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

191–197 of 197 posts

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#191

Post by akoboldfrying »

Doxin wrote: post #158
akoboldfrying wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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)?

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#192

Post by akoboldfrying »

aconsult1 wrote: post #185
akoboldfrying wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Then suddenly you buy a car that has several kg of equipment that are not yours, but theirs, just so you could activate it with a subscription at a later point in time. Great! But now I'm the one paying gas/electricity to carry that extra load around that does not belong to me. How is it possible that they can get away with it without any lawsuits? I'd want to be compensated for carrying other people's crap around to…

>Then suddenly you buy a car that has several kg of equipment that are not yours

Well, you could read the contract, see that clause, and choose not to buy that particular car, couldn't you?

It's likely that there are other cars available to buy that don't have clauses like that in their contracts. But even if there aren't (either because this car manufacturer has a monopoly on cars where you live, or there's a cartel operating in which all car manufacturers secretly agree to adopt this type of clause): Do you feel you have a right to buy a car without a clause like that in the contract?

If your answer to that is "Yes, I have that right": Suppose for the sake of argument that this car company is a monopoly. What happens if it goes out of business, or decides to stop making cars altogether? Should they be prevented from doing so by law, in order that your right to buy such a car remains undisturbed?

If you live on a remote island, do you likewise have a right to buy a car with no such clause in the contract?

I'm interested in understanding what rights you feel people should be entitled to when it comes by buying things, and how you would have the government deal with the downstream implications of legally guaranteeing those rights.

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#193

Post by Doxin »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #191
Doxin wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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)?

> 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.

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#194

Post by gorkish »

booi wrote: post #80
cs0 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought a MyQ garage door system and I'm not required to pay any subscription fees to use the hub and sensors. Do you have any more info?

I think they're talking about if you want to integrate MyQ with other services you need to pay for their subscription. But that feature requires both engineering and ongoing hosting services from Chamberlain... so I don't know but it feels justified to have to pay a subscription for it. Using MyQ through their own app is free. If anything that seems like a deal to not have to pay subscription.

> If anything that seems like a deal to not have to pay subscription.

I'm gonna use this zinger at my next pitch meeting.

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#195

Post by gorkish »

stronglikedan wrote: post #50
gorkish wrote: post #31

Awesome! Now do Chamberlain MyQ who want you to charge you to open your own garage door!

That's easy ... aaand done! (They don't)

....aaaah but they do! MyQ premium is $1/mo; $10/yr or $299 lifetime and is required for any external integration outside of the Apple, Amazon, or Google ecosystems.

I'll forgive you if you weren't already aware that Chamberlain traded to a new PE firm shortly before all of this nonsense began to be introduced. IMO The only reason that the product remains subscription-free in any capacity is because that toothpaste had already been squeezed. I assure you, they see a future in subscribing to your garage door, and if you think otherwise, woe to you.

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#196

Post by akoboldfrying »

Doxin wrote: post #193
akoboldfrying wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

> 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 "…

Thanks for responding, and sorry for the slow reply.

>You can't charge a subscription for something someone already physically owns.

I suspect the contract is worded so that the buyer of "the car" actually does not own the seats, or perhaps the heaters in the seats. If that's the case, do you feel that such a contract clause should be illegal? If so, you're claiming that there are circumstances in which it should be illegal to "separate out" some things that are usually "bundled together" (here, car seat heaters and the rest of the car) -- what general rule would you propose to decide what things are unacceptable to separate out like this? (In case you're thinking of proposing "things that are physically connected can't be sold separately", you will run into problems: Lots of raw materials, e.g., steel, need to be cut up to be sold in the quantities customers need.)

But let's suppose the contract does not in fact leave ownership of any physical part of the car with the seller. If you buy a router from an ISP, are they not entitled to also charge you a monthly subscription to use it to access the internet?

Re: BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription

#197

Post by inferiorhuman »

vleaflet wrote: post #99
gumballindie wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My former BMW dashboard, the area below the satnav, has something that appears to have melted. It’s not the hard plastic that did it but something that appears to be a coating of some sort. It had a sunroof, and probably that caused it. The rear stopping lights circuits fried somehow, replaced them myself. Apparently water gets in? My porsche 981 had the roof peel off, and the door panels gradually ungluing. More wor…

Was your BMW manufactured in the US? Scott Kilmer gave this advice for American car buyers; make sure the BMW or Mercedes-Benz you're looking for was built in Germany! US versions apparently have terrible quality, not even close to EU standards.

Scotty Kilmer is a fucking moron, and his advice is worth what you paid for it. He's great at vomiting out old wives tales though.
Post reply on HN