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

Volkswagen locks horsepower behind paid subscription

autoexpress.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 325 posts

Re: Volkswagen locks horsepower behind paid subscription

#301

Post by Dylan16807 »

dylan604 wrote: post #205
gizmo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the manufacturer doesn't want to go through the trouble of creating a less powerful engine because it's not economically advantageous then the consumer should just get the better engine by default. It's ridiculous and insulting to buy a new car (a big purchase for many) to be presented with options where the manufacturer went through considerable effort to _make the car worse_. Manufacturers should be in fierce co…

They are getting the better engine. It’s right there in the car. The thing that is confusing people is it was introduced backwards, I’d imagine intentionally. As stated, it reads as if the engine is being crippled. If you fired up the engine, it would not have the max performance without tweaking the timings, but it would still work. So paying more for the higher model is paying for the software tweaks. It’s not much…

> So paying more for the higher model is paying for the software tweaks.

No way. If they were just making the lower model it would not have the same hardware. This was designed as a higher model and then limited, so you're paying for limiter removal.

But even if that was true, it would still be a very obnoxious sales practice. Those tweaks did not take very much effort and would be useful to almost all of their customers. Software tweaks that cost a miniscule percentage of the hardware cost should come with the hardware.

Re: Volkswagen locks horsepower behind paid subscription

#302

Post by Dylan16807 »

RaftPeople wrote: post #281
monooso wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should not think that you're paying more for getting less. You're paying more for something that you're not allowed to use.

> You're paying more for something that you're not allowed to use. You only pay more if you want the extra capability, otherwise you pay less than what the person paid that did want the extra capability.

Even if you don't pay the unlock, you're paying for the locked hardware.

Re: Volkswagen locks horsepower behind paid subscription

#304

Post by Dylan16807 »

koonsolo wrote: post #228
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #112

The really offensive part of this kind of thing is that you already paid for it. Like if you wanted to buy a regular car and you could get the engine with turbo then those are two different cars. The latter costing more because it has more/better stuff in it. This is all fine and good. In this case, all the cars have turbo and you pay to have it turned on or not. The cost of the turbo is in the cost of the normal car…

> This is abusive, wasteful, and should be illegal in my opinion. I don't agree with this. Let's say they make 2 engines, one normal one and one powerful one. Customer pay different price points. Now it turns out that making 2 different engines is actually pretty wasteful, and it's way more efficient to make 1 engine, and limit the possibilities for the lower price point (this is already happening). Now you come alon…

Going "back to the inefficient way" is wasteful, and artificial limiting is also wasteful. Nothing weird about two things both being bad.

In a competitive market they wouldn't be able to get away with either of those. Multiple companies that know how to make their lower end models better for free would do it, because they want more market share.

So we need to figure out how to get as close to that state as possible.

Also the proposed law wouldn't make multiple prices illegal.

Re: Volkswagen locks horsepower behind paid subscription

#305

Post by mdp2021 »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #256
mdp2021 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whom? Rational agents. That quality is an abater of relativism. > What would your goal be, then Livability. That requires working systems, so that choice is still possible. In the current situation, there is in many vast territories no choice, in many areas (not just cars), and greatly suboptimal, very thin livability.

Let me know when you find one of these "rational agents". I'd love to meet an extraterrestrial alien made of silicon. Again, livability "for whom?" Do you propose making cheap, accessible beachfront property a basic human right? Should we all live in equally-sized apartments given to us for free by the government? People do not all want the same thing.

> Let me know when you find one of these "rational agents".

Hi there.

> Again, livability "for whom?"

For the rational. The people who tend to dis-want electroshocking cutlery and miasmatic nail polish.

> Do you propose

That societies work on making citizens informed and rational, just like classic economic theory suggested and as is required for the common advantage.

Re: Volkswagen locks horsepower behind paid subscription

#306

Post by therealpygon »

reactordev wrote: post #200
dpkirchner wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The turbo example would be especially egregious because it adds complexity to the engine. You're paying for the hardware and paying more for all engine related repairs in the future. The same goes for BMW's infamous heated seat subscription.

I wish the smartcar didn’t suck so bad. We need alternatives to this “turn them upside down and shake the coins from them” approach to cars. We kind of screwed ourselves here in US because you have to drive places, you can’t walk. Even big cities aren’t that walkable (with the exception of a dozen neighborhoods sprinkled about a half dozen cities).

Sorry, but a large percentage of people have never left their home state. The US is effectively a collection of 50 countries that formed an American Union, so it sounds like you are suggesting that EU people would have no problem walking end-to-end across all of Europe, but that we are the ones who need cars.

Blaming dirt for political failures in providing better accessibility to transit seems like a pretty weird starting point for a discussion.

Re: Volkswagen locks horsepower behind paid subscription

#307

Post by egorfine »

I love software subscriptions.

Photoshop license was $750 and I had to save for months to purchase one - all in a country where no one ever purchases software. Then Adobe introduced subscription model which made Photoshop available for me at $10/m. So yeah, I'm all in on subscriptions.

Having said that, I feel like I will never ever give a single cent for a purely hardware switch subscription. This doesn't look fair from any perspective.

Re: Volkswagen locks horsepower behind paid subscription

#308

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #283
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see limiting HP with software as no different than charging extra to NOT take a hammer to windshield. The example seems a bit contrived and exaggerated. I don't think many people see things that way. A car with a suboptimally-tuned engine isn't equivalent to a car with a smashed windshield. The latter isn't even legal to drive. Also, thanks to the internet, you can know exactly the power output of the specific mo…

The example was of course exaggerated as it was intended to showcase the absurdity of the situation. You could of course replace the smashed windshield, with them ripping up the seats or spraying the interior with skunk smell. The point is they are making something worse about the car. And yes you can know these things before you buy, though with modern TOS, there's no saying they can't change the terms and further d…

> The point is they are making something worse about the car.

Put another way, they aren't tuning your car for you, and that's okay, because you never knew your 110 power car was even capable of putting out 150 if you tuned it. You looked up the specific car you were buying online, saw it was listed as having 110, and thus expected it to have 110 the whole time. Then, you drove it, felt 110, were happy with 110, and bought it. No surprises there.

> there's no saying they can't change the terms and further downgrade your performance unless you pay up

Sure, just like anybody selling you a car can later come and smash it and beat you up and take your wallet and steal your identity etc etc. None of those things seem to actually be happening though?

> My point is they shouldn't be allowed to do any of this in the first place.

Why not? Your viewpoint is fair and valid, but all you've shared so far in support of it is an analogy that doesn't fit and repeating that you don't think things should be this way.

Re: Volkswagen locks horsepower behind paid subscription

#309

Post by RaftPeople »

Jaygles wrote: post #293
RaftPeople wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not going to pretend that I'm not paying more and getting less when that is what's happening! I'm confused by this statement. You're only paying more if you want the extra capability. If you don't pay more you get the capability appropriate for the price you paid (based on the market and competition).

In this example aren’t the two engines equally capable, with one being held back artificially? I think what the other commenter is getting at, is that if the manufacturer puts a 300hp engine in a car but limits it to 250hp, they still need to charge enough to make a profit. If the manufacturer produced a cheaper 250hp engine for the 250hp car, they could probably charge less for the same profit. So it’s a double loss…

Understood your thinking and we don't know if that is the case or not, I can see a few different ways they could have handled it:

1-As you stated, full extra cost is paid by the buyer regardless of opting for extra capability, and that cost is non-trivial

2-Same as #1 but the cost is trivial due to some internal mfg conditions we are unaware of

3-Extra cost is non-trivial and is prorated across all units based on the expected rate of purchasing the extra capability and the overall revenue vs costs. So in this case it's a partial increase.

3-Extra cost is non-trivial but the buyer does not pay more than if they had used the less powerful engine, the buyers of extra capability are expected to fully fund the cost increase to the entire group of vehicles in the program. This could still be competitive with the market for the extra capability because people can pick and choose when they want to spend the money, that flexibility has value.

We don't really know how they handled the situation but I would be surprised if it was #1 because it would make the car less competitive for buyers that don't want the extra capability.

Re: Volkswagen locks horsepower behind paid subscription

#310

Post by xnx »

reorder9695 wrote: post #84

Seriously people selling a product at a fair price and that being that is a centuries old thing, why does everything need to be a subscription now just because it's possible?

Because customers tolerate it. Volkswagen would stop doing this tomorrow if there was a full boycott.
Post reply on HN