If Mercedes offered an illuminated AMG badge for $1000/mo that did nothing more than flex the cash burn there would be buyers.
Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month
261–270 of 555 posts
Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month
#262I 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…
I will get downvoted to oblivion for this and apparently this makes me a simp. But if I buy the car and don’t care for the acceleration, then I can NOT book this feature. And in a competitive market, which the auto market is, this will mean that the MRSP for the car is lower for me than it would otherwise have been. Unbundling is part of what made air travel affordable. In a competitive market, unbundling lowers base…
Sure, but that doesn't mean a subscription is the consumer-friendly way to manage those costs.
If a buyer wants 500hp instead of 300hp, there should be a 1-time fee assessed at the time that feature is unlocked (traditionally at purchase because it required a whole different engine; now via app/cloud/magic because it's all software).
The only reason a subscription model should be foisted on the consumer is when the vendor has actual recurring costs to provide a service. In this case, they do not - it's a one time software update.
Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month
#263If you say "download more horsepower" again, CNN, it's curtains for you.
Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month
#264I 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…
I will get downvoted to oblivion for this and apparently this makes me a simp. But if I buy the car and don’t care for the acceleration, then I can NOT book this feature. And in a competitive market, which the auto market is, this will mean that the MRSP for the car is lower for me than it would otherwise have been. Unbundling is part of what made air travel affordable. In a competitive market, unbundling lowers base…
I believe that the statement "the car will be cheaper because there is a subscription add-on enhancing the amount of horsepower available" is false
This is a case of creative business modeling. I believe that companies should invest in creating good business models. They also shouldn't over complicate them
Given that, I believe that the subscriptions to unlock seat heaters are a worse example of this and not great for customer satisfaction. Specially since all those cars are already equipped with seat heaters and essentially artificially jailed by software
Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month
#265I 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…
> The average length of new car ownership in the US is between 8 and 11 years I would wager thats not actually true for Mercedes, they don't last that long before becoming a money pit. If you really want a Mercedes just lease then bail.
BMW posted their numbers recently - something like 90% of buyers of new BMWs keep them 3 years or less. I imagine it's somewhat similar for Mercedes.
Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will get downvoted to oblivion for this and apparently this makes me a simp. But if I buy the car and don’t care for the acceleration, then I can NOT book this feature. And in a competitive market, which the auto market is, this will mean that the MRSP for the car is lower for me than it would otherwise have been. Unbundling is part of what made air travel affordable. In a competitive market, unbundling lowers base…
Sure, but that doesn't mean a subscription is the consumer-friendly way to manage those costs. If a buyer wants 500hp instead of 300hp, there should be a 1-time fee assessed at the time that feature is unlocked (traditionally at purchase because it required a whole different engine; now via app/cloud/magic because it's all software). The only reason a subscription model should be foisted on the consumer is when the v…
In some ways, they do have costs - the on-going extra wear / load on everything in the vehicle, which presumably is covered by the warranty if you pay for this. That's not free, nor zero.
Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month
#267Fun fact: even without this addon those cars are way too fast for regular roads.
Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that doesn't mean a subscription is the consumer-friendly way to manage those costs. If a buyer wants 500hp instead of 300hp, there should be a 1-time fee assessed at the time that feature is unlocked (traditionally at purchase because it required a whole different engine; now via app/cloud/magic because it's all software). The only reason a subscription model should be foisted on the consumer is when the v…
In some ways, they do have costs - the on-going extra wear / load on everything in the vehicle, which presumably is covered by the warranty if you pay for this. That's not free, nor zero.
Sure, but that should be baked into the one-time fee.
The warranty period is known. The rate of failure is know. Etc.
And by your argument, once the warranty is done, the go-fast software should be free (or nearly so).
Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month
#269Earlier 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. 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…
I don't like a lot of the features in modern cars. That doesn't mean the world should be legislatively changed to suit my personal tastes. Because maybe I'm in the minority. But neither will I buy stuff I don't like; plenty of second-hand cars to go round.
> plenty of second-hand cars to go round.
Until Cash4Clunkers2.0 comes out and/or they’re regulated out of existence.
Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's curious that the market (almost?) always decides what is bad for the consumer and profitable for the companies. As a person who is a person not a company, I would rather we don't let the market decide so much about our lives. Examples: Smart (spying ad-showing) TVs, non-compete agreements, water heater rentals, not-really-unlimited "unlimited data" cell plans, surveillance economy, only-rentable-not-buyable soft…
Yeah, the market doesn't decide when there are only a few major players. The "market" didn't decide to exclude headphone jacks and SD cards on mobile phones. Apple went that direction and other companies followed suit. Customers had no real choice in those matters.
> Customers had no real choice in those matters.
Yes they did, they could vote with their wallet. And they voted for ear buds.
There's still plenty of phones with jacks out there by the way.