401–410 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have we not learned anything? The "you will own nothing" advocates will continue to keep pushing for stuff like this.
> The "you will own nothing" advocates will continue to keep pushing for stuff like this. Who are these "advocates"?
https://www.xda-developers.com/mercedes
I guess there won't be a need as I hope people won't touch a Mercedes while crap like this exists.
I'll keep rolling in my 69.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this all the same thing as what airlines did after 9/11? You pay the fare and get a seat. Want it to not be a middle seat? That's $50. Want to carry on a bag? That's $50. Want to check a bag? That's $50. Want to check out the lounge before you depart? That's $50. Want some WiFi? That's $50. Want a snack? That's $50. Now your flight is $200 more than the quoted fare. (OK OK you can probably get WiFi and a snack…
> Now your flight is $200 more than the quoted fare. > Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying. Nobody "loves" it. They just have to put up with it because even for people who know what they're doing with flight searches, the only way to dig into all that dark pattern shit is to have fifty browser tabs open comparing the fine details of different flights. If it was possible to, say, compare…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
This study says 3% - 6%. [0]
The fact that inefficient vehicles exist doesn't seem like a reason to make more efficient ones even more efficient.
[0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S111001682...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software as a service is a continuous operation. Cars aren't. Not hypocritical at all. No one cares that they want to be as profitable as big techs. We want to own our damn cars. We want to accelerate as much as we want. It's that simple and requires no further justification. We take issue with big techs locking down computers too. No problem with them running whatever they want on their servers but we want to run wh…
>Software as a service is a continuous operation. I would pay to get software not as a service. Fuck your updates, I don't want bloody updates that end up breaking my stuff and wasting my time. Give me one version, no updates and no support, and I will give you top dollars. If I want an update I'll come back to repeat the process again, giving you top dollars again, several years down the road. Are big purchases ever…
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…
If you don't like it, just don't buy cars whose performance is artificially limited. Let the market decide the issue.
Sure, all those terms were written into the purchase contract, but with dozens of subscriptions, what sane owner wants to stay on top of all those options, activations, and deactivations?
Will the carmaker let you upgrade your software without buying new hardware? Don't bet on it. Not if there's a chance to suck more money out of your generous wallet.
Screw all that. While I much prefer to own cars with elan, I'll buy a Honda just to avoid being jerked around. And after a couple decades of owning BMWs, that's just what I did. No more hostage-taker carmakers for me.
In fact, that's why Jay Leno doesn't own a Ferrari: jackass sales tactics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would my car, that I purchased, have ads at all?
For the same reason windows pro shows me ads in the start menu and pesters me to purchase office 365.
Still, I don't want to have subscriptions for basic auto features like heated seats and how fast the car can go. I don't even like that Tesla makes you pay for access to the full battery, but at least that is a one-time purchase.
Earlier 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.
Are there any recent examples when a boycott worked? That did not work for dumb TV's and privacy-oriented business phones like Blackberry. Sometimes when market converges to the cheaper and more predatory choices, and that kills the market segment that was normal in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it really amusing that you think you need to be a millionaire to own one of these, but whatever - that's not a core of this argument. The point is that everywhere outside of the powerhouse first world economies runs on second hand cars imported from those economies. I'd know - in my country most cars are ex-german cars. And then once we're done with them, they go to Ukraine(or they used to). Then after that th…
I don't believe that, I've met people living on minimum wage with brand new mercedes, and I call those people brain dead. Buying a six figures car only makes sense if you're a millionaire. EV cars are most likely not going to be exported to have a second life.
Well, that's absolutely inevitable given how things are going. It might not be in the next 10 years, but in 30? Almost certainly guaranteed.