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

491–500 of 555 posts

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

#491

Post by smeej »

jrockway wrote: post #149
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These complaints remind me of complaints I've heard about "day one" DLC (DownLoadable Content) in video games. For those unfamiliar, it's content which is available in the game upon its release but you have to pay extra for it. Sometimes, players are given the option to buy the Ultra Digital Deluxe Collector's Edition which comes with the DLC and "exclusive" shit (and also costs extra). If it's not rent seeking, it's…

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…

There's a big difference between something you rent and something you own.

You rent seats on planes. Some seats are more desirable than others, so you pay more to rent those. You rent access to their storage space. You rent access to their services. The seat doesn't come with food, so if you want the food they have on the plane, you buy that from them. If you don't, someone on the next flight will.

When you buy a car, ostensibly you own the car. It's your property. A company should not be able to disable features unless you pay them not to, indefinitely, on something you own.

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

#492

Post by smeej »

The relevant question is what you own when you purchase a car.

If I own something, nobody else should have the right to disable features of it remotely unless I pay them indefinitely.

If I've bought a car with an engine in it of some specific number of HP, it shouldn't be up to anyone else to tell me I can't actually use all the HP because I'm not paying them forever. That's some real mafia-type of arrangement.

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

#493

Post by smeej »

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.

I'm currently driving a car from 2007 because of how much I do not want the "connected" features that have become standard since the advent of smartphones.

I can't even find anyone who will sell me one with those features disabled. My only option is just to buy cars from before those features existed, and it gets harder every year.

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

#494

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

kelnos wrote: post #456
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These complaints remind me of complaints I've heard about "day one" DLC (DownLoadable Content) in video games. For those unfamiliar, it's content which is available in the game upon its release but you have to pay extra for it. Sometimes, players are given the option to buy the Ultra Digital Deluxe Collector's Edition which comes with the DLC and "exclusive" shit (and also costs extra). If it's not rent seeking, it's…

No, it's absolutely rent-seeking in the Mercedes case. Your DLC analogy doesn't hold water: when you buy the game, you are paying for the core game. The DLC costs time, money, and resources for the game studio to produce, and you're buying that separately. In the Mercedes case, they ship the car with the more-powerful motor already installed in it. The cost of it has been paid already. They just artificially limit it…

I think you might want to give my comment another read. It doesn’t seem we disagree as much as you believe.

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

#495

Post by feanaro »

lumb63 wrote: post #476
slg wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most of the free market theory that most normal people believe is based on the assumption of perfect competition[1]. However, that almost never actually occurs in the real world and even ends up being impossible in most cases. For example, there is always going to be a huge barrier to entry for automakers. They need to invest an enormous amount of time and money in design, factories, raw materials, labor, etc…

What are our alternatives? I’ve said in posts before that legislating against each anti-consumer product or feature is a fool’s errand. The legislature cannot keep up the rate at which corporate entities produce consumer-unfriendly products. I also don’t trust it to represent citizens rather than corporate donors, at least here in the US.

Pitchforks? Seriously though, your comment is way too defeatist. Legislature has worked for centuries for this problem. Imperfectly, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

But if all else fails, giant corporations are eventually going to get the good ol' pitchforks up their butt.

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

#496

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

burnished wrote: post #378
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These complaints remind me of complaints I've heard about "day one" DLC (DownLoadable Content) in video games. For those unfamiliar, it's content which is available in the game upon its release but you have to pay extra for it. Sometimes, players are given the option to buy the Ultra Digital Deluxe Collector's Edition which comes with the DLC and "exclusive" shit (and also costs extra). If it's not rent seeking, it's…

Seeing this as a problem with personal responsibility misses that the problem is structural. Culture as expressed through individual choices works great for many situations, but it does not fix broken dynamics. Besides, if you want to apply that axe put it against the people making those decisions to conduct business in that fashion. If your first thought is that it doesn't make sense to because then that person will…

I don’t feel personally responsible but recognize that I can take actions to avoid these things, at least in some cases. If I ever found a store (literally any kind) today that didn’t price almost everything at $X.99 they would have all of my business which they could support. However, I recognize that I’m just one person and ultimately these decisions primarily benefit me. That’s also why I advocate for it; the behavior can benefit those close to me if they happen to agree.

Indeed it is a systemic issue and I don’t claim to have a systemic solution. Even the personal solution is pretty shaky, considering the ubiquity of these practices. Oh well, it’s better than giving in.

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

#497

Post by justsomehnguy »

matwood wrote: post #335
justsomehnguy wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who said anything about gutting the performance? This is about adding a performance package that is software based. In the, albeit poor, iPhone analogy the performance camera package happens to come from a different company.

Well, if we are here for poor analogies, it's more like you gone to some 3rd-party shop and they flashed your ECU with a new firmware which gives you options your car hadn't before. And this is a thing already, for at least two decades, people are reprogramming the ECU to have more power. It's extremely popular.

What is similar in the both cases is what it's a 3rd-party option.

Look at my other comment in this thread, maybe it would be clearer what I mean.

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

#498

Post by zamnos »

josefresco wrote: post #52
zamnos wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At one point, the BMW M3 had a "launch" mode, which enabled a couple of bits to get the bragged about 0-60 time. The car computer also kept track of how many times it was used, and your warranty expired after 10 launches.

I've seen references to 30, 50 and 100 launches (now 10), and what seems like a lot of FUD in the BMW forums. Does anyone have a current/verified resource of this policy? It's gotta be buried in the fine print somewhere...

I read it Road and Track magazine or some such when I was a child. If it turns out to be apocryphal, I wouldn't be surprised.

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

#499

Post by lumb63 »

feanaro wrote: post #495
lumb63 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are our alternatives? I’ve said in posts before that legislating against each anti-consumer product or feature is a fool’s errand. The legislature cannot keep up the rate at which corporate entities produce consumer-unfriendly products. I also don’t trust it to represent citizens rather than corporate donors, at least here in the US.

Pitchforks? Seriously though, your comment is way too defeatist. Legislature has worked for centuries for this problem. Imperfectly, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But if all else fails, giant corporations are eventually going to get the good ol' pitchforks up their butt.

To the contrary, I think settling for a mechanism that (maybe) cleans up the damage after it’s done is defeatist.

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

#500

Post by dreamcompiler »

jrockway wrote: post #149
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These complaints remind me of complaints I've heard about "day one" DLC (DownLoadable Content) in video games. For those unfamiliar, it's content which is available in the game upon its release but you have to pay extra for it. Sometimes, players are given the option to buy the Ultra Digital Deluxe Collector's Edition which comes with the DLC and "exclusive" shit (and also costs extra). If it's not rent seeking, it's…

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…

The key here is that because the US government's antitrust division has been sitting on its hands for 40 years, there are now only 4 airlines in the US. This lack of competition means that all 4 can play this game (except Southwest, which has other problems) because there's not enough competition to stop it.

But there are more than 4 car companies. There's enough competition to stop this kind of horseshit, which is a fact Mary Barra seems not to recognize.

Post reply on HN