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

301–310 of 555 posts

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

#301

Post by olyjohn »

entrox wrote: post #167
jwilber wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re completely ignoring the customer (people like you) in favor of the (already mega rich) corporations. What a mindset.

> You’re completely ignoring the customer (people like you) in favor of the (already mega rich) corporations. What a mindset. No, I want the company I work for to have similar profit margins as FAANG and thus increase my compensation. Do you also attack those employees because their companies are charging extra for pure software unlocks or subscriptions?

So you're fine with fucking over the customer, as long as you get your cut of the compensation? Is that what you're saying?

As long as tech companies do it, I guess it's fine if everybody does it, because profits, and you get a cut of it?

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

#302

Post by justsomehnguy »

matwood wrote: post #134
justsomehnguy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There are a number of pay for apps like Halide that make the iPhone camera more useful beyond what Apple provides using the same underlying hardware.

How is this relevant to the manufacturers extorting a subscription for the existing hardware? It's totaly up to you take to pay or not for Halide. Halide doesn't gut your iPhone cameras performance if you didn't pay them.

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

#303

Post by wcarron »

recursive wrote: post #246
wcarron wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IT. IS. A. CAR! It takes you from Point A to Point B! Nobody needs to watch TV in their car! Nobody needs subscription services for heated seats or 0.2s off your 0-60mph time! Nobody needs cameras replacing their sideview mirrors! Get rid off all this bullshit in vehicles. 6-speed manual, adjustable seats, a GPS/nav screen and radio/aux, and a damn cupholder is all anyone needs from a car. Everything else is just a b…

> Nobody needs cameras replacing their sideview mirrors This measurably improves fuel economy. Not sure why it's grouped with the others.

Because it's another huge failure point of more software and significantly increases cost and complexity when the aerodynamic gains from no mirrors are negligible, especially considering the absolute monstrous size and brick like shape (terrible cda) of SUVs, trucks, and 'crossovers' that are extremely popular today.

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

#304

Post by goodluckchuck »

konschubert wrote: post #245
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…

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…

Does the same apply to medical care?

Should doctors cripple children that are born unless their parents charge extra to allow them to walk?

In both cases the product is initially created with the ability, and it’s a competitive market where the parents who are okay with this can save money on their birth expenses…

Edit: This “service” is waste, and morally reprehensible like burning a perfectly good house down, or shooting a deer and letting it lie to waste. Mercedes does not gain any additional capacity by reducing individual cars ability.

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

#305

Post by danbolt »

entrox wrote: post #148
beerpls wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it might be if automobiles weren’t such a necessary item in many parts of the world. Or, for many people in North America you require a car to engage in society.

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

#306

Post by rolodato »

xeromal wrote: post #183
beerpls wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Simps is a strange choice of words for a post on hackernews.

I think bootlicker is a stronger but more appropriate word. I genuinely cannot believe people support being sold a fully standalone physical product and being charged just for the ability to use it, while thinking it is in their best interest.

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

#307

Post by zymhan »

konschubert wrote: post #285
lopiar_zen wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's absolutely false. You are painting the picture as if the car maker will sell you a high performance model (with all the necessary parts for performance) at a lower cost. No they will sell you that model with all their profit margin and then charge you extra monthly for the performance.

this is untrue in a competitive market

This is often raised as a caveat when a business does something anti-consumer.

Maybe it's worth accepting that businesses will not behave as you expect.

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

#308

Post by shortcake27 »

alistairSH wrote: post #262
konschubert wrote: post #245

Earlier 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…

If you bothered to click on the article before commenting, you would know that Mercedes gives customers the option to buy it outright or pay a subscription.

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

#309

Post by wcarron »

bluGill wrote: post #195
wcarron wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IT. IS. A. CAR! It takes you from Point A to Point B! Nobody needs to watch TV in their car! Nobody needs subscription services for heated seats or 0.2s off your 0-60mph time! Nobody needs cameras replacing their sideview mirrors! Get rid off all this bullshit in vehicles. 6-speed manual, adjustable seats, a GPS/nav screen and radio/aux, and a damn cupholder is all anyone needs from a car. Everything else is just a b…

I don't even want the GPS: my phone already has maps that are better than what is in the car: they update in real time for current traffic.

Sure, even that's a luxury, but cars already have a display for audio, and it makes sense to have an in-built nav system (would be great if you could simply select the mapping/nav software from a list like a: goog, b: apple, c: OSM, and have it only do directions). This reduces the need for a 2nd, handheld or mounted device which has the potential for increased distraction. Navigation is a core function of travel, which is the primary purpose of a vehicle.

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

#310

Post by phantom784 »

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…

Even worse - if you pay for the subscription and then later sell the car, you don't get anything back and the next owner doesn't get the feature unless they pay as well.

If you pay to have it permanently, you can probably recoup some of the cost when you sell. (Unless Mercedes does something so that the feature is gone once you sell, which I wouldn't put past them)

Post reply on HN