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

BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 197 posts

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#151

Post by sangnoir »

angarg12 wrote: post #119
jinushaun wrote: post #114

"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

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

> That's some serious gaslighting

Devil's advocate: how would you know if BMW subsidized what would have been an add-on package?

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#152

Post by beefield »

gabereiser wrote: post #143
ineptech wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that sweet, sweet heated seat revenue is the endgame here, I assume this is the POC for an in-car app store. (I say "is" rather than "was" because everybody bitched when they forced ads onto smart TVs and swore they'd never buy one, and yet it's nearly impossible to find a name brand TV without them. Won't be long before there's a monthly fee to mute the voice telling you what's on sale at every burger…

I solved that by not owning a TV. Sadly, you are probably right. It happened at the gas station pump, smart TV’s, now your OS. Tomorrow your car.

I solved that by buying a tv that was on sale (sales guy warned that they have gotten lots of returns because the smart features were somehow not so good on the model) and promptly never connected it to internet. So far no ads outside tv channels' own ads.

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#153

Post by onion2k »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #130

I don't understand the big deal, I look at the price and features and see if it makes sense for me. Nothing wrong with market segmentation. Some people want a fancy brand car as a checkbox but can only pay so much, for others a little extra is no big deal. The only way to find out who is who is offer different packages for different price, even if the differences are more economically controlled by software. Would an…

This way, wealthy consumers effectively subsidize hardware for less wealthy consumers.

That's not how this works. Everyone who buys the car is paying for the feature equally. All of the cost of the R&D, the materials, the labor to build the feature in your car, that's all in the price you pay to buy the car. The subscription is entirely an additional cost to use the feature you've paid for. Mercedes are not discounting the car for everyone and then making the discount back from subscriptions. They're nerfing the car and then charging people to unnerf it.

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#154

Post by akoboldfrying »

angarg12 wrote: post #119
jinushaun wrote: post #114

"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

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

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.

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#155

Post by bagels »

injidup wrote: post #117

Is it illegal to enable the seat heating yourself after purchasing the car without the seat heating plan? Is it even possible?

DMCA does make this illegal in the US. There are some carve-outs for automobiles, but not for modifications that circumvent subscriptions.

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#156

Post by dirtyid »

DrJokepu wrote: post #148
dirtyid wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voids warranty.

In the United Stated at least, federal law stipulates that modifications only void warranty if they can show that the modifications caused the failure.

My understanding is some dealers, especially BMW are dicks with any ECU tuning and will deny support. And then it's a question of whether it's worth hassle to go to court or eating the cost. Maybe that was just limited to messing with engine/transmission.

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#158

Post by Doxin »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #154
angarg12 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

> 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.

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#159

Post by gambiting »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #154
angarg12 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

I keep bringing up this example - it's like buying a house with a room that's walled off and you need to pay the developer extra money to have it opened up for use. The houses are made from prefabs so it's easier to just make every house the same but just wall off rooms you didn't pay for. The contract could stipulate this clearly - you are not paying for the room that's walled off.

Obviously, that's completely insane and I'm sure anyone can see this. Why treat cars differently?

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#160

Post by glimshe »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #154
angarg12 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

The argument "it was in the contract" doesn't connect with most people when the contract specifies something that is so strongly against common sense. The Libertarian desire of having almost arbitrary contract clauses, that is, anything goes as long as consenting adults are agreeing to it, resonates with me personally but I fully understand it's utopian. Most people simply don't think, and won't ever think, like that - and this is why BMW failed badly here.
Post reply on HN