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

Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 555 posts

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#141

Post by aidenn0 »

ajross wrote: post #108
GiorgioG wrote: post #2

It won’t be my interest in saving the planet that stops me from buying cars, it’ll be bullshit like this. I want to own my car. I don’t want it to be connected (beyond acting as a hotspot) to the internet or to some central service. Have we not learned anything?

> I don’t want [my car] to be connected [...] to the internet Really? No remote access, security notifications, navigation facilities? No watching TV while charging? No OTA updates that obviate the need to take it to the dealership for routine fixes? No open source location analytic API? I mean, I'm sure there's some bad stuff that happens too. But this is very much throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I won't t…

> Really? No remote access, security notifications, navigation facilities? No watching TV while charging? No OTA updates that obviate the need to take it to the dealership for routine fixes? No open source location analytic API?

I've never owned a car that does any of these. I'm very happy with my car. I do not see the benefits of them outweighing the downsides.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#142

Post by rootusrootus »

mikestew wrote: post #88
rootusrootus wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it have to be a startup? You can buy a dumb EV for under $30K today from GM. And yeah, it does sell pretty well. The vast, vast majority of EVs sold today are not forcing subscriptions of any kind on their customers. A couple minor carmakers are trying a new business model.

The vast, vast majority of EVs sold today are not forcing subscriptions of any kind on their customers. It's funny that you mention GM, because guess what GM wants to do with EVs starting next model year? https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a43488135/gm-apple-carplay... (Last line of the article if you want to jump to the spoiler.)

We can worry about that next year. I fully expect GM to walk back some of it's recent announcements based on strongly negative feedback from customers.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#143

Post by dh2022 »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #90
entrox wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You will be charged fucking $6000 dollars for a item that is already present in your car. How so? The one-time fee is $1950. Also, this is nothing new: top end Mercedes-AMG cars always had an optional "AMG Driver's Package" [0] for years now, which did nothing but electronically unlock Vmax from 250km/h to 290km/h. No changes in hardware at all. It used to retail for around $2500. Now you have the possibility to or…

> You might not like it, but it's actually a better deal than before. So if Apple would ask you for a nice $10/m to use their famous iPhone camera features you would be okay with that, because otherwise you would be fine with 8MP photos or pay additional $10 * 12m * 3y = $360 upfront? Of course, no changes in hardware at all. And the price of iPhone is the same, not $360 cheaper.

Peak humanity in this thread:) The trade-offs are driving a Mercedes at 250 km/h vs 295 km/h; or some Apple camera with three lenses vs one lens. I am so glad I live in a country where I have to make these choices.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#144

Post by ajross »

r00fus wrote: post #132
ajross wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> RENT FUCKING SEEKING. That's not rent seeking. Rent seeking is when an entity has control of something that can't be traded in a liquid/efficient way (this part is important!) and tries to leverage this uncompetetive situation into revenue that isn't subject to market forces. Cars are pretty liquid. Subscription products are very liquid. If people don't want this they won't buy it. If they don't want cars with this…

> That's exactly the opposite of rent seeking. Untrue. They aren't monopoly rents but they are rents. Can you get better performance from your Mercedes EV through another provider? No? It's rent.

> Can you get better performance from your Mercedes EV through another provider? No?

No, but you can sell it and buy a Tesla. Having more features is just "selling a better product". By that standard any optional feature on a market-leading product is "rent-seeking", and that's silly. Is the App Store rent seeking? Is selling junk on Fortnite rent seeking?

No, that's just "selling products". Rent seeking is a specific form of market distortion, and the concept just doesn't apply to consumer products. It's about stuff like real estate control or regulatory capture. As always Wikipedia has a great page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#145

Post by rwc »

ajross wrote: post #104
horsawlarway wrote: post #38

I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…

> RENT FUCKING SEEKING. That's not rent seeking. Rent seeking is when an entity has control of something that can't be traded in a liquid/efficient way (this part is important!) and tries to leverage this uncompetetive situation into revenue that isn't subject to market forces. Cars are pretty liquid. Subscription products are very liquid. If people don't want this they won't buy it. If they don't want cars with this…

"Rent seeking" does not mean "seeking to charge rental fees" but that seems to be how it's being used by GP and others here.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#147

Post by dh2022 »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #114
atlantic wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like it, just don't buy cars whose performance is artificially limited. Let the market decide the issue.

>If you don't like it, just don't buy cars whose performance is artificially limited. Let the market decide the issue. You are unfortunately one of the apologetic quote, "dickfucks", endquote the parent was referring too. When all players eventually do this, where will you got to buy? There is no more free market left in the auto industry after a century of consolidations. We're at the mercy of a few giant automakers…

You don't have to use bad words. But since you brought it up - here is a recent lesson. Consumers do not like touch screens and it seems car makers are listening: https://slate.com/business/2023/04/cars-buttons-touch-screen...

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#148

Post by entrox »

beerpls wrote: post #118
horsawlarway wrote: post #38

I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…

Thank you for being a voice of righteousness in a sea of simps. It’s hard to tell on this site, are people really this devoted to corps or are they shills? Even with what you said there are still so many people defending this behavior. The world is full of weak and/or deceitful people.

Take a look at the profit margin (and market valuation) of automotive companies and compare them to tech companies. Now also make a comparison of average developer/engineer salaries at both.

Is it not OK for the automotive folks to get to the same level as their FAANG brethren?

Disclaimer: I work for an automotive OEM.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#149

Post by jrockway »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #70
horsawlarway wrote: post #38

I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…

These complaints remind me of complaints I've heard about "day one" DLC (DownLoadable Content) in video games. For those unfamiliar, it's content which is available in the game upon its release but you have to pay extra for it. Sometimes, players are given the option to buy the Ultra Digital Deluxe Collector's Edition which comes with the DLC and "exclusive" shit (and also costs extra). If it's not rent seeking, it's…

Isn't this all the same thing as what airlines did after 9/11? You pay the fare and get a seat. Want it to not be a middle seat? That's $50. Want to carry on a bag? That's $50. Want to check a bag? That's $50. Want to check out the lounge before you depart? That's $50. Want some WiFi? That's $50. Want a snack? That's $50. Now your flight is $200 more than the quoted fare. (OK OK you can probably get WiFi and a snack for less than $50.)

Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying. So why would any rational company not try to use this business model? Your AAA game gets to be $59.99 + $0.99 download, and your competitor's game is $60.00. Sort by price ascending makes you the top result, but you actually get $0.99 more money with each copy sold.

You are right that legislation is the only answer to curb this abuse. Consumers fall for it hook/line/sinker. Companies can't resist free money.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#150

Post by [deleted] »

atlantic wrote: post #111
horsawlarway wrote: post #38

I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…

If you don't like it, just don't buy cars whose performance is artificially limited. Let the market decide the issue.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN