever notice the difference.

For vehicles, automakers will learn from customers that this kind of nickel-and-diming is not appreciated, when people turn to other manufacturers that still "get it", e.g. Mazda.

Re: Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscribe’ for basic features

#149

Post by horsawlarway »

chrisseaton wrote: post #137
kgermino wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is less to do with blackmail than to do with optimising manufacturing. It is cheaper for manufacurers to produce all the cars with the same heated seats, but not allow you to use them if you don't pay the recurring charge (as long as enough % of customers opt-in), than to manufacture two versions of the car, one with the seats and one without, just so that you can feel like you aren't being blackmailed. But th…

> But there's no connection between adding it to every car and charging a subscription to use it. There is - it means someone who bought the car not intending to use the feature, or who bought the car second-hand, can enable it later.

So this means the manufacturer can conveniently side step doctrine of first sale, and continue generating revenue from secondary sales at absolutely no cost to themselves.

Pretty fun for them. Rent seeking usually is.

Pretty fucking terrible for everyone else. Perfect case of market failure, and an ideal target for regulation.

This kind of thing genuinely triggers disgust for me. Personally - I will NEVER buy from these brands again (and I'm in their target market for luxury cars). I'll also enthusiastically vote for politicians who propose regulation on this. In my opinion - nuke this bullshit from orbit.

Re: Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscribe’ for basic features

#150

Post by simonebrunozzi »

hammock wrote: post #136
charles_f wrote: post #32

I can somewhat understand the logic of charging me a recurring fee for a service that costs the provider a recurring cost, gets regular improvements, and where data is maintained. TV/sat radio? Ok (not that I would buy that). Remote tracking / start? Why not. Internet access in the car? Sure. Satellite maps with updates? Maybe. I would hope that given how much you charge me for the product, these come included, but M…

How is charging a recurring fee for these products any worse than a car lease, which also charges a recurring fee for use of a product? (Thought experiment, don’t downvote me just because)

No downvote needed, it's a genuine question, and I'll try to answer based on my view.

Leasing is just a different form of buying the car, in a sense. Yes, the contract/agreement is not equivalent to a purchase, but in essence what you are doing is transforming a set of unknowns (will I have to repair my car twice in the first three years? How much will I spend? How many kilometers will I drive?) with more known quantities ($X/month, Y miles per year included, etc), and you don't have to pay the car upfront, but pay a monthly installment. (approximation, give me some rope here).

Instead, paying a monthly fee to heat my car seats is an aberration of the economic model. It doesn't make any sense, from a customer perspective.

Of course, we are all moving towards a subscription economy, and most customers will simply be royally f*cked up by that, and regulation/government will turn the other way in most cases. Good luck to us.

Post reply on HN