BMW heated seats subscription costs $18 per month in South Korea(motor1.com)
motor1.com
BMW heated seats subscription costs $18 per month in South Korea
https://www.motor1.com/news/597376/bmw-heated-seats-subscription/
395 comments
I think people over-estimate that because most EVs are very new. Of course this is n=1 type data, but the service cost on engine related things for my several years old BMW are quite low compared to other items. They replace the oil once the computer wants it, which is every 30,000 to 40,000km, so less than once a year for most users. And that's all engine costs I've had over the years.
But I do have maintenance costs associated with this type of car. It's more things like replacing tires at least once a year (which I think high torque EVs will do even faster), then at about 100k miles they replaced the wishbones / control arms.
Those things get more expensive on high-end cars with things like software damper control, larger rims etc, all of which Tesla (just picking an EV) also has.
But I do have maintenance costs associated with this type of car. It's more things like replacing tires at least once a year (which I think high torque EVs will do even faster), then at about 100k miles they replaced the wishbones / control arms.
Those things get more expensive on high-end cars with things like software damper control, larger rims etc, all of which Tesla (just picking an EV) also has.
Fully agree.
Maintenance costs for my gen 1 Ioniq are ca 60% compared to my previous ICE Kia. Of course this is a welcome change, but it‘s not like switching to an EV means no costs beside electricity.
The power train per se will probably never need paid maintenance, but they do check the coolant and brakes lines every year, clean the AC, resolve system warnings, replace filters etc.
And then there’s tires - you can easily pay 2k for new 22“ rims + tires, and expect a sporty EV to go through those tires quickly. In most regions you‘ll also change tires regularly, which alone can cost 200 bucks per year in a shop (including balancing which is a good idea if you‘re into driving fast).
Tire costs dilute EV savings a lot, to put it mildly.
Maintenance costs for my gen 1 Ioniq are ca 60% compared to my previous ICE Kia. Of course this is a welcome change, but it‘s not like switching to an EV means no costs beside electricity.
The power train per se will probably never need paid maintenance, but they do check the coolant and brakes lines every year, clean the AC, resolve system warnings, replace filters etc.
And then there’s tires - you can easily pay 2k for new 22“ rims + tires, and expect a sporty EV to go through those tires quickly. In most regions you‘ll also change tires regularly, which alone can cost 200 bucks per year in a shop (including balancing which is a good idea if you‘re into driving fast).
Tire costs dilute EV savings a lot, to put it mildly.
With regard to tire costs… for any EV owners in the US make sure to buy tires at a place that honors the tread wear warranty. Although my tires are high end which hurts the wallet, I regularly get $500 - $600 tread wear warranty credit applied to the purchase because I remember to ask for it, bringing the cost down a lot.
Costco is the absolute worst for this in my experience. They won’t honor the warranty until the tread level is dangerous. Discount Tires (also branded as America’s Tires in some states) is the best and they’re all over which is handy on road trips.
Costco is the absolute worst for this in my experience. They won’t honor the warranty until the tread level is dangerous. Discount Tires (also branded as America’s Tires in some states) is the best and they’re all over which is handy on road trips.
Someone into "driving fast" in an ICE will also go through tires quickly, so there's no added tire cost.
well on an ev you go through tires more quickly if you drive it in a regenerative style.
on an ice on the other hand you will less likely go through a lot of tires if you go for the smallest consumption.
the driving styles just differ enormously if you want to get the maximum range out of a car.
> It's more things like replacing tires at least once a year (which I think high torque EVs will do even faster), then at about 100k miles they replaced the wishbones / control arms.
I've not heard of tires that need replacing once a year, unless you are doing an insane amount of driving. Tires are generally lasting 50k, 60k, even 85k miles. Can you elaborate on the scenarios that require yearly tire replacements?
I've not heard of tires that need replacing once a year, unless you are doing an insane amount of driving. Tires are generally lasting 50k, 60k, even 85k miles. Can you elaborate on the scenarios that require yearly tire replacements?
Definitely not true for any kind of safe quality tires. Safety means good dry and wet grip, convenience means noise level, and economy means wear.
Wear for anything quality and safe is maximum 40-50k km, the better performing tire the less. Yeah cheap (mostly) chinese crappy unsafe tires will last much more, but its due to them being too hard and have very little grip, especially in wet.
It means difference between being perfectly safe in 120kmh in moderate rain/snow vs being scared shitless that next bend may kill you (and car certainly behaves like that), so you drive 70-80kmh and become an obstacle to others in very low-visibility and high danger situation.
Definitely not worth saving on tires, ever.
Wear for anything quality and safe is maximum 40-50k km, the better performing tire the less. Yeah cheap (mostly) chinese crappy unsafe tires will last much more, but its due to them being too hard and have very little grip, especially in wet.
It means difference between being perfectly safe in 120kmh in moderate rain/snow vs being scared shitless that next bend may kill you (and car certainly behaves like that), so you drive 70-80kmh and become an obstacle to others in very low-visibility and high danger situation.
Definitely not worth saving on tires, ever.
Low profile tires do not last 50k much less 85k miles. Lots of BMW tires are front/rear and left/right which means you can’t rotate. People on the X7 forms said they had to start changing tires around 20-25k.
My coworker had a Leaf and said he went through rear tires 2x as fast.
My coworker had a Leaf and said he went through rear tires 2x as fast.
This. For example a BMW 550i eats rear tires under heavy acceleration and front tires under sporty cornering, because it's not a light weight car. Worse for low-profile and sporty tires, better grip but softer rubber.
A BMW 550i has similar horse power as a Tesla Model 3 performance, but I think like any EV the Tesla delivers even more low-end torque. So it can kill tires even faster, and it's all-wheel-drive...
A BMW 550i has similar horse power as a Tesla Model 3 performance, but I think like any EV the Tesla delivers even more low-end torque. So it can kill tires even faster, and it's all-wheel-drive...
The BMW tires are about $200 more expensive then the Tesla. In 5-7 years the Tesla would be drastically less in maintenance but in years 4-5 the BMW could be less if you need to throw an extra set on the Tesla. Not sure I’d want a 550i outside of an extended warranty. However, newer BMW v8 twin turbos are a LOT more reliable than the first couple generations.
Tesla economics are much better because by 2021 you'll be able to use it as a Robotaxi in the Tesla network. You'll keep 70% of the revenue while you're just sitting at home.
When FSD launches in 2021, you'll also be able to work your tech job while you're driving to work, earning you extra money if you're hourly, or extra time if you're salaried.
[deleted]
Similar HP…but not Torque. :-)
That's what I said :-) but now I've Googled it and it isn't really true they're both around the 600 Nm range. But I think the delivery is still different, EVs deliver peak torque directly from standstill, which is the worst option for the tires.
> Tires are generally lasting 50k, 60k, even 85k miles.
I would not want to be in a car with a tire that lasts 85K miles.
Tires come in all kinds of compounds for different conditions but in general, the grippier the tire (i.e. better braking, better turning) the shorter the lifetime.
Race tires take this to the extreme, maximizing grip at all cost and they only last as little as a few hundred miles.
That would be silly for street use of course, but the general pattern stands. Less wear = less grip. I buy top performance street tires for maximum safety, the tradeoff being they'll last about 15k-25k miles depending on the car.
Other factors that have a big influence on tire life is car weight and acceleration. EVs are both very heavy and (most of them) fast accelerating. So tire life is bound to be less than on an otherwise similar ICE car.
I would not want to be in a car with a tire that lasts 85K miles.
Tires come in all kinds of compounds for different conditions but in general, the grippier the tire (i.e. better braking, better turning) the shorter the lifetime.
Race tires take this to the extreme, maximizing grip at all cost and they only last as little as a few hundred miles.
That would be silly for street use of course, but the general pattern stands. Less wear = less grip. I buy top performance street tires for maximum safety, the tradeoff being they'll last about 15k-25k miles depending on the car.
Other factors that have a big influence on tire life is car weight and acceleration. EVs are both very heavy and (most of them) fast accelerating. So tire life is bound to be less than on an otherwise similar ICE car.
Absolutely. I've had my Model Y for about 1.5 years (14,500 miles). Recently, I've had to replace the rear tires due to slow pressure loss. Supporting 5,000 pounds certainly increases wear and tear; alas, they don't come cheap [0].
At least the "run-flat" design is worth it for long road trips, the ability to re-inflate, and increased storage space.
[0] https://tsportline.com/products/continental-procontact-rx-25...
At least the "run-flat" design is worth it for long road trips, the ability to re-inflate, and increased storage space.
[0] https://tsportline.com/products/continental-procontact-rx-25...
> Tires are generally lasting 50k, 60k, even 85k miles.
Probably depends on road conditions. Where I'm at good tyres — my criteria being soft ride, good grip, low noise — last at most 40k km. But then the roads here aren't exactly the best.
Not just tyres, even things like oil, filters, engine mounts etc need to be changed more frequently where I'm at, compared to Western countries.
Probably depends on road conditions. Where I'm at good tyres — my criteria being soft ride, good grip, low noise — last at most 40k km. But then the roads here aren't exactly the best.
Not just tyres, even things like oil, filters, engine mounts etc need to be changed more frequently where I'm at, compared to Western countries.
Very heavy and fun-to-drive cars like Teslas (all that battery weight) go through them faster.
>I think people over-estimate that because most EVs are very new
And they're expensive. So the people who can afford them were already the kind of people driving well kept newish stuff so all they got to experience were recalls and the early part of the bathtub curve.
Parts on a car more or less wind up needing to be serviced more or less in direct correlation to hose close to the road they are. But if you're trading in every ~5yr your experience you won't see that because your experience will all be the early failures part of the bathtub curve.
Basically everyone doing all the talking right now doesn't know what they don't know.
And they're expensive. So the people who can afford them were already the kind of people driving well kept newish stuff so all they got to experience were recalls and the early part of the bathtub curve.
Parts on a car more or less wind up needing to be serviced more or less in direct correlation to hose close to the road they are. But if you're trading in every ~5yr your experience you won't see that because your experience will all be the early failures part of the bathtub curve.
Basically everyone doing all the talking right now doesn't know what they don't know.
I don't think this is the biggest reason. It's because most cars now come with always-online LTE modems and everything is software-controlled. Couple that with a product VP who wants to make his bones and you get "turn everything into a continuing revenue stream." Doesn't matter whether the car is electric or ICE.
IOW, they're doing it because they can.
The solutions are:
1. Don't buy these cars.
2. Hack the software and share that knowledge.
3. Install a 50-cent switch to apply power to the seat heaters directly.
4. Disable the goddamned modem and share that knowledge too.
IOW, they're doing it because they can.
The solutions are:
1. Don't buy these cars.
2. Hack the software and share that knowledge.
3. Install a 50-cent switch to apply power to the seat heaters directly.
4. Disable the goddamned modem and share that knowledge too.
Renting stuff is economically efficient as long as you don't let the actual owners abuse the relationship to their benefit.
We've not had a good track record of that in the past, but still worth keeping in mind as a general principle.
We've not had a good track record of that in the past, but still worth keeping in mind as a general principle.
So I'm going to jump on you here because this line is wrong, in this case.
> Renting stuff is economically efficient as long as you don't let the actual owners abuse the relationship to their benefit.
Renting is economically efficient when there is a limited supply of the item, and renting allows the item to be used more often & efficiently then it would with if it were owned.
A simple example: It is much more efficient to have a single lawn-mower that you and your neighbors can rent, rather than having every lawn owner buy a mower that sits unused 99% of the time. It is cheaper to rent than buy so the folks save money on mower expense, less waste is produced because there are fewer mowers, and the item sits idle far less. The downside is the coordination required to use the rented item - it may not always be available, or available when any given person would like it to be.
NONE OF THAT FUCKING MATTERS WHEN THE ITEM IN QUESTION IS HEATED SEATS!!!!
No one is able to use those "rented" heated seats when you're not using them. They will never be taken out of the car. There is literally no way to more efficiently allocate this item when rented rather than bought, unless the entire car is rented (in which case... moot point).
So this case cannot be anything other than abuse by owners. There are no efficiency savings to be had. The item won't be allocated more efficiently, it will just provide additional revenue.
Essentially - the argument that renting is more efficient UTTERLY fails when the item being rented is essentially the on/off switch to a thing built into an item you own. It's ALWAYS going to stay part of the item you own, and there is no way to re-allocate it when you are not renting it.
This is a scummy, scummy move. It should be illegal.
> Renting stuff is economically efficient as long as you don't let the actual owners abuse the relationship to their benefit.
Renting is economically efficient when there is a limited supply of the item, and renting allows the item to be used more often & efficiently then it would with if it were owned.
A simple example: It is much more efficient to have a single lawn-mower that you and your neighbors can rent, rather than having every lawn owner buy a mower that sits unused 99% of the time. It is cheaper to rent than buy so the folks save money on mower expense, less waste is produced because there are fewer mowers, and the item sits idle far less. The downside is the coordination required to use the rented item - it may not always be available, or available when any given person would like it to be.
NONE OF THAT FUCKING MATTERS WHEN THE ITEM IN QUESTION IS HEATED SEATS!!!!
No one is able to use those "rented" heated seats when you're not using them. They will never be taken out of the car. There is literally no way to more efficiently allocate this item when rented rather than bought, unless the entire car is rented (in which case... moot point).
So this case cannot be anything other than abuse by owners. There are no efficiency savings to be had. The item won't be allocated more efficiently, it will just provide additional revenue.
Essentially - the argument that renting is more efficient UTTERLY fails when the item being rented is essentially the on/off switch to a thing built into an item you own. It's ALWAYS going to stay part of the item you own, and there is no way to re-allocate it when you are not renting it.
This is a scummy, scummy move. It should be illegal.
I think the assumption in the case you are presenting is that efficiency is viewed from the POV of the use of resources aggregated over the whole society. There are other POVs, such as it being more cost or production speed or resource or factory floor space efficient for BMW or their suppliers to maintain one product line as opposed to two, or it being more cost efficient for owners to have the option to turn on the feature temporarily or permanently as opposed to having to have the feature installed afterwards (which may depend on the percentage of owners who turn on the feature).
I think an analogy could be a software package which have some subscription features. The features are already contained in the software, but paying for the subscription would turn it on, and stopping the subscription would turn it off. Regardless of whether you are subscribed or not, it's taking up storage space, although I suppose the low cost of storage makes a difference in degree (but not in kind).
I think an analogy could be a software package which have some subscription features. The features are already contained in the software, but paying for the subscription would turn it on, and stopping the subscription would turn it off. Regardless of whether you are subscribed or not, it's taking up storage space, although I suppose the low cost of storage makes a difference in degree (but not in kind).
To be clear - all of the items you've listed would probably fall into the "owner is abusing the renter" category.
I'm becoming more and more hostile to "we've sold you product that has a little man inside who only obeys us" style approach, and to tackle your software example - I find it just as hostile there (I actually refuse to purchase Apple products because you absolutely do not own any device you've purchased from them).
I'll pay for a subscription service that has a genuine recurring cost for the company (ex: I'm using their networks and servers to process data as part of that subscription). But this new world where companies try to make you pay a subscription to get access to static content (or in this case: literal hardware) that lives nowhere except on devices you own is not something I find morally or ethically acceptable.
Frankly - my strong opinion at this point is: If I own a device, I legally must be provided with a key to EVERY lock the device has: physical or digital. No more "you own the phone, but we kept the keys" or in this exact case: "you own the seat heater, but we kept the on/off switch"
Would you think it's acceptable to have BMW stop providing you the ignition and door keys? "Just call us up and we'll unlock the car! (for a small subscription charge)" fuck that horseshit. That's no ownership, that's servitude.
I'm becoming more and more hostile to "we've sold you product that has a little man inside who only obeys us" style approach, and to tackle your software example - I find it just as hostile there (I actually refuse to purchase Apple products because you absolutely do not own any device you've purchased from them).
I'll pay for a subscription service that has a genuine recurring cost for the company (ex: I'm using their networks and servers to process data as part of that subscription). But this new world where companies try to make you pay a subscription to get access to static content (or in this case: literal hardware) that lives nowhere except on devices you own is not something I find morally or ethically acceptable.
Frankly - my strong opinion at this point is: If I own a device, I legally must be provided with a key to EVERY lock the device has: physical or digital. No more "you own the phone, but we kept the keys" or in this exact case: "you own the seat heater, but we kept the on/off switch"
Would you think it's acceptable to have BMW stop providing you the ignition and door keys? "Just call us up and we'll unlock the car! (for a small subscription charge)" fuck that horseshit. That's no ownership, that's servitude.
Economics talked a lot about lighthouses historically, because they were the kind of thing that you couldnt stop people using once you'd built it. This meant there were less built than society might want. Solutions involve finding a way to make people pay and taxes are one such tool, either just general tax or taxing imports or something related to shipping.
Open source software is similar. I agree that its better for society, but there are two ways to achieve that. The bottom up approach of making it a better option (sometime with the extra stick/carrot of copyleft) or the top down approach, just mandate that any government bought software or any open standard need to be open source and usable by all since they all paid for it.
You can apply those same solutions to hardware and physical things, e.g. renters of housing often have various legal protections, but it varies by jurisdiction, you also have social housing where its lived in but not owned and the property value rises go back to the government.
Open source software is similar. I agree that its better for society, but there are two ways to achieve that. The bottom up approach of making it a better option (sometime with the extra stick/carrot of copyleft) or the top down approach, just mandate that any government bought software or any open standard need to be open source and usable by all since they all paid for it.
You can apply those same solutions to hardware and physical things, e.g. renters of housing often have various legal protections, but it varies by jurisdiction, you also have social housing where its lived in but not owned and the property value rises go back to the government.
Maybe coming from the chip design world, this is a bit more commonplace and normal-seeming for me. I'm used to huge software packages which cost 5 to 6 figures to license, and additional features which are enabled and disabled based on a license file. No live content (aside from bug fixes). A new version with upgraded features would be another license. I've been out of chip design for a while, so things might be different now.
Not for nothing, but BMW realizes very little post-first-sale service dollars because they bake that into the price of the car.
If you go and buy a new 3-series this afternoon, you pay for your gas and that's pretty much it. All your scheduled maintenance is included, and you may even end up with a tire plan (wise on some of these cars; Z-rated rubber is pricey, and urban areas can eat tires) so the rubber ends up "included" too.
If you go and buy a new 3-series this afternoon, you pay for your gas and that's pretty much it. All your scheduled maintenance is included, and you may even end up with a tire plan (wise on some of these cars; Z-rated rubber is pricey, and urban areas can eat tires) so the rubber ends up "included" too.
Sadly, not anymore. In 2017 they replaced the comprehensive 4yr/50k mile "BMW Maintenance Program" with the 3yr/36k mile "BMW Ultimate Care", and it only covers fluids, filters, and spark plugs.
https://www.bmwusa.com/explore/bmw-value/bmw-maintenance/ter...
https://www.consumerreports.org/bmw/bmw-reduces-free-mainten...
https://www.bmwusa.com/explore/bmw-value/bmw-maintenance/ter...
https://www.consumerreports.org/bmw/bmw-reduces-free-mainten...
I always just assumed that program was meant to encourage tradeins after the free maintenance period ends. That kicks off the next profit cycle via a used car sale and another new car sale.
Its a trap! And probably one that customers are pretty happy with.
Its a trap! And probably one that customers are pretty happy with.
> the company tends to get constant income via service thanks oil filters, other filters, and a whole bunch of stuff that needs to be replaced (assuming people take it to authorised service centers, which I assume most people do when the car is relatively new).
I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but in the US, the vast majority of official car dealerships are owned by the franchiser of that dealership, not the car company itself.
This is what caused the conflicts between Tesla and certain US states who had car dealership groups lobbying to ban Tesla from owning their own dealerships/service centers.
Outside of replacement parts specific to the car, like a bumper, most service income goes straight to the dealership franchiser owner, not the car company.
I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but in the US, the vast majority of official car dealerships are owned by the franchiser of that dealership, not the car company itself.
This is what caused the conflicts between Tesla and certain US states who had car dealership groups lobbying to ban Tesla from owning their own dealerships/service centers.
Outside of replacement parts specific to the car, like a bumper, most service income goes straight to the dealership franchiser owner, not the car company.
Isn't this just a new way to pay for already existing options? Instead of paying the full cost in advance, you can spread it over the product's lifetime, and once the car gets resold, the new buyer can "configure" it as they prefer.
That's assuming manufacturers wouldn't already include the price of rentable hardware in the cost of the car.
Would any manufacturers do that?
Why would a manufacturer fit in hardware for heated seats into a car, and not charge you for it? Because they hope you will subscribe to the heated seats?
This argument breaks down in markets like India, middle East, Malaysia etc where it's hot and humid, and nobody would want to use heated seats. If you don't subscribe, then it'll be a loss for the manufacturers who included the hardware and not charged you for it.
Of course, the sane thing would be to not offer heated seats at all in such markets, but as things stand today, heated seats are offered in these hot places (and nobody uses them AFAIK).
In the subscription-based future, here's how I think it'll be like:
- heated-seat hardware will be present in the car
- heated seats will be a rentable option
- manufacturers would include the price for it anyway in the cost of the car
=> customers lose
Cars are expensive as it is, so manufacturers can totally get away with it.
Would any manufacturers do that?
Why would a manufacturer fit in hardware for heated seats into a car, and not charge you for it? Because they hope you will subscribe to the heated seats?
This argument breaks down in markets like India, middle East, Malaysia etc where it's hot and humid, and nobody would want to use heated seats. If you don't subscribe, then it'll be a loss for the manufacturers who included the hardware and not charged you for it.
Of course, the sane thing would be to not offer heated seats at all in such markets, but as things stand today, heated seats are offered in these hot places (and nobody uses them AFAIK).
In the subscription-based future, here's how I think it'll be like:
- heated-seat hardware will be present in the car
- heated seats will be a rentable option
- manufacturers would include the price for it anyway in the cost of the car
=> customers lose
Cars are expensive as it is, so manufacturers can totally get away with it.
in india, the car market starts at around 4 Lacs Inr or $5000. people tend to now buy cars for like 4-9L or $5000-$12000. the cheapest EV on the market is tata tigor ev for like inr 12Lacs or $15000 and those prices are on the high end spectrum of the general market and mass adoption is only possible if prices are price-matched or be close to the ICE cars.
in that situation, it is not possible to add "features" that the people don't care about. think about it, a $5000 car is barebones as it is, when they launch its EV version, it is not going to have tesla features. there are manufacturers who are failing NCAP testing and they are pushing to not make such testing mandatory because in their opinion, it would reduce choice for customers and their own business would fail.
in that situation, it is not possible to add "features" that the people don't care about. think about it, a $5000 car is barebones as it is, when they launch its EV version, it is not going to have tesla features. there are manufacturers who are failing NCAP testing and they are pushing to not make such testing mandatory because in their opinion, it would reduce choice for customers and their own business would fail.
I don't see how your conclusion follows your premise.
> people tend to now buy cars for like 4-9L or $5000-$12000
Sure the majority of the sales are for cheaper models, but go to any tier-1 or tier-2 city and you'll see plenty of BMWs, Mercs, Audis, Jaguars, Land Rovers, and whatever else is under the sun. Like, stand on any random junction, and I guarantee that the won't even be a single minute where you won't be able to spot a >₹50 lakh car ($62000). Yes the sales numbers are objectively much lower, but still you see plenty of them.
> those prices are on the high end spectrum of the general market
Here's a sales analysis for May 2022. How many of those are in the price range you mentioned: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/252707-may-2...
People have moved past the ₹12 lakh mark a while ago. It's more like ₹25 lakhs now. I see plenty of Hyundais, Hondas, Kias, and Toyotas. None of them exactly have a cheap model anymore.
Heck, there's such a huge number of Toyota Innova/Crysta on the road that it's practically invisible now. And top end Crysta retails at ₹25 lakhs (≈ $31000).
> in that situation, it is not possible to add "features" that the people don't care about
Move up the price range and you start to see nonsense (in this country) features like heated seats. My E-class has a panoramic sunroof which I never open because the sun is scorching here, and the glass' greenhouse effect cooks everyone inside so the AC has to work harder.
> there are manufacturers who are failing NCAP testing and they are pushing to not make such testing mandatory because in their opinion
European manufacturers here have always done well in terms of safety. Not entirely sure about other Asian brands. As for Indian brands, new Tata and Mahindra cars pass GNCAP with 5 stars, though Maruti still has a lot to improve.
> people tend to now buy cars for like 4-9L or $5000-$12000
Sure the majority of the sales are for cheaper models, but go to any tier-1 or tier-2 city and you'll see plenty of BMWs, Mercs, Audis, Jaguars, Land Rovers, and whatever else is under the sun. Like, stand on any random junction, and I guarantee that the won't even be a single minute where you won't be able to spot a >₹50 lakh car ($62000). Yes the sales numbers are objectively much lower, but still you see plenty of them.
> those prices are on the high end spectrum of the general market
Here's a sales analysis for May 2022. How many of those are in the price range you mentioned: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/252707-may-2...
People have moved past the ₹12 lakh mark a while ago. It's more like ₹25 lakhs now. I see plenty of Hyundais, Hondas, Kias, and Toyotas. None of them exactly have a cheap model anymore.
Heck, there's such a huge number of Toyota Innova/Crysta on the road that it's practically invisible now. And top end Crysta retails at ₹25 lakhs (≈ $31000).
> in that situation, it is not possible to add "features" that the people don't care about
Move up the price range and you start to see nonsense (in this country) features like heated seats. My E-class has a panoramic sunroof which I never open because the sun is scorching here, and the glass' greenhouse effect cooks everyone inside so the AC has to work harder.
> there are manufacturers who are failing NCAP testing and they are pushing to not make such testing mandatory because in their opinion
European manufacturers here have always done well in terms of safety. Not entirely sure about other Asian brands. As for Indian brands, new Tata and Mahindra cars pass GNCAP with 5 stars, though Maruti still has a lot to improve.
yes. the 12L -25L category is in T1, T2 but the rest of the country is huge and those are a drop in the bucket numbers.
the link you shared, the top 20 cars by volume are all in the sub 12L range so that is what i was saying.
https://www.rushlane.com/maruti-suzuki-chairman-says-bharat-...
yeah, it was maruti who said that so there you go.
>Move up the price range and you start to see nonsense (in this country) features like heated seats. My E-class has a panoramic sunroof which I never open because the sun is scorching here, and the glass' greenhouse effect cooks everyone inside so the AC has to work harder.
i do not own a car. no one in my family does. you say your e-class so your income bracket is already in the top %.
>People have moved past the ₹12 lakh mark a while ago. It's more like ₹25 lakhs now. I see plenty of Hyundais, Hondas, Kias, and Toyotas. None of them exactly have a cheap model anymore.
i am not saying people arent buying this. my point is, they are serving a niche and not cutting into the sales of cheap vehicles where haggling is done on the number of airbags.
>Move up the price range and you start to see nonsense
that is my point. if you stay in the price range of sub 12L, you will not find those features and as long as these cars sell, these features will not be common in india.
the link you shared, the top 20 cars by volume are all in the sub 12L range so that is what i was saying.
https://www.rushlane.com/maruti-suzuki-chairman-says-bharat-...
yeah, it was maruti who said that so there you go.
>Move up the price range and you start to see nonsense (in this country) features like heated seats. My E-class has a panoramic sunroof which I never open because the sun is scorching here, and the glass' greenhouse effect cooks everyone inside so the AC has to work harder.
i do not own a car. no one in my family does. you say your e-class so your income bracket is already in the top %.
>People have moved past the ₹12 lakh mark a while ago. It's more like ₹25 lakhs now. I see plenty of Hyundais, Hondas, Kias, and Toyotas. None of them exactly have a cheap model anymore.
i am not saying people arent buying this. my point is, they are serving a niche and not cutting into the sales of cheap vehicles where haggling is done on the number of airbags.
>Move up the price range and you start to see nonsense
that is my point. if you stay in the price range of sub 12L, you will not find those features and as long as these cars sell, these features will not be common in india.
Just FYI it does indeed snow in Korea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Seoul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Seoul
It's funny how everyone thinks of South Korea as this Thailand-like climate when they in fact have some awfully cold days every once in a while.
And as soon as that car hits the second hand market, the next owner can find the appropriate relay, tap in a switch, and solve the rent to use problem.
"Irregular power draw detected, shutting down for your safety."
While obviously a big pain in the butt, aftermarket EV computers are coming onto the market which could help solve the long tail of used EV software related nuisances.
Lots of learning from the EV conversion market will go directly into that ecosystem too I feel. But that said, I'm pretty sure that it's already illegal in many countries to tamper with the ECU. It's currently because you can change the emissions profile of the car, but I'm sure they'll just swap to saying it's about safety instead for EVs.
Lots of learning from the EV conversion market will go directly into that ecosystem too I feel. But that said, I'm pretty sure that it's already illegal in many countries to tamper with the ECU. It's currently because you can change the emissions profile of the car, but I'm sure they'll just swap to saying it's about safety instead for EVs.
Ye you maybe need to put the wires directly on the battery poles.
So true
The cost of installing heated seats might be at least partially included in the base price. But that's different from the price they charge for buying heated seats. The $300-$500 you currently pay for heated seats are not reflective of the price to run a couple resistive wires through a seat, they are reflective of what people are willing to pay for the convenience and status of heated seats.
This isn't how things are priced. They ask what they can get. If they could ask for more money for the car, why wouldn't they?
Other than oil and filters, which you don't need to buy from the manufacturer, most new cars don't need much engine maintanance.
On the other side, suspension, brakes and tires are much more subject to wear and the need of replacement, and in a heavier car, there's a big chance that you'll need even more frequent maintainance of such itens.
Official service centers are a bad joke though. Especially for BMW you pay 2.5x the work of other, good service (tested this on oil change, liquids were the same). Then they also screw you on parts prices. Suffice to say I never went there again.
I never saw the reason to buy new cars which drop value tremendously in first 5 years, I am certainly not that rich to not mind. I rather buy 6-7 years old, BMW in this case, do maintenance in good unofficial garage and drive the car to the ground. If you find one, stick with it till you die.
First car (BMW E46 3-series) bought for 25% price of new, maintenance costs rather minimal, drove it for 10 years till clutch/transmission literally died.
Now we have again BMW (5-series F10 wagon), bought for 20% of the new, 6 years/90k km old. Obviously no clue how it will behave in future, but we paid 80k less for really premium safe family car, and my yearly maintenance costs have been around 500$ per year.
People sometimes do stupid decisions when they are driven mainly by emotions.
I never saw the reason to buy new cars which drop value tremendously in first 5 years, I am certainly not that rich to not mind. I rather buy 6-7 years old, BMW in this case, do maintenance in good unofficial garage and drive the car to the ground. If you find one, stick with it till you die.
First car (BMW E46 3-series) bought for 25% price of new, maintenance costs rather minimal, drove it for 10 years till clutch/transmission literally died.
Now we have again BMW (5-series F10 wagon), bought for 20% of the new, 6 years/90k km old. Obviously no clue how it will behave in future, but we paid 80k less for really premium safe family car, and my yearly maintenance costs have been around 500$ per year.
People sometimes do stupid decisions when they are driven mainly by emotions.
In 15 years, I’ve only been to the dealer for recalls.
How does that affect second-hand value for you (if you intend to ever sell)?
Where I live, a lack of documentation from official or authorized dealership servicing is a big red flag when buying a used car.
I find that hard to believe unless it’s an antique or a sports car. It’s certainly a plus when you sell something.
2 Jeep dealers couldn’t tell me what needs to be done on my 35k checkup. It’s right in the manual. They only tried to upsell fluid flushes. The multipoint inspection didn’t even cover the cv joint checks that were mentioned in the manual!
2 Jeep dealers couldn’t tell me what needs to be done on my 35k checkup. It’s right in the manual. They only tried to upsell fluid flushes. The multipoint inspection didn’t even cover the cv joint checks that were mentioned in the manual!
In the US, almost no one goes to their dealership for routine maintenance (i.e. tires, brakes, oil). Many/most will go in for bigger stuff like transmission service, steering, etc. but even then many still opt for their local mechanic's shop. To be honest, I would rather see a car going to reputable local shop than to a dealership, but it's really hard to know what "reputable local shop" means when you're buying a used car that could have been serviced four states away.
We have lots of garbage chains of auto shops (looking at you, JiffyLube...) that leave cars in worse shape than when they came in, which complicates matters immensely. I've had one car for example that has had the front engine cover come off twice because the knuckleheads at the shop didn't reattach it correctly, causing it to drag on the road for miles before we realized what was wrong.
(inb4 someone rolls in with how blockchain is going to "fix" this)
We have lots of garbage chains of auto shops (looking at you, JiffyLube...) that leave cars in worse shape than when they came in, which complicates matters immensely. I've had one car for example that has had the front engine cover come off twice because the knuckleheads at the shop didn't reattach it correctly, causing it to drag on the road for miles before we realized what was wrong.
(inb4 someone rolls in with how blockchain is going to "fix" this)
I actually go to the dealership (VW) for routine maintenance and I have a local, specialized Euro/VW mechanic for more expensive repairs. Dealership service centers are the training grounds for specialized mechanics. So it's better for me to get the alignment done using an apprentice who does them daily rather than a pricey specialist who does them 4x/year and has 4 engine outs in the bay.
What's your basis for this assertion?
Everyone I know who drives a foreign car (a set that tilts overwhelmingly to German makers) takes their car to the dealer for routine maintenance because the maintenance is often included in the purchase price. This is true absolutely for BMW, and CAN be true (ie, you can choose to do it) with Volkswagen.
If you're not the first owner, then yeah, you may go to a 3rd party, but the new-car drivers are going back to the mothership.
Everyone I know who drives a foreign car (a set that tilts overwhelmingly to German makers) takes their car to the dealer for routine maintenance because the maintenance is often included in the purchase price. This is true absolutely for BMW, and CAN be true (ie, you can choose to do it) with Volkswagen.
If you're not the first owner, then yeah, you may go to a 3rd party, but the new-car drivers are going back to the mothership.
My basis for this assertion is that I know very few people who are duped into buying maintenance contracts. Those things aren't "included in the purchase price" for anything but the highest end of mass market cars, they're overpriced tack-ons that dealerships push hard when you're purchasing a car.
Granted, I know very few new BMW owners (and the few that I do know, know very little about cars and just wanna go fast); most everyone I know who has a US- or Japan-make car doesn't bother with going back to the dealership, and that's the vast majority of car owners in the US.
EDIT: The other thing to keep in mind is, most Americans aren't buying new cars. In our tech centric bubble, sure, nearly everyone buys a car new off the lot, but in my sample size of a few dozen people in Ohio who are almost all professionals working decent office jobs, maybe half my friends have ever bought a new car, and the rest are driving something second hand. And keep in mind, these are young professionals with low debt and decent financial sense. The average person in the US almost certainly can't afford a brand new car on a frequent basis, and certainly not the dealer markup on services.
Granted, I know very few new BMW owners (and the few that I do know, know very little about cars and just wanna go fast); most everyone I know who has a US- or Japan-make car doesn't bother with going back to the dealership, and that's the vast majority of car owners in the US.
EDIT: The other thing to keep in mind is, most Americans aren't buying new cars. In our tech centric bubble, sure, nearly everyone buys a car new off the lot, but in my sample size of a few dozen people in Ohio who are almost all professionals working decent office jobs, maybe half my friends have ever bought a new car, and the rest are driving something second hand. And keep in mind, these are young professionals with low debt and decent financial sense. The average person in the US almost certainly can't afford a brand new car on a frequent basis, and certainly not the dealer markup on services.
IDK, a lot of my local dealers push free maintenance for the first 24 months. I've had one of them. They recommended additional services on every free visit, including the first one after only ~5k miles. Every recommendation was at least as expensive as an oil change.
I'm sure that was coincidental and they were all seriously needed services.
I'm sure that was coincidental and they were all seriously needed services.
You’re in a bubble.
I’ll drive it until the wheels fall off.
It absolutely doesn’t affect the value of the car to use 3rd party service.
It absolutely doesn’t affect the value of the car to use 3rd party service.
Some EVs actually require more maintenance. For example, due to incompetent engineering and sloppy assembly, Tesla ranks below most ICE vehicles.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/tesla-ranks-30th-in-unoffici...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/tesla-ranks-30th-in-unoffici...
I'm not a Tesla owner or fan, but this article doesn't quite say that. It reports on the JD Power and Associates dependability ranking, which is based on surveys of owner complaints about anything with their cars; Tesla ranks higher than average in number of complaints.
The only supporting quote about Tesla in the article: "Tesla owners reported more problems with their exterior and interior than with other systems like propulsion, battery or infotainment and navigation. However, some did complain about troubles with Tesla’s in-vehicle voice recognition." IMO this supports the sloppy assembly claim, but not the incompetent engineering claim. It jives with what I've heard about Tesla cars, that the fit and finish is not what you'd expect for this class of car.
The only supporting quote about Tesla in the article: "Tesla owners reported more problems with their exterior and interior than with other systems like propulsion, battery or infotainment and navigation. However, some did complain about troubles with Tesla’s in-vehicle voice recognition." IMO this supports the sloppy assembly claim, but not the incompetent engineering claim. It jives with what I've heard about Tesla cars, that the fit and finish is not what you'd expect for this class of car.
Neither this article nor my personal experience with Tesla support your claim.
> Tesla owners reported more problems with their exterior and interior than with other systems like propulsion, battery or infotainment and navigation.
Tesla issues aren't about maintenance, they are mostly about quality control. Maintenance on Tesla is simple: air filters, brakes, tires, air conditioning.
https://www.tesla.com/support/car-maintenance
> Tesla owners reported more problems with their exterior and interior than with other systems like propulsion, battery or infotainment and navigation.
Tesla issues aren't about maintenance, they are mostly about quality control. Maintenance on Tesla is simple: air filters, brakes, tires, air conditioning.
https://www.tesla.com/support/car-maintenance
ON a modern car you only add oil changes until you get to 100k miles. Oil changes are fast and cheap.
Except for air conditioning - unless you mean the air filter the air conditioner should NEVER need maintenance - if you do maintenance it means an environmental disaster - they are closed systems and so the only time you service them is if they lost the Freon.
Except for air conditioning - unless you mean the air filter the air conditioner should NEVER need maintenance - if you do maintenance it means an environmental disaster - they are closed systems and so the only time you service them is if they lost the Freon.
[deleted]
Hopefully there is no Freon to lose in the first place in the AC.
TuV results from mandatory safety checks in Germany seem to indicate that Tesla has significant issues with its suspension and some of the lights. It competes with Dacia for last place of all cars tested.
> Maintenance on Tesla is simple: air filters, brakes, tires, air conditioning.
Maintenance on a new ICE car is exactly the same, plus an oil change every couple of years.
Maintenance on a new ICE car is exactly the same, plus an oil change every couple of years.
But, due to more parts being present on an ICE car, isn't there a higher likelihood of something going wrong eventually?
There is a lot more: timing belt replacement, water pump replacement, oil change, oil filter, radiator, spark plugs, drive belts, ...
You don't need any of those things for a couple of years on a new car, and most of them never in five years. If you're buying new, as most electric car people are, it's the same burden.
[deleted]
There’s an easy way to make sure this doesn’t catch on. Never buy a car from any car company that does this. Advocate loudly for never buying a car from a company that does this. The market will speak. We are the market.
Good news is that all bmw's come with all the options just turned off via software..
So be smart guys, this is called hacker news for a reason... Just buy bare metal bmw and turn all luxury options on... (and BMW is traditionally very dumb on security)...
So be smart guys, this is called hacker news for a reason... Just buy bare metal bmw and turn all luxury options on... (and BMW is traditionally very dumb on security)...
Hackers are rejoicing at this subscription movement because now they can get a fully loaded BMW for the price of a base model.
Except.... This isn't true.
I can't just "turn on" adaptive headlights because the vehicle doesn't have the necessary camera to scan the road for oncoming cars installed.
I can't just "turn on" adaptive cruise control, because my vehicle doesn't have the necessary front radar installed.
I can't just "turn on" the HUD, because my vehicle doesn't have the necessary dash components physically installed.
The number of different hardware permutations of most modern cars is eye-watering. For most options, if you didn't get it installed from the factory, you're looking at an expense retrofit.
I can't just "turn on" adaptive headlights because the vehicle doesn't have the necessary camera to scan the road for oncoming cars installed.
I can't just "turn on" adaptive cruise control, because my vehicle doesn't have the necessary front radar installed.
I can't just "turn on" the HUD, because my vehicle doesn't have the necessary dash components physically installed.
The number of different hardware permutations of most modern cars is eye-watering. For most options, if you didn't get it installed from the factory, you're looking at an expense retrofit.
Check out Bimmercode to see what you do have access to.
I'm familiar with Bimmercode.
With the best will in the world, software can't magic a night vision camera into my car.
With the best will in the world, software can't magic a night vision camera into my car.
Hello, this is your car insurance provider here. We noticed that you are driving a hacked car on the road. Your insurance is hereby cancelled. Thank you for paying your premiums so far.
I wonder if I could build and app / service for them -- TSOAS (aka Turn Shit Off As a Service) and charge them a small monthly fee to do it.
BMW should be in the business of building cars, not pissing off people. They could outsource that to me as a service!
> Just buy bare metal bmw and turn all luxury options on
The question is how warranty and insurance be impacted by it.
Purposefully dumb I suspect, because BMW has a strong modding enthusiast following.
Super weird decision from BMW. The brand is all about luxury and performance at all costs. Trying to nickel and dime on seat heaters just seems cheap.
It's very par-for-the-course for BMW, they have been nickel and diming for years.
BMW did the same when they charged $80/year for Apple CarPlay for their 2019 models. They stopped shortly after.
As a long time BMW buyer, the brand lost me when they floated this plan. The writing was on the wall: they see themselves as a lifestyle, not a car brand, and we'll see more desperate attempts to make consumers a subscription instead of a purchaser. Everyone wants to be Apple, which gets a feedline of subscription revenue from phone purchasers.
Note the odd logo change around this time as well (2020 or so), another sign of their attempts to "reinvent" themselves as a services company. https://bimmertips.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/BMW_logo_o... (via https://bimmertips.com/bmw-logo-history-origin/) in one picture, and BMW's take at https://www.bmw.com/en/automotive-life/bmw-logo-meaning-hist....
I miss the days when BMW just made really fun cars that I was willing to overpay for, helping my dealer and the factory stay profitable.
Note the odd logo change around this time as well (2020 or so), another sign of their attempts to "reinvent" themselves as a services company. https://bimmertips.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/BMW_logo_o... (via https://bimmertips.com/bmw-logo-history-origin/) in one picture, and BMW's take at https://www.bmw.com/en/automotive-life/bmw-logo-meaning-hist....
I miss the days when BMW just made really fun cars that I was willing to overpay for, helping my dealer and the factory stay profitable.
They had stopped this before 2019.
> That convenience wasn't lost on BMW, which for the 2019 model year turned CarPlay from a $300 stand-alone option into a subscription through its ConnectedDrive suite of app services, at $80 per year or $300 for 20 years.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a30139034/bmw-apple-carpla...
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a30139034/bmw-apple-carpla...
So, since the 2019 model year was available in 2018, they stopped it in 2018.
I have a 2019 model bought in 2018 and it has absolutely no ongoing fees to use CarPlay, which I do daily.
I have a 2019 model bought in 2018 and it has absolutely no ongoing fees to use CarPlay, which I do daily.
It's the thin end of the wedge. Want to use the stereo, unlock remotely, etc etc?
The question is will customers stand for it. I know as a used car buyer I won't the subscription so that means the car doesn't have heated seats and is valued that way compared to a different car that does have it. In turn that means BMW is risking lower resale value, and resale is a factor in new car price.
I hope people promptly come up with ways to enable these features for free. This is nothing short of criminal. To charge for a feature that is physically in the car.
Yes you can do that with a SASS product but no you cannot for a physical product.
Yes you can do that with a SASS product but no you cannot for a physical product.
> "Unauthorized Bread"—a tale of jailbreaking refugees versus IoT appliances—is the lead novella in author Cory Doctorow's Radicalized
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-...
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-...
As long as you can find the wires that provide power to the seat heaters, add a switch, and splice it into some power, I imagine one can enable it without any software changes.
Let me introduce you to our good 'friend' Control Module.
*friends, my 435i has something like 30 ECUs
But people still do find defeats for most of those. The reality is BMW doesn't care because the average person won't bother with any of that and will just pay.
But people still do find defeats for most of those. The reality is BMW doesn't care because the average person won't bother with any of that and will just pay.
I'm not sure the average person drives a BMW. I don't know, maybe if you can afford to drive a BMW, you don't mind having to rent something you already bought. I have a feeling that if Honda or Toyota pulled this shit, nobody would buy the models that had it.
Renting things like heated seats? It feels bizarre to even have to discuss such a dystopically stupid idea.
Renting things like heated seats? It feels bizarre to even have to discuss such a dystopically stupid idea.
It is a silly idea 100%. However, I think BMW knows its customer here. I like to chat up the repair people sometimes. The one conversations that stuck with me for years after bringing in my older BMW. "oh wow have not seen one of these in awhile" (it was 8 years old at that point). "huh, what do you mean?" "oh most of what we deal with in here is lease". A lease is pretty much subscribing to a car service with terrible financial terms.
There are plenty of people out there that make decent money but are bad at managing it.
There are plenty of people out there that make decent money but are bad at managing it.
well, terrible is a relative term, maybe they make so much they don't care.
Everyone buying iPhone knows it's not a financially optimal decision
Everyone buying iPhone knows it's not a financially optimal decision
Where to begin...
First off, saying "the average person would do X" is a hypothetical. It doesn't mean they're in that situation: "If given choice between modifying car and paying money, will pay money"
Second, the article is about BMW, so even if you missed that it'd still be pretty easy to infer an average person amongst their customers...
Third, what's with the weird dig against people for owning BMWs. Different people can want different things... and there's a reason Toyota's halo sports car is rolling around with a BMW powerplant.
Fourth, Toyota started this is 5 years ago by paywalling remote start not just with the app, but with your normal physical key fob: https://ktvo.com/news/auto-matters/costs-associated-with-ent...
They even doubled down and removed the physical button on newer models!: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/toyota-remote-start-digit...
First off, saying "the average person would do X" is a hypothetical. It doesn't mean they're in that situation: "If given choice between modifying car and paying money, will pay money"
Second, the article is about BMW, so even if you missed that it'd still be pretty easy to infer an average person amongst their customers...
Third, what's with the weird dig against people for owning BMWs. Different people can want different things... and there's a reason Toyota's halo sports car is rolling around with a BMW powerplant.
Fourth, Toyota started this is 5 years ago by paywalling remote start not just with the app, but with your normal physical key fob: https://ktvo.com/news/auto-matters/costs-associated-with-ent...
They even doubled down and removed the physical button on newer models!: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/toyota-remote-start-digit...
Is the control module built into the heating pads themselves?
I fail to see how it matters, really. Heating is generally pretty straight forward. Apply current, get heat. Bypass the module altogether and stick something else in its place?
Absolutely, seat warmers are typically nothing more than a resistive grid under the fabric. A quick check for how power's supplied in case there's a requirement for current control, and wire in a physical switch.
Unless there's something snuck in that throws codes if the seat heater does something unexpected - wouldn't that be something, DRM for Bimmer bun warmers. In which case if it's not possible to fool the system by wiring in a resistor instead, then it's a car to avoid as seat warmers are rather prone to broken traces over time from occupants bouncing and shuffling around on the seats, which could render the car unregisterable in regions that check OBD codes.
Unless there's something snuck in that throws codes if the seat heater does something unexpected - wouldn't that be something, DRM for Bimmer bun warmers. In which case if it's not possible to fool the system by wiring in a resistor instead, then it's a car to avoid as seat warmers are rather prone to broken traces over time from occupants bouncing and shuffling around on the seats, which could render the car unregisterable in regions that check OBD codes.
I had a BMW i3 2017. Last year one of the front turn signal lights broke. So I went to the shop to ask for a replacement bulb.
There I learned you can't just replace the bulb, no. The whole light module had to be replaced, $350 + work.
These things are getting ridiculously integrated. Wouldn't surprise me if the seat heaters had some integrated temperature controller unit just because.
There I learned you can't just replace the bulb, no. The whole light module had to be replaced, $350 + work.
These things are getting ridiculously integrated. Wouldn't surprise me if the seat heaters had some integrated temperature controller unit just because.
> Yes you can do that with a SASS product but no you cannot for a physical product.
Why?
Not that I am in favor of this but are there really objective arguments to support that?
One can argue that the ecological impact is higher due to the need for additional materials but maybe people buy new a car only because they didn't have feature X and installing it afterwards is too expensive.
Why?
Not that I am in favor of this but are there really objective arguments to support that?
One can argue that the ecological impact is higher due to the need for additional materials but maybe people buy new a car only because they didn't have feature X and installing it afterwards is too expensive.
Because you're getting a good deal out of it. They're managing the hardware it runs on. Keeping the software up to date.
The customer gets a good deal. We have office 365. Users self manage. They can download and install on devices as they want. Before office 365 I had to install it for them. It's a big win for our business. We have no dedicated I.T. people. I'm a developer that does a little here and there but we work to avoid anything with I.T. costs. SASS is a brilliant solution to our problem.
Yeah I'll pay a subscription for an on going service.
I won't pay a subscription for enabling a feature I then have to maintain. If the seat heater fails, I have to pay to fix it.
The customer gets a good deal. We have office 365. Users self manage. They can download and install on devices as they want. Before office 365 I had to install it for them. It's a big win for our business. We have no dedicated I.T. people. I'm a developer that does a little here and there but we work to avoid anything with I.T. costs. SASS is a brilliant solution to our problem.
Yeah I'll pay a subscription for an on going service.
I won't pay a subscription for enabling a feature I then have to maintain. If the seat heater fails, I have to pay to fix it.
Because for the heated seats there are no server fees, maintenance costs, firmware updates, patches, future features under development, product teams thinking about lifecycle, the list goes on. The same can’t be said for AI in Teslas or Whoop straps which can justify the cost / subscription.
There are maintenance costs associated to heated seats. The rest of the sentence you wrote falls under maintenance cost anyway.
The seats are there whether they use it or not. The ecological impact is the same regardless. (Actually installing it without ever allowing its use might be worst of all so maybe you could say the ecological impact is worse by this approach than all others.)
The SASS product is more akin to paying for ongoing use of energy. The more it's used the more an impact there is.
The SASS product is more akin to paying for ongoing use of energy. The more it's used the more an impact there is.
> Not that I am in favor of this but are there really objective arguments to support that?
This annoys me so much. It's pretty clear "cannot" in this context means in their opinion non-justifiable. There is no such thing as an objective opinion and those who believe in objective opinions generally are just referring to their own thoughts as objective.
This annoys me so much. It's pretty clear "cannot" in this context means in their opinion non-justifiable. There is no such thing as an objective opinion and those who believe in objective opinions generally are just referring to their own thoughts as objective.
> I hope people promptly come up with ways to enable these features for free. This is nothing short of criminal. To charge for a feature that is physically in the car.
This is very common. It is often cheaper to have a single SKU and enable/disable features via software than to create a separate one. I don't see what could be criminal about that.
This is very common. It is often cheaper to have a single SKU and enable/disable features via software than to create a separate one. I don't see what could be criminal about that.
It is common in industry that use SAAS, modular systems, etc. Not with purely physical goods.
I'm surprised practices like these have legal legs. No reasonable finance statement/legal statement will stand behind a $3.5k line item under manufacturing for a robot to flip a switch to enable a software setting on already installed hardware.
Example w/ non-real numbers: BMW x5 with front facing radar, dealer enabled, cost of goods sold = $31,000. MSRP = $60k.
BMW x5 with front facing radar installed, dealer disabled, cogs =$31,000.MSRP= $56.5k.
This is not healthy for a company to rely on.
I'm surprised practices like these have legal legs. No reasonable finance statement/legal statement will stand behind a $3.5k line item under manufacturing for a robot to flip a switch to enable a software setting on already installed hardware.
Example w/ non-real numbers: BMW x5 with front facing radar, dealer enabled, cost of goods sold = $31,000. MSRP = $60k.
BMW x5 with front facing radar installed, dealer disabled, cogs =$31,000.MSRP= $56.5k.
This is not healthy for a company to rely on.
If companies continues adding more subscription options in more models it will make some aftermarket electronic modules, or simply jailbreak hacks, to bypass those locks. It happened already in the Tesla, and I don't think it will stop here.
There's already a pretty mature world of apps that interface with BMWs to turn features on and off, even my 14 year old BMW has hundreds of features you can toggle with an iOS app+OBD dongle. Everything from changing how the sunroof switch behaves to modifying the front-rear split of the all wheel drive.
I imagine it will become a bit of a cat and mouse game as they try to block access to paid features, though it's ultimately a moot point for me, as it's obvious where the company is going and I'm never buying a new BMW again.
I imagine it will become a bit of a cat and mouse game as they try to block access to paid features, though it's ultimately a moot point for me, as it's obvious where the company is going and I'm never buying a new BMW again.
This is pure speculation, but I suspect that they have some kind of DRM to prevent you on using those features, that means if you break a DRM, then you are at fault here, while I don’t agree, this seems similar to the case of one wheel that they block the motherboard if you unplug the battery, if you plug again the same battery it doesn’t matter, the motherboard is already blocked, and because of intellectual property (I don’t remember the details on what they did) you cannot "hack" the motherboard without breaking the law.
This is becoming so sad in all aspects, soon this kind of practices will get to PCs? where the motherboard will also have subscriptions, even maybe cpu and gpu.
This is becoming so sad in all aspects, soon this kind of practices will get to PCs? where the motherboard will also have subscriptions, even maybe cpu and gpu.
This is sadly already happening. In Europe, car garages need to update their diagnosis machines, or even pay[1], to get some keys from Renault to being able to do anything in their newer models. Even their low-cost subbranch Dacia need those keys. They say they do that to prevent attacks from the OBD port (used commonly to steal cars).
This not only is absolutely an anti-consumer practice, but also is probably a pretty temporal and ineffective solution to prevent your car being stolen[2].
Nowadays, is pretty common to need to program some kind of electronic module in the car for some parts replacements, and with that, they are preventing people and small and new car garages to do that kind of repairs. Heck, even the TPMS control module need to "re-learn" "where is who" when you rotate your tyres.
[1]: Usually diagnosis machines have a subscription-based system where they provide you not only new car models software packages, but also instructions about how to do part replacements.
[2]: AFAIK, most stolen cars are really easy to stole (like the 80s/90s Honda's) or really valuable (and they provide tools, ECMs, or whatever they need to stole them).
This not only is absolutely an anti-consumer practice, but also is probably a pretty temporal and ineffective solution to prevent your car being stolen[2].
Nowadays, is pretty common to need to program some kind of electronic module in the car for some parts replacements, and with that, they are preventing people and small and new car garages to do that kind of repairs. Heck, even the TPMS control module need to "re-learn" "where is who" when you rotate your tyres.
[1]: Usually diagnosis machines have a subscription-based system where they provide you not only new car models software packages, but also instructions about how to do part replacements.
[2]: AFAIK, most stolen cars are really easy to stole (like the 80s/90s Honda's) or really valuable (and they provide tools, ECMs, or whatever they need to stole them).
with jailbreaking they'll just void the warranty. I wouldn't be surprised if that clause is already buried somewhere in the purchase agreement.
I can see why a car manufacturer would not want to make two versions of each car, one with heated seats and one without. Instead, build it into all of them, and only activate and charge those that actually need it.
Also, the subscription is an option. You can also pay the full price for the feature.
Where I live, I could see using this once or two months a year. Whereas some would need it more and they might just buy the option outright.
Also, the subscription is an option. You can also pay the full price for the feature.
Where I live, I could see using this once or two months a year. Whereas some would need it more and they might just buy the option outright.
It is mind blowing that this is something people are willing to accept. The feature is there, the ecological damage is done already by including those extra resources, and you've paid for the vehicle but don't actually own its capabilities.
Exactly, also you have already paid for them, since there is no way they are selling at a loss.
+ Seat heaters are heavy. You drive them around all year long, they will show up on your fuel bill one way or another.
Really? I assumed it’s just some wires in a seat..
They are small light-weight pads.
0.25 kg without the wiring per seat, adds up to 5 seats * 0.25kg + tons of coper wiring.
Not mentioned here: Cooling option + actuators - we are only talking about the basic setup, although that is dishonest, as in the subscription car all options are included.
> I can see why a car manufacturer would not want to make two versions of each car, one with heated seats and one without.
In the past this is just how "luxury" options trickled down into standard options. If it's more economical to just produce all cars with the option then it should just be an optimization passed on to the consumer.
I find this pretty surprising in the luxury car market. A lot of features that are standard on base model non-luxury cars are options on luxury cars.
Anyway, this subscription model raises other questions. For example, if I'm paying for the subscription and the seat heater breaks, who is responsible for the repair? Am I paying for a subscription (i.e. lease) of the hardware, or is it just a software subscription?
In the past this is just how "luxury" options trickled down into standard options. If it's more economical to just produce all cars with the option then it should just be an optimization passed on to the consumer.
I find this pretty surprising in the luxury car market. A lot of features that are standard on base model non-luxury cars are options on luxury cars.
Anyway, this subscription model raises other questions. For example, if I'm paying for the subscription and the seat heater breaks, who is responsible for the repair? Am I paying for a subscription (i.e. lease) of the hardware, or is it just a software subscription?
Customers buying expensive cars are typically less price-sensitive than customers buying less expensive cars; high-end hotels charge for Wi-Fi service that's free at lower-end hotels in the same chain for the same reason.
This reminds me of the blue sweater scene in the Devil Wears Prada: https://youtu.be/us52N76XA28
Well just include it in the price for everyone, duhh. It's just executives trying to squeeze every penny out of their customers. Next thing they'll try is making things subscriptions that ought to be always included. I understand the logic, once you sell one subscription it's easier to upsell more but it's heinous and I hope they'll be ridiculed for this years to come.
Good way to make BMW drivers who aren't entirely filthy rich to start seeing the issues with capitalism.
Heated seats are unimportant in the scale of things, but this is also how capitalism approaches something you literally have no option to do without like health care.
Also since this is _Hacker_ news, it should probably be mentioned that a MIG welder could probably be used to put whatever seats you like into an old used BMW. Buy the body and powertrain that you want, cheaply, do your own maintenance, then fit the aftermarket bells and whistles yourself to make it comfortable.
Heated seats are unimportant in the scale of things, but this is also how capitalism approaches something you literally have no option to do without like health care.
Also since this is _Hacker_ news, it should probably be mentioned that a MIG welder could probably be used to put whatever seats you like into an old used BMW. Buy the body and powertrain that you want, cheaply, do your own maintenance, then fit the aftermarket bells and whistles yourself to make it comfortable.
Heating is an accessory like floor mat, it can be easily added or removed in 2 minutes. No, I don’t believe they try to save on production, but try to take last penny from a consumer: when you know you already have heater installed, you are probably more likely to pay for it, or pay for it half time (at least this is how they think about it).
Build it in the car and offer a purchase option in the center console. Heck do A/B Testing where you offer a lifetime purchase (Upfront or monthly) and a monthly subscription. Then see which sells better.
Plus you could buy or make other economical heating solutions for your seats...BMW driver notwithstanding
Seems a small step after Tesla’s $2000-$3000 “acceleration boost” software update that came out in December of 2019.
https://electriccarpledge.com/tesla-acceleration-boost/
https://electriccarpledge.com/tesla-acceleration-boost/
I can imagine the performance boost putting higher strain on the battery, increasing wear and risk of overheating various components that are under warranty, so unlocks like these could be less than pure greed.
This seems no different than Intel manufacturing fewer distinct things and using CPU locking to sell at more price points.
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/2239/cpu-lock
It’s cheaper to physically put the functionality in all the cars than to differentiate at assembly time. We don’t have the same visceral reaction to paying for options at the dealer.
(I am assuming they aren’t adding this charge RETROACTIVELY. That’s very different)
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/2239/cpu-lock
It’s cheaper to physically put the functionality in all the cars than to differentiate at assembly time. We don’t have the same visceral reaction to paying for options at the dealer.
(I am assuming they aren’t adding this charge RETROACTIVELY. That’s very different)
I’d be fine if every vehicle had the hardware in it and it was activated via an upsell at the dealership. I think the truly insidious thing here is the subscription aspect, for all the various reasons other people in the responses have stated.
I’m ok with Intel doing the same thing. But if Intel started selling AVX512 with a monthly subscription I’d ever buy an Intel chip again.
Isn’t that most of the low end processors have deffects, so they trim down (yes, blocking some features, cores, etc) and selling you at lower prices, but the thing is, you know beforehand what are you buying, without any hidden subscription, etc, also is cheaper than the full featured one, so I’m not particularly mad about it.
Are you paying Intel $18 per month for your extra cores ?
No, although IBM did the same thing with mainframes, and yes customers did make a phone call to unlock some extra hardware. Or pay per instruction executed. IBM had lots of creative ways to charge for mainframes.
You are correct, it is no different, and it's wrong when Intel does it too, assuming the CPU hardware really is identical and it's purely a software lock that the user can't work around.
As long as it stays an additional option next to permanent buying it I don't see the problem. Maybe I didn't care for heated seats zt time of purchase, but suddenly it's a very cold winter and I want it for a couple of months. Or someone wants to buy my car, but really wants heated seats can now do so.
As per my understanding, you already paid for the heated seats when you bought the car, as they are already installed on board. What you are required to do is to pay a monthly fee in order to use something you already own.
They are not requiring you to pay a monthly fee. The feature is available as a $18 monthly fee OR a 1 time $406 fee.
[TFA](https://www.motor1.com/news/597376/bmw-heated-seats-subscrip...) says:
> Should you want the feature permanently, that'll set you back $406.
[TFA](https://www.motor1.com/news/597376/bmw-heated-seats-subscrip...) says:
> Should you want the feature permanently, that'll set you back $406.
[deleted]
so you buy the car, fully equipped with the heat seating... but you can't turn it on unless you pay a subscription fee?
I had to double check this wasn't an Onion article.
thats one of the most dumbest brand burning idea's I've ever seen. I'm happy enough with my Mid range Rav4 Hybrid that comes with seat heaters and no subscription fee thanks...
I had to double check this wasn't an Onion article.
thats one of the most dumbest brand burning idea's I've ever seen. I'm happy enough with my Mid range Rav4 Hybrid that comes with seat heaters and no subscription fee thanks...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/12/22831105/toyota-subscrip...
In case you thought Toyota wouldn't do the same thing.
In case you thought Toyota wouldn't do the same thing.
It's not a terrible idea for a lot of stuff. It's much more economical to add many features on all vehicles than to package them. Then you can individual menu out the items to the people who want them.
If it is economical, the benefits must be passed on to the consumers. Maybe luxury cars have become commoditised and BMW can’t think of any new innovative thing to charge for so this is what they do.
eventually it'll be subscription advanced airbags (as opposed to basic ones) bundled with remote start and sirius.
I wasn't particularly impressed when I got my new 4 series and had to pay £20 or something like that for auto-highbeams, even if it is a one off.
I can sort of understand a subscription for the speed camera data, although its a bit cheap, but for the lights it seemed mad.
I can sort of understand a subscription for the speed camera data, although its a bit cheap, but for the lights it seemed mad.
20 quid plus minus on the sticker price doesn’t matter at all.
20 quid after the purchase is quite an annoyance.
Why didn’t they just add it to the sticker price and everyone would have been happier.
20 quid after the purchase is quite an annoyance.
Why didn’t they just add it to the sticker price and everyone would have been happier.
Dealer options have been around for a long time, but usually the equipment isn't already fitted to the car, the dealer has to add it. I think that's why this approach feels so inauthentic. Your car has the equipment, but you're not allowed to use it, even though it's there, and you own it...
At first was a little uncomfortable with the change, but then I thought how much would it be today to add those optionals to a new car.
Checking from my phone, the heated steering wheel is more than 300$, which is more than what would cost the permanent upgrade in the car.
Now we should wonder, having a construction line and distribution system capable of handling optionals like the heated steering wheel, does it cost more or less than 300$? I don't think that the answer is obvious.
Would it be possible that the car get actually cheaper for the consumers?
Also having those optionals allow to turn them on and off at will. Maybe if I swap car with my SO it would like the heated seat that I never care for.
I see the dangerous of this, but I also see the benefits.
Checking from my phone, the heated steering wheel is more than 300$, which is more than what would cost the permanent upgrade in the car.
Now we should wonder, having a construction line and distribution system capable of handling optionals like the heated steering wheel, does it cost more or less than 300$? I don't think that the answer is obvious.
Would it be possible that the car get actually cheaper for the consumers?
Also having those optionals allow to turn them on and off at will. Maybe if I swap car with my SO it would like the heated seat that I never care for.
I see the dangerous of this, but I also see the benefits.
Also, this means your car can be resold to someone who wants heated seats and a steering wheel, even if you didn't want it (and didn't have to pay for it).
AS a consumer I absolutely hate subscriptions. I will never own a subscription to anything I can replace for something else. I bought solar panels to avoid electric subscription, etc. I never buy on credit, etc
I can sympathize not wanting subscriptions but credit, that’s a game to build wealth that is usually worth playing.
>credit, that’s a game to build wealth that is usually worth playing.
He's talking about consumer goods which typically have a negative ROI.
He's talking about consumer goods which typically have a negative ROI.
What about your mobile data subscription? ISP subscription?
You won't own anything, and you will be happy (not).
This is truly insane, its WORSE than feudalism. https://www.businessinsider.com/american-worker-less-vacatio...
This is truly insane, its WORSE than feudalism. https://www.businessinsider.com/american-worker-less-vacatio...
How soon until your car tells BMW that it's cold outside and BMW turns on the heated seats and puts an ad on your display, "For just $18/Month, this feature could be yours!"
As a long time fanboy of BMW... they keep breaking my heart. First their questionable design choices, now this.
> A similar subscription plan is offered for a heated steering wheel and it costs $10 per month, $92 annually, and $161 for three years. You can also buy it outright for $222.
They're working on much worst things... Prepare for car microtransactions.
The more that time passes, the more reality resembles a Philip K Dick novel, where you have to pay money to open a door and cereal boxes and newspapers (read "internet") had animations that tried to push product. PKD's satire on consumerism sure is turning uncomfortably prescient.
I'm expecting some kind of crescendo of insanity until we finally hit the reset button.
I'm expecting some kind of crescendo of insanity until we finally hit the reset button.
I wonder what the going rate would be to deploy airbags at the point of impact.
I suppose the challenge would be getting consent in-between the crash becoming inevitable and actually happening
I suppose the challenge would be getting consent in-between the crash becoming inevitable and actually happening
This is starting to sound like a dystopian cyberpunk world.
"Our car tried to deploy the airbags, but the customers credit card was declined"
Although to make it even more futuristic, we could replace "credit card" with "crypto wallet"
"Please deposit some $BMWTKN to your wallet or sell one of your cars microservices in order for the window-wipers to work again.[...] We detected that your rear-view camera was sold, window-wipers are now activated again."
"Our car tried to deploy the airbags, but the customers credit card was declined"
Although to make it even more futuristic, we could replace "credit card" with "crypto wallet"
"Please deposit some $BMWTKN to your wallet or sell one of your cars microservices in order for the window-wipers to work again.[...] We detected that your rear-view camera was sold, window-wipers are now activated again."
it will be more like they'll sellout your non-functional airbag and taillight status to cops and get them in on the scam. and of course if you cant pay it all then kids, it'll always end with kids ending up in state's care.
Didn't this already happen with some motorcycle safety system that required a monthly payment or it would get disabled?
Is this subscription safety vest what you are thinking of?
https://www.inputmag.com/tech/this-motorcycle-airbag-vest-de...
https://www.inputmag.com/tech/this-motorcycle-airbag-vest-de...
People who pay a subscription to use an item they bought for are part of the problem.
They have an option to buy it outright that appears to be priced at the same level as a typical upgrade. They also have 1 and 3 year subscriptions. This is actually a net win for both BMW and for consumers. You can do things like "try extensively before you buy" or even choose to only subscribe during the winter (which they probably expect a lot of people to do). BMW benefits because they're almost certainly expanding the total value they capture in upgrades. It's no longer a single customer decision point. Really savvy and perfectly sensible.
Haha nope. If I buy the car, I own everything that is in it. Installing extra parts or features? Sure, I'll pay for that. Hardware that's already in the car, and disabled just so the manufacturer can try to squeeze more money out of me? Never. I'll either enable it myself, or refuse to support companies that do such a thing if I can't.
Subscription models like this one need to be punished, hard, and/or simply rendered unprofitable. Maybe a few rich chumps are willing to pay, but I think the vast majority of car buyers have no interest in being nickel-and-dimed for the privilege of using hardware they already paid for.
Subscription models like this one need to be punished, hard, and/or simply rendered unprofitable. Maybe a few rich chumps are willing to pay, but I think the vast majority of car buyers have no interest in being nickel-and-dimed for the privilege of using hardware they already paid for.
How though? If you buy the car and either don't enable it or bypass it, they still made a sale. Everyone who pays for the feature is pure profit. There's no downside unless potential buyers opt for a Mercedes instead of a BMW. But once they are all doing it, the die is cast.
Your CPU and GPU do the exact same thing
You’re paying for the permission to turn on hardware you already paid for
But you would pay more for it if they had to put it in only certain models based on the packaging. They've done it with satellite radio for a long time now.
Right, so incentivize them to stop trying to reduce competition with software locks. If they can provide the same hardware for cheaper by exploiting economies of scale, that's what we should require them to do. That's what capitalism is good at doing. Software locks are anti-competitive.
> try extensively before you buy
More like try *after* you buy, and then pay a subscription to use.
More like try *after* you buy, and then pay a subscription to use.
When real interest rates and inflation are low, recurring revenue looks really attractive, because the NPV is high. That makes sense and I see how that drives subscription models for everything from movies to phones to car seats. But now interest rates are rising and inflation is high, I can't help but think BMW have missed the boat and are pursuing a model that would have been a great idea in 2008 but with hindsight will look dumb when 2030 people look back at us.
Unpopular opinion: this could be a consumer benefit, although BMW doesn’t seem to quite have the value proposition exactly where I’d like it to be.
It’s cheaper to build fewer SKUs and variations of a product. The fact that the assembly line never has to change what they’re installing in the car could make heated seats cheaper in the first place.
BMW currently charges $500 for heated seats a la carte in the US, so that costs 1.76 times more than the 3 year subscription at $283. That means your breakeven point is at a little bit over 5 years, without considering present and future value of money.
I could see a lot of BMW owners being completely uninterested in owning the car after 5 years, with so many of them choosing to lease. It is a luxury car, after all.
Now, here’s the other thing, if you do the monthly plan, presumably you could unsubscribe in the summer. So that’s more like $54 a year if you need it for three months of the year. That puts your breakeven point at close to 10 years!
BMW does have a lifetime purchase option, too.
I hope these purchases are tied to the vehicle and not the owner, but I have my doubts on BMW being so benevolent.
I also think it would be ideal if hardware subscriptions like this would simply unlock once the car reaches a certain age to consider its depreciated status.
It’s cheaper to build fewer SKUs and variations of a product. The fact that the assembly line never has to change what they’re installing in the car could make heated seats cheaper in the first place.
BMW currently charges $500 for heated seats a la carte in the US, so that costs 1.76 times more than the 3 year subscription at $283. That means your breakeven point is at a little bit over 5 years, without considering present and future value of money.
I could see a lot of BMW owners being completely uninterested in owning the car after 5 years, with so many of them choosing to lease. It is a luxury car, after all.
Now, here’s the other thing, if you do the monthly plan, presumably you could unsubscribe in the summer. So that’s more like $54 a year if you need it for three months of the year. That puts your breakeven point at close to 10 years!
BMW does have a lifetime purchase option, too.
I hope these purchases are tied to the vehicle and not the owner, but I have my doubts on BMW being so benevolent.
I also think it would be ideal if hardware subscriptions like this would simply unlock once the car reaches a certain age to consider its depreciated status.
Yea, you can't use it in the summer and save those months. But what if BMW says "the costs went up, subscription price must raise."
Now in 3 years it's $25 a month.
This is the path. Companies exist for profit. They will only make customers as happy as they need to.
Now in 3 years it's $25 a month.
This is the path. Companies exist for profit. They will only make customers as happy as they need to.
It's true that they've always existed for a profit. BMW doesn't operate in a bubble and has a wide selection of competitors, so if their pricing and terms are too unreasonable, customers will go elsewhere.
I think these connected services are aimed at lessees who are the bread and butter of BMW's business. Someone leasing this car would actually save money by "renting" the heated seats, next owner be damned.
Still, I'm definitely not trying to say that this is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But, considering that a "lifetime" purchase option still exists, I think this represents example of giving customers more options than they previously had.
I think these connected services are aimed at lessees who are the bread and butter of BMW's business. Someone leasing this car would actually save money by "renting" the heated seats, next owner be damned.
Still, I'm definitely not trying to say that this is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But, considering that a "lifetime" purchase option still exists, I think this represents example of giving customers more options than they previously had.
BMW has already shown itself to be skeevy by attempting to charge a fee for Apple's CarPlay; fortunately, if memory serves, they backed down from that.
I'll never buy another BMW, and I won't buy a car from a company that follows suit. It's gross.
I'll never buy another BMW, and I won't buy a car from a company that follows suit. It's gross.
Do they have to pay extra for the turn signals too?
If you want to know the future, read Philip K. Dick (this subject is straight from "Ubik") and Vernor Vinge's "Rainbows End".
Am I the only one that actually likes this idea? I live in Austin, where we only need heated seats like three months out of the year at most. On top of that, if I pay $999 for heated seats as an addon, that’s equivalent to 4.5 years of subscription at $18/m. If I could turn off lots of features while I’m on vacation, etc. I think that’s a huge win. But clearly I’m in the extreme minority.
The components are already in the car, adding complexity and cost to the purchase. What happens when BMW turns off the servers running the licensing for your car? No more heated seats period. Who would want to buy the car from you knowing the heated seats are subscription based? Does the car have wifi or do you have to also pay for a cell connection for the car to activate these features? It's madness the whole way down.
My current BMW comes with both a Wi-Fi chip and a 3G chip, at no recurring cost. Seems quite feasible for me to connect to the car via app and pay on my phone.
> Seems quite feasible for me to connect to the car via app
Who says that app is available after 3 years? Or the servers required for using it? It might be even removed from the app store, and you can't sideload it with your iPhone.
Who says that app is available after 3 years? Or the servers required for using it? It might be even removed from the app store, and you can't sideload it with your iPhone.
I would be surprised if the end result is that you get your heated seats cheaper.
Either the car manufacturer won't let you subscribe month by month (sorry, you need to subscribe to a year at least, the rules!) or they will jack up the price where they are ahead even with just seasonal usage.
Either the car manufacturer won't let you subscribe month by month (sorry, you need to subscribe to a year at least, the rules!) or they will jack up the price where they are ahead even with just seasonal usage.
Or they will make the frictional pain if unsubscribing painful, unsubscribe? Sure wait on hold on the phone for an hour and then you can unsubscribe..,
> On top of that, if I pay $999 for heated seats as an addon, that’s equivalent to 4.5 years of subscription at $18/m.
If the heated seat is already built-in and they can still sell the car profitably for $999 less, then charging for this feature you already got and they already profited from is a pure money grab.
If Apple started selling iPhones that had the usual cameras built in, but you couldn't install any camera apps unless you paid them $18 per month, would you really be so enthusiastic?
If the heated seat is already built-in and they can still sell the car profitably for $999 less, then charging for this feature you already got and they already profited from is a pure money grab.
If Apple started selling iPhones that had the usual cameras built in, but you couldn't install any camera apps unless you paid them $18 per month, would you really be so enthusiastic?
Ok now I have second job managing all my subscriptions - can’t wait to have to call and subscribe/unsubscribe to the ice maker on my fridge, the dimming from function on my lights, the time zone function on my watch, increased battery life on my laptop, etc.
But your seats have heating elements anyway, do you think bmw is taking loss if you dont buy subscription?
They recuperate the cost in economies of scale since they don't have to sell multiple models of seats.
It does make sense for extra add-ons / parts sometimes, for things you use occasionally, provided they are already not charging you for the part / add-on (which in this case BMW isn't - they allow you to pay for the heated seats monthly or yearly or purchase it outright). But remember that when you subscribe, you don't own the part / add-on. And if you only plan to use them for 3 months a year, it will not be profitable for them and they will realistically not allow it. Unless it is profitable for them, why would they turn something unnecessarily into a subscription service?
I’ve never once used my heated seats in Austin, but am absolutely annoyed the only way to get VENTILATED seats is to buy a super high end car with a much bigger engine than I want.
Or...you could put a switch on your dash that turns the heaters on and off as you wish..
That just means you're paying the same money up front rather than as a subscription. Why's that better?
The heated seats are already in the car, this is about paying more to unlock something you already paid for.
> something you already paid for
No - you can either pay for the option one-time up front (the article says), or you can pay a subscription. You don't pay for the option up-front and also pay the subscription.
Depending on your circumstances, one of these two ways to pay will be cheaper for you. It may be the subscription. Or you can not pay at all and never pay for the feature and forget about it.
If you never pay at all I guess you're 'paying' to carry the hardware around but not using it, in terms of extra fuel consumed. But maybe the baseline car ends up being cheaper for you as it simplifies the production line to install it everywhere?
No - you can either pay for the option one-time up front (the article says), or you can pay a subscription. You don't pay for the option up-front and also pay the subscription.
Depending on your circumstances, one of these two ways to pay will be cheaper for you. It may be the subscription. Or you can not pay at all and never pay for the feature and forget about it.
If you never pay at all I guess you're 'paying' to carry the hardware around but not using it, in terms of extra fuel consumed. But maybe the baseline car ends up being cheaper for you as it simplifies the production line to install it everywhere?
> No - you can either pay for the option one-time up front (the article says), or you can pay a subscription. You don't pay for the option up-front and also pay the subscription.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that BMW has already sold the car at a profit with the heating elements built-in, and then are trying to make more profit off of a software patch to enable a feature you technically already own.
If Apple offered you a $1000 iPhone with a camera app installed, and then offered you the same iPhone for $800 but which will not let any camera apps be installed unless you pay them $18/month, does that seem fine to you? They're already making a profit selling at $800, the hardware is identical, it's just a cost-free software change that you are not permitted to make to your own device.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that BMW has already sold the car at a profit with the heating elements built-in, and then are trying to make more profit off of a software patch to enable a feature you technically already own.
If Apple offered you a $1000 iPhone with a camera app installed, and then offered you the same iPhone for $800 but which will not let any camera apps be installed unless you pay them $18/month, does that seem fine to you? They're already making a profit selling at $800, the hardware is identical, it's just a cost-free software change that you are not permitted to make to your own device.
> He's saying that BMW has already sold the car at a profit
How do you know how BMW structures profit and costs? I would guess their profit is based on some people choosing to enable the future.
> If Apple offered you a $1000 iPhone with a camera app installed, and then offered you the same iPhone for $800 but which will not let any camera apps be installed unless you pay them $18/month, does that seem fine to you?
Yeah - seems ok to me. I can pick what I want. Pay more up-front, or pay the same after purchasing, or pay a subscription, or don't pay at all. More choices for the consumer.
What's the issue?
Just the mental hurdle of having the option to paying to enable a feature where the hardware was already shipped? What's the underlying actual issue with that? I don't see one?
How do you know how BMW structures profit and costs? I would guess their profit is based on some people choosing to enable the future.
> If Apple offered you a $1000 iPhone with a camera app installed, and then offered you the same iPhone for $800 but which will not let any camera apps be installed unless you pay them $18/month, does that seem fine to you?
Yeah - seems ok to me. I can pick what I want. Pay more up-front, or pay the same after purchasing, or pay a subscription, or don't pay at all. More choices for the consumer.
What's the issue?
Just the mental hurdle of having the option to paying to enable a feature where the hardware was already shipped? What's the underlying actual issue with that? I don't see one?
> I would guess their profit is based on some people choosing to enable the future.
They would not risk breaking even or losing money if people opted out more than expected. The base model with the feature disabled must be profitable on its own. It's just basic business.
> More choices for the consumer.
It's a false choice. Creating the illusion of choice is not progress. If I stood in front of your front door with a gun in hand and asked you to either pay a small fee every time you leave, or a large one-time fee to leave whenever you want, well, before I arrived you only had one choice and now you have two. Are you better off?
> What's the issue?
Capitalism generally drives progress due to competition, but it should be heavily criticised whenever it stunts progress. Simple as that.
Providing more features at the same or lower cost due to economies of scale is great progress. Artificially disabling those features with software to try and squeeze out more profit is not progress. No doubt they will also go after anyone who tries to bypass this software lock.
This is the same logic behind printer manufacturers trying to lock out third party cartridges and refilling. It's wasteful, anticompetitive and regressive, not progressive.
They would not risk breaking even or losing money if people opted out more than expected. The base model with the feature disabled must be profitable on its own. It's just basic business.
> More choices for the consumer.
It's a false choice. Creating the illusion of choice is not progress. If I stood in front of your front door with a gun in hand and asked you to either pay a small fee every time you leave, or a large one-time fee to leave whenever you want, well, before I arrived you only had one choice and now you have two. Are you better off?
> What's the issue?
Capitalism generally drives progress due to competition, but it should be heavily criticised whenever it stunts progress. Simple as that.
Providing more features at the same or lower cost due to economies of scale is great progress. Artificially disabling those features with software to try and squeeze out more profit is not progress. No doubt they will also go after anyone who tries to bypass this software lock.
This is the same logic behind printer manufacturers trying to lock out third party cartridges and refilling. It's wasteful, anticompetitive and regressive, not progressive.
> They would not risk breaking even or losing money if people opted out more than expected.
Loss-leader. Allows them to advertise a low base price, but most people will pay more.
> It's a false choice
Lol it’s not - you can genuinely choose to never pay for it, to pay later, or pay up front. Those are all useful choices I can imagine real people exercising.
Why do you think it’s an illusion? Why is not paying not an option?
> If I stood in front of your front door with a gun in hand
It’s a car seat heater. It’s a luxury. Nothing as dramatic.
Loss-leader. Allows them to advertise a low base price, but most people will pay more.
> It's a false choice
Lol it’s not - you can genuinely choose to never pay for it, to pay later, or pay up front. Those are all useful choices I can imagine real people exercising.
Why do you think it’s an illusion? Why is not paying not an option?
> If I stood in front of your front door with a gun in hand
It’s a car seat heater. It’s a luxury. Nothing as dramatic.
> Loss-leader. Allows them to advertise a low base price, but most people will pay more.
They wouldn't risk it in this case, for such a high cost item. It makes no sense for the marginal cost of the heater, the base price would just be marked above the cost.
> It’s a car seat heater. It’s a luxury. Nothing as dramatic.
Way to miss the point. Thought experiments are dramatic so as to make the principle obvious: just because you've increased the set of possible choices does not mean you've added value. That's the case with the thought experiment and with subscription seat heaters. That's why it's a false choice, the value has already been added by economies of scale, and BMW is trying to profit more without any effort by removing that added value.
As I already explained, we want innovation from effort that encourages progress, not profiteering from artificial scarcity. Skewed incentives that don't result in progress should be criticized and corrected.
They wouldn't risk it in this case, for such a high cost item. It makes no sense for the marginal cost of the heater, the base price would just be marked above the cost.
> It’s a car seat heater. It’s a luxury. Nothing as dramatic.
Way to miss the point. Thought experiments are dramatic so as to make the principle obvious: just because you've increased the set of possible choices does not mean you've added value. That's the case with the thought experiment and with subscription seat heaters. That's why it's a false choice, the value has already been added by economies of scale, and BMW is trying to profit more without any effort by removing that added value.
As I already explained, we want innovation from effort that encourages progress, not profiteering from artificial scarcity. Skewed incentives that don't result in progress should be criticized and corrected.
Because the manufacturer has already paid to include that hardware into the product.
But, as I say, that could work out cheaper for them due to simplified manufacturing. That's why other manufacturers usually do it.
Yes, it is cheaper due to economies of scale to include the hardware in all models, and the fact that they're selling it at all without enabling the feature means there's already a profit margin there.
You have purchase the physical hardware...
The fact that you need to purchase additional software to enable that is absolutely insane and wasteful
The fact that you need to purchase additional software to enable that is absolutely insane and wasteful
> The fact that you need to purchase additional software to enable that is absolutely insane and wasteful
I don't know - could be less wasteful to ship identical hardware to everyone. An example from another sector is did you know low end processor chips are often exactly the same as higher end ones, just with features burned off? It means they can re-use imperfect chips, reducing waste, and they can have a simpler production line, reducing costs.
I don't know - could be less wasteful to ship identical hardware to everyone. An example from another sector is did you know low end processor chips are often exactly the same as higher end ones, just with features burned off? It means they can re-use imperfect chips, reducing waste, and they can have a simpler production line, reducing costs.
Chips I could understand as they're small and volume would be X times the number of cars produced.
But a heated seat is not light, its a lot of extra weight to ship and therefore more fuel used for every car.
What percentage of car owners will pay for that feature to be enabled. 20, 30 , 50?
That's a lot of fuel and energy burnt to get it to that person and over the life of the car the weight of those seats will have a material impact on the lifetime fuel usage of the car, tyre wear times etc etc.
But a heated seat is not light, its a lot of extra weight to ship and therefore more fuel used for every car.
What percentage of car owners will pay for that feature to be enabled. 20, 30 , 50?
That's a lot of fuel and energy burnt to get it to that person and over the life of the car the weight of those seats will have a material impact on the lifetime fuel usage of the car, tyre wear times etc etc.
The seats are the same. The difference is a heating element that weights < 100 g
Here is example with packaged weights:
[1] https://bimmercat.com/bmw/en/search/selectCar/F30/Lim/BMW+33...
Here is example with packaged weights:
[1] https://bimmercat.com/bmw/en/search/selectCar/F30/Lim/BMW+33...
Cheers for the doc!
That's different from other cars I've seen with heated seats , in that case I can definitely see the case of just including it into every car just incase.
That's different from other cars I've seen with heated seats , in that case I can definitely see the case of just including it into every car just incase.
Wire in your own switch, bypassing everything
[deleted]
I can see it for some exterior feature of the car such as gold plated trim or fancy rims, but you would really have to be "in the know" about this brand, to know that someone has paid an extra $18/mo for this feature. Unless you ride with them.
Still, if this becomes a way that I can get a cheaper car by declining all of the add-ons, or if it lowers the price of used cars, I'll be happy.
Still, if this becomes a way that I can get a cheaper car by declining all of the add-ons, or if it lowers the price of used cars, I'll be happy.
I wish instead of subscription they make car more modular (I mean certain features). So I can opt out things I don’t want and add later
Modern cars are all in all pretty awful. They are the posterboys of technology that took a wrong turn at some point. Modern engines/electric engines? Fine. Some electronics to assist driving and engine management? Okay. Safety features? Sure. But everything else is basically the automobile equivalent of a modern web browser.
One of many reasons that when my current car gives out, I'm eyeing a 1970s era pickup. I like to actually own the things I buy, rather than being forced to pay subscription fees for features of a car I own. Or have components of the car that I own "phone home" with information about my vehicle, my driving habits or my location.
It would be nice if someone could figure out how to hack these into working without a subscription.
That should indeed be possible. And ideally it'd be illegal for the manufacturer to try to stop you.
I've thought about this a bit, and I feel like many of these sort of abuses could be mitigated rather elegantly with some sort of right-to-repair type legislation focused on providing consumers with the ability to modify their property as they see fit. Far less costly than trying to anticipate and ban every possible anti-feature manufacturers could build into their products.
I've thought about this a bit, and I feel like many of these sort of abuses could be mitigated rather elegantly with some sort of right-to-repair type legislation focused on providing consumers with the ability to modify their property as they see fit. Far less costly than trying to anticipate and ban every possible anti-feature manufacturers could build into their products.
I'm a serial BMW owner (on my 8th) but this ends my relationship with BMW forever.
Not clear if you need a car first, or if they will mail you a seat like the old netflix dvd model.
Article didn't really cover this but do you still have to pay more for a car that has the heated seats and steering wheel options and then a monthly fee to use them or do all the target cars in SK come with these features standard? If you have to pay more just to have the option of paying to turn on the subscription then that is insane.
This is almost an irrelevant point. If the hardware is installed and you own the damn car, you should be able to turn on the damn heaters.
Would be interesting to know I suppose though.
Would be interesting to know I suppose though.
It does seem to rub people the wrong way. Of a 'wait I have the part but you want 20 bucks a month for me to use it?!' get out of here.
I watched one restaurant try something like this. It was a fairly high end restaurant. They came in and started charging for salads. They were so proud of 500-1000 extra per month they were making. What they did not notice was their clientele just decided to not be treated like that. The place went from 2 hour wait to get into, to the servers fighting to get tables, within a year, out of business 2 years later. They could have put the cost into the meal and no one would have batted an eye. Instead they came off as cheap and gouging.
I watched one restaurant try something like this. It was a fairly high end restaurant. They came in and started charging for salads. They were so proud of 500-1000 extra per month they were making. What they did not notice was their clientele just decided to not be treated like that. The place went from 2 hour wait to get into, to the servers fighting to get tables, within a year, out of business 2 years later. They could have put the cost into the meal and no one would have batted an eye. Instead they came off as cheap and gouging.
I guess some could try to sue BMW for including this extra waste and not accounting it in the price.
The cost of renting the space for the waste and the energy for moving them around.
Probably, that guy in front of me just can't afford his turning lights subscription.
welcome to the new subscription economy courtesy of Apple and Google.
"You will own nothing and you will be happy"
I kind of like the idea of the manufacturers installing hardware that I don’t have to pay for and can enable with a software patch or computer swap.
If they're installing the hardware you _are_ paying for it, they just want to increase their profits by charging you more money to use the hardware you've already paid for!
If it's _your car_ then all the features in the car _belong to you_. Why should you pay a third party additional monies to use features of an object that _you already own_.
I think this is despicable, and I won't purchase a car that I can't own outright.
If it's _your car_ then all the features in the car _belong to you_. Why should you pay a third party additional monies to use features of an object that _you already own_.
I think this is despicable, and I won't purchase a car that I can't own outright.
I think what the parent commenter implied to mean here is, they like when companies put in features (Razor and blade model) and add soft-locks to prohibit people from using them, because they a tech-savvy user can often find a way around it.
They think this benefits them, because they can get a device (for example a printer) at cheaper prices at what would be possible, and find ways around (cartridge) soft locks.
They think this benefits them, because they can get a device (for example a printer) at cheaper prices at what would be possible, and find ways around (cartridge) soft locks.
> They think this benefits them, because they can get a device (for example a printer) at cheaper prices at what would be possible
They think that, but that's wrong. It creates an industry with skewed incentives and less competition. The company can obviously sell the item at the lower cost and thus provide more competitive options to the marketplace, but they're trying to limit competition via software locks instead.
They think that, but that's wrong. It creates an industry with skewed incentives and less competition. The company can obviously sell the item at the lower cost and thus provide more competitive options to the marketplace, but they're trying to limit competition via software locks instead.
It's not that simple. Even if they're not installing it you're paying for some of it because of all the overhead it takes to offer the option.
So you can pay for the extra fuel needed to haul around all the extra weight of a “fully-loaded” vehicle?
Sure you pay for it, and a second time to use it.
I bet my house there will eventually be a car that charges you extra for driving to the hospital, or outright refuses, and that there will be people on this forum defending this 'feature' with "manufacturer doesn't want responsebility for transporting a bleeding person, you should call an ambulance"
Imagine paying a company $18 a month to warm your butt. Imagine going back in time and telling your great-grandfather you pay someone to warm your butt.
Imagine living in cold climate. Heated seats is very nice to have in certain places where temp below -20C is not uncommon.
(Paid monthly subscription is a different issue though.)
(Paid monthly subscription is a different issue though.)
I come from a family where my father refused to use the AC in the car no matter how hot it was because it lowered the gas mileage
What dumbass executive greenlighted this?
$18 per month over 10 years is $2,160. MSRP for the 2020 2 Series--BMW's cheapest sedan--is $35,300.
So instead of charging $2K--5% more--for heated seats out right they have no gone through the expense of (1) building the software, billing, and support infrastructure to manage this (2) pissing off customers.
I'm assuming they're also streamlining production by building heated seats into every car instead of selective models, but again, why not just go with a permanent upgrade model? Everyone buys heated seats, BWM provides a special chip to activate them.
$18 per month over 10 years is $2,160. MSRP for the 2020 2 Series--BMW's cheapest sedan--is $35,300.
So instead of charging $2K--5% more--for heated seats out right they have no gone through the expense of (1) building the software, billing, and support infrastructure to manage this (2) pissing off customers.
I'm assuming they're also streamlining production by building heated seats into every car instead of selective models, but again, why not just go with a permanent upgrade model? Everyone buys heated seats, BWM provides a special chip to activate them.
The feature is sold for much less than $2K. In the article it mentions $400 for a lifetime subscription. What could be attractive to that executives is an opportunity to broaden the market for this feature.
I.e. instead of having only one chance to sell you this feature at the time of order, they now can let you trial this after the purchase. They might even run a promo during a cold streak for free (just like SiriusXM gives free access during major holidays). $18/mo is there just to make $406 number more attractive.
I think people are too distracted by the subscription aspect and missing the fact that the "conversion rate" for heated seats purchases could be improved.
I.e. instead of having only one chance to sell you this feature at the time of order, they now can let you trial this after the purchase. They might even run a promo during a cold streak for free (just like SiriusXM gives free access during major holidays). $18/mo is there just to make $406 number more attractive.
I think people are too distracted by the subscription aspect and missing the fact that the "conversion rate" for heated seats purchases could be improved.
Didn't realize the lifetime sub was $400. I take it back, this is pretty clever.
Exactly. This is probably a $300 actual cost item they have to charge 5x for to pay for all the supporting infrastructure and software engineers
Yes, but this is the future they want to move to where you pay $60k for your car, but you need to also pay them $1k per month (for nothing) to drive it - obviously not including your insurance or gas.
To grow profits in excess of inflation in a saturated market, you must charge your costumers continuously more for the same product.
To grow profits in excess of inflation in a saturated market, you must charge your costumers continuously more for the same product.
These kind of initiatives aren't about the first customer. The person buying new will likely get a free subscription as part of some dealership deal, or will buy the feature outright at purchase time and wont notice. This is about rent seeking from the freeloaders.
That dumbass executive looked at the healthy used car market, got pissed that some people owned BMW's without paying their dues, and asked how to fix that.
This service allows a customer to purchase a feature outright, now do you think that feature belongs to the car, or does it belong to the customer? Will it transfer during a sale?
That dumbass executive looked at the healthy used car market, got pissed that some people owned BMW's without paying their dues, and asked how to fix that.
This service allows a customer to purchase a feature outright, now do you think that feature belongs to the car, or does it belong to the customer? Will it transfer during a sale?
> Will it transfer during a sale?
Remember, the feature has a lifetime value. All that's happening here is those payments are being deferred. You could (1) charge the 10 year value outright or (2) charge it on a monthly basis.
In scenario 1, BMW captures the full value and basically allow their customers to negotiate the remaining value of the feature in the used car market. In scenario 2, BMW requires the second purchaser to enable the feature. It additionally requires that the feature never be turned off for an extended period of time. Say the car sits in a dealership lot for 6 months. Do they profit from the feature then?
Altogether it looks like they're trying to streamline production. It's likely a lot cheaper to have all the cars manufactured with heated seats and have some mechanism to enable them. Monthly subscription cost, however, seems insane.
Also, inflation is actually a counterargument for a strategy like this.
In inflationary environments, money today is worth more than money tomorrow. Also, can you imagine trying to hike subscription prices frequently to keep up with inflation?
Remember, the feature has a lifetime value. All that's happening here is those payments are being deferred. You could (1) charge the 10 year value outright or (2) charge it on a monthly basis.
In scenario 1, BMW captures the full value and basically allow their customers to negotiate the remaining value of the feature in the used car market. In scenario 2, BMW requires the second purchaser to enable the feature. It additionally requires that the feature never be turned off for an extended period of time. Say the car sits in a dealership lot for 6 months. Do they profit from the feature then?
Altogether it looks like they're trying to streamline production. It's likely a lot cheaper to have all the cars manufactured with heated seats and have some mechanism to enable them. Monthly subscription cost, however, seems insane.
Also, inflation is actually a counterargument for a strategy like this.
In inflationary environments, money today is worth more than money tomorrow. Also, can you imagine trying to hike subscription prices frequently to keep up with inflation?
I find this great, let them build under priced cars, goto a shop and get the "all features go" chip welded in and pirated firmware. Shareholders financially supporting customers driving better then they could afford, the same fate that you can expect for tesla. Which reminds me what is the tesla dark quota? How many cars totally disappear from the always connected feature and never reconnect?
I suspect the heated seats were/are just a simple thing they could add onto the infrastructure, which must support a lot more services than just the seats.
We are rapidly moving towards Feudalism.
If someone can charge you for using things you already bought and 'own', then average man has no property rights. The fee could be increased at any time, or new fees could be introduced.
As the housing crysis deepens, average person will never own a home either.
So average person will be in the same position as a medieval serf, conpletely dependand on the whims of the lord, probably living in debt starting from the student loan and dying in debt.
If someone can charge you for using things you already bought and 'own', then average man has no property rights. The fee could be increased at any time, or new fees could be introduced.
As the housing crysis deepens, average person will never own a home either.
So average person will be in the same position as a medieval serf, conpletely dependand on the whims of the lord, probably living in debt starting from the student loan and dying in debt.
I was ranting about this 2 years ago and a lot of people laughed it off...
I cited an auto start feature o VOLVO cars that required a siriusXM membership.
It's unfathomable that we reached this point of monthly subscriptions being implemented on things that we've already paid for. It's the first sign that we're in for a wave of not feudalism, but outright economic slavery. There is no rational consumer protection against many predatory business practices, and many are eager to be a part of monthly subscriptions for useless services for lord knows what motivational reason.
Mike Judge was a genius for making the movie Idiocracy, it's our future. No way around it now. :[
I cited an auto start feature o VOLVO cars that required a siriusXM membership.
It's unfathomable that we reached this point of monthly subscriptions being implemented on things that we've already paid for. It's the first sign that we're in for a wave of not feudalism, but outright economic slavery. There is no rational consumer protection against many predatory business practices, and many are eager to be a part of monthly subscriptions for useless services for lord knows what motivational reason.
Mike Judge was a genius for making the movie Idiocracy, it's our future. No way around it now. :[
> I cited an auto start feature o VOLVO cars that required a siriusXM membership.
As much as I dislike that kind of fee, it at least makes sense. The remote communication support isn't free.
As much as I dislike that kind of fee, it at least makes sense. The remote communication support isn't free.
Implementing it the way it used to be, with a proprietary radio remote, does not require any communications infrastructure support.
99.9% of the time this feature is used to start the car when the driver is within 50 feet. There's no need for it to be relayed through the Internet.
99.9% of the time this feature is used to start the car when the driver is within 50 feet. There's no need for it to be relayed through the Internet.
This is something that bothers me as well, implementation decisions are what drives this a lot. I have a nest thermostat and it seems like the app decides to log me out randomly every once in a while and I have to go through the whole login/2fa process, sometimes in the middle of the night when trying to adjust the temp! There is no need for internet connected thermostat most of the time, I would much prefer Bluetooth with no login needed ever.
Why have such a thing ad why tolerate it - I mean get rid of it or tell whoever owns it now to fix it. What is the value of these things?
it came with the house and I haven't got around to replacing it yet, nor should I have to really.
I really wish that all thermostats at least had the option for local control. z-wave and other standards for this aren't even new.
My Tesla Model 3 _can_ remote start the air conditioner via the cellular network, but it can also work via bluetooth if I'm within maybe 20 to 30 meters of the vehicle.
Of course, Tesla is also more friendly than these others and makes the service free.
I'm only familiar with the systems where the fob is still just a proprietary remote. It also has a phone app, and that's what costs extra. The fees are too high, but the existence of a fee is sensible.
well there is good faith implementation and a bad faith one. implicit in the clubbing of satellite radio & remote start is a bad faith revenue milking where they are trying to sell a rather undesirable feature with a very desirable one. I have a volvo and an older acura. I f*king hate this because my older acura can be remote started and volvo wont as I refuse to pay $15 a month for a already working & paid for feature they disabled after a few years.
what they really want is install a bunch of these leeching monthly subscriptions on your credit card that you forget about and they keep billing you for almost no marginal value.
what they really want is install a bunch of these leeching monthly subscriptions on your credit card that you forget about and they keep billing you for almost no marginal value.
It is free when the vehicle is parked at my house and has access to our wireless guest network. It can download updates just fine. This is purely a money decision by Volvo.
$300 a year is crazy. I never even turned that feature on.
$300 a year is crazy. I never even turned that feature on.
volvo does not require siriusxm (which is satellite radio) for auto-start. it requires Volvo On Call subscription (you get one for free for first 3 years). And it's kinda reasonable, because Volvo On Call works via LTE and somebody needs to pay for it
There is a way, but you're not going to like it, and we can't discuss it on HN.
Why can't we? The American Founders literally wanted us to take up arms and kill people who violated our essential liberties. You can read this in their own books and papers. They were extremely clear about this... it isn't even up for debate, unless of course you're talking to a moron that's never actually read Jefferson, Washington, Madison, etc.
If we reach a point where we can't even restate what our Founders said, we're already in our twilight as any kind of civilized liberal society.
Now we can argue about what constitutes an "essential liberty". I'm not sure I'd put, "Heated seats in my BMW" in that category.
If we reach a point where we can't even restate what our Founders said, we're already in our twilight as any kind of civilized liberal society.
Now we can argue about what constitutes an "essential liberty". I'm not sure I'd put, "Heated seats in my BMW" in that category.
Does it start with “re” and and with “volution”?
Sweet, can you send me an invite to that Discord server??
where to?
Something about the government, in minecraft.
> We are rapidly moving towards Feudalism.
I hate when people say that. This has literally nothing to do with the historic institution of feudalism. Its is the opposite of actually educating people on actual feudalism.
Its just using historical terms that people call not to be 'bad' so you don't actually have to explain the problem.
We are literally talking about people who can buy a BMW. Did BMW promise them heated seats when they sold it to you? Would you feel better if the service worker at the dealer would rip out 5mm of tubes to 'break' the heated seat? Would that make it Ok?
Also, this is the extreme, extreme minority of features from an extreme minority of cars, by the extreme of car manufactures. Calling this 'rapidly moving to Feudalism' is way overly dramatic.
> As the housing crysis deepens, average person will never own a home either.
High amount of home ownership is not the same as having a high quality of live. And its also not really accurate.
> So average person will be in the same position as a medieval serf, conpletely dependand on the whims of the lord,
The lord who sold the serf a BMW?
> probably living in debt starting from the student loan and dying in debt.
Many people manage to pay of their student loans and don't have to live in debt if they don't want to.
Many people want to take on debt in order to consume now rather then later, being in debt is not actually necessary bad.
I hate when people say that. This has literally nothing to do with the historic institution of feudalism. Its is the opposite of actually educating people on actual feudalism.
Its just using historical terms that people call not to be 'bad' so you don't actually have to explain the problem.
We are literally talking about people who can buy a BMW. Did BMW promise them heated seats when they sold it to you? Would you feel better if the service worker at the dealer would rip out 5mm of tubes to 'break' the heated seat? Would that make it Ok?
Also, this is the extreme, extreme minority of features from an extreme minority of cars, by the extreme of car manufactures. Calling this 'rapidly moving to Feudalism' is way overly dramatic.
> As the housing crysis deepens, average person will never own a home either.
High amount of home ownership is not the same as having a high quality of live. And its also not really accurate.
> So average person will be in the same position as a medieval serf, conpletely dependand on the whims of the lord,
The lord who sold the serf a BMW?
> probably living in debt starting from the student loan and dying in debt.
Many people manage to pay of their student loans and don't have to live in debt if they don't want to.
Many people want to take on debt in order to consume now rather then later, being in debt is not actually necessary bad.
> Many people manage to pay of their student loans and don't have to live in debt if they don't want to.
yikes... this strikes me as quite similar to this line of reasoning: "poor people are poor because they just don't want to work"
yikes... this strikes me as quite similar to this line of reasoning: "poor people are poor because they just don't want to work"
This is a weird take to read when you're someone who dropped out of college when the debt load got too scary and had learned enough to gain a marketable skill and enter industry. Paid my debt off in a couple years. This was less than a decade ago, too, I'm not that old.
Tuition has been frozen at my university since I left so the kids there now have the same exact choices I had
The big difference between me and my peers was that I did poorly academically my first year and it forced me to enter the work force and learn the value of the money I was borrowing, and after that I borrowed the minimum I could to remain in school, for the minimum time, as it was so expensive.
I'm supposed to believe that it's impossible to avoid... When I avoided it?
I even got screwed by federal assistance because my parents seemed financially healthier than they were. I paid for 90% of my own educational costs, by working part time. And like I said this was the late 00s, early 10s, I'm not telling a tale from the 70s
My wife has a similar story, but started out much poorer. Now we're both professionals sans degrees making over six figures, no debt. But that's impossible.
I get it, these are anecdotes. But student loan debt is a choice, and it's one we both avoided, so it's definitely possible to do.
Tuition has been frozen at my university since I left so the kids there now have the same exact choices I had
The big difference between me and my peers was that I did poorly academically my first year and it forced me to enter the work force and learn the value of the money I was borrowing, and after that I borrowed the minimum I could to remain in school, for the minimum time, as it was so expensive.
I'm supposed to believe that it's impossible to avoid... When I avoided it?
I even got screwed by federal assistance because my parents seemed financially healthier than they were. I paid for 90% of my own educational costs, by working part time. And like I said this was the late 00s, early 10s, I'm not telling a tale from the 70s
My wife has a similar story, but started out much poorer. Now we're both professionals sans degrees making over six figures, no debt. But that's impossible.
I get it, these are anecdotes. But student loan debt is a choice, and it's one we both avoided, so it's definitely possible to do.
> I'm supposed to believe that it's impossible to avoid... When I avoided it?
Being possible isn't the same as being scalable, for the vast majority of people debt is extremely difficult to get out of, and it's in the interest of the creditors (quite literally) to encourage lending to people who are likely to find it difficult to break free of the compounding interest, because it maximises their return.
Even assuming everyone was individually instantly capable of recognise and managing the risks of their debt, there would be massive reduced opportunity for ways to escape it, and the interest might be higher in order to satisfy the creditors who would otherwise not get as much return... it would be much harder to escape in that situation - From that perspective you should count yourself lucky, had everyone been as "smart" you might still be in debt.
Being possible isn't the same as being scalable, for the vast majority of people debt is extremely difficult to get out of, and it's in the interest of the creditors (quite literally) to encourage lending to people who are likely to find it difficult to break free of the compounding interest, because it maximises their return.
Even assuming everyone was individually instantly capable of recognise and managing the risks of their debt, there would be massive reduced opportunity for ways to escape it, and the interest might be higher in order to satisfy the creditors who would otherwise not get as much return... it would be much harder to escape in that situation - From that perspective you should count yourself lucky, had everyone been as "smart" you might still be in debt.
Congrats, you're the exception that proves the rule.
I know a lot of people who were, frankly, railroaded into college. Middle class kids who never had to worry about money, did good to excellent in school, never worked a serious job, were told by their schools, parents, teachers, television and the internet that any degree was a path to success. Then the clock strikes midnight on their 18th birthday and they have no idea how to make informed decisions, so they just do what they've been told by everyone they've trusted for their entire lives.
They mostly ended up with history, sociology or some other useless undergraduate degrees and working at Starbucks if they're lucky and five to six figures of student loan debt with no way to pay it off. And by the time they're wise enough to actually handle money responsibly they're already trapped.
Also most universities are not freezing tuition, and I'm wondering where you went to college and what your part time job was, and how much assistance you got. You're not paying college tuition by working the counter at California Pizza Kitchen part-time. Plus Tuition has continued to inflate every year even since the early tens, although the rate of inflation has decreased in recent years. https://www.in2013dollars.com/College-tuition-and-fees/price...
I know a lot of people who were, frankly, railroaded into college. Middle class kids who never had to worry about money, did good to excellent in school, never worked a serious job, were told by their schools, parents, teachers, television and the internet that any degree was a path to success. Then the clock strikes midnight on their 18th birthday and they have no idea how to make informed decisions, so they just do what they've been told by everyone they've trusted for their entire lives.
They mostly ended up with history, sociology or some other useless undergraduate degrees and working at Starbucks if they're lucky and five to six figures of student loan debt with no way to pay it off. And by the time they're wise enough to actually handle money responsibly they're already trapped.
Also most universities are not freezing tuition, and I'm wondering where you went to college and what your part time job was, and how much assistance you got. You're not paying college tuition by working the counter at California Pizza Kitchen part-time. Plus Tuition has continued to inflate every year even since the early tens, although the rate of inflation has decreased in recent years. https://www.in2013dollars.com/College-tuition-and-fees/price...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Nonsense. Student loans are not some kind of enforced slavery or whatever. You are getting a education, you are investing in human capital and that will increase your earnings potential for the rest of your life. Just like every other investment.
You are like gone be working for 40 years, to spend some of that paying back university is not a horrible deal. People here act like you get absolutely nothing for student loans as if you were born a debt slave.
One can make an argument of course that another system is better, a system where everybody (including people who don't go to university) pay more taxes and you pay more taxes in order to pay for higher education. That argument can be made.
There are many improvements that could be made, less people should do formal education and more people should be doing apprenticeships and then part time further education. That would produce much less debt without actually fundamentally changing the system.
However to act like this is some draconian feudalism is crazy.
You are like gone be working for 40 years, to spend some of that paying back university is not a horrible deal. People here act like you get absolutely nothing for student loans as if you were born a debt slave.
One can make an argument of course that another system is better, a system where everybody (including people who don't go to university) pay more taxes and you pay more taxes in order to pay for higher education. That argument can be made.
There are many improvements that could be made, less people should do formal education and more people should be doing apprenticeships and then part time further education. That would produce much less debt without actually fundamentally changing the system.
However to act like this is some draconian feudalism is crazy.
no, it's simply the reality that there's quite a bit of range from the the constant late-stage-capitalism crowd's doomsday worldview to the libertarian/alt-right/whatever crowd's "snowflakes just want to have 30 genders and don't want to work" narrative.
yes, things could be better. (yes, a lot better if people suddenly were suprarational.) yes, there are metrics that regressed in the US, or even in the world in general (civil liberties for example)
but it's quite possible to look at each issue in context, and this approach is a lot healthier and more useful than adopting either extreme. (student debt is basically the perfect issue for this, because without context we can just throw anecdotes or useless overly general statements at each other. there's not even consensus about what's the problem. yes, tuition costs are high, and rising. yes, many people have trouble servicing their debt. and so on. but these are different - though of course interconnected - problems. nor is there consensus about who is most affected. should society instead focus on those who did not even have the opportunity to apply to collage? should we focus on those who dropped out due to financial hardship yet ended up with debt? both? neither? and so on.)
yes, things could be better. (yes, a lot better if people suddenly were suprarational.) yes, there are metrics that regressed in the US, or even in the world in general (civil liberties for example)
but it's quite possible to look at each issue in context, and this approach is a lot healthier and more useful than adopting either extreme. (student debt is basically the perfect issue for this, because without context we can just throw anecdotes or useless overly general statements at each other. there's not even consensus about what's the problem. yes, tuition costs are high, and rising. yes, many people have trouble servicing their debt. and so on. but these are different - though of course interconnected - problems. nor is there consensus about who is most affected. should society instead focus on those who did not even have the opportunity to apply to collage? should we focus on those who dropped out due to financial hardship yet ended up with debt? both? neither? and so on.)
If it works for BMW, why wouldn't it work for Ford, Toyota and GM? The financial incentive will cause these user-hostile subscriptions to spread, and probably to more than just heated seats, if/when the model is proven.
The analogy to feudalism might be stretched in the literal sense, but most people use the term as a substitute for "you own nothing and are subject to the whims of the owner".
And there's a lot of truth to that for the average person, compared to conditions even 20 years ago. With regard to heated seats, my 22 year old car has heated seats. They have never required a subscription, and they are mine for as long as they function/are repairable. Now you can argue that, theoretically, car companies could charge less for the car up front and make it up on the subscriptions, so the consumer will see increased customization and savings, and the car company will make the same amount of money instead of more money! If you believe that I have a subscription to a bridge to sell you for $19.99 a month.
The analogy to feudalism might be stretched in the literal sense, but most people use the term as a substitute for "you own nothing and are subject to the whims of the owner".
And there's a lot of truth to that for the average person, compared to conditions even 20 years ago. With regard to heated seats, my 22 year old car has heated seats. They have never required a subscription, and they are mine for as long as they function/are repairable. Now you can argue that, theoretically, car companies could charge less for the car up front and make it up on the subscriptions, so the consumer will see increased customization and savings, and the car company will make the same amount of money instead of more money! If you believe that I have a subscription to a bridge to sell you for $19.99 a month.
Life has been good in the west for a long, long time. But looking at how my great-grandfather lived (through the depression), and his point of view is massively different.
Economically things look rather grim. Goods will get more and more expensive. People will have less money to spend on frivolous items. Before they'd ignore minor expenses, now they will look for the best possible deals.
Subscriptions only work when people don't pay attention. BMW will be OK because it's just a rich person's toy anyway. I don't see it working for mass-market cars.
Economically things look rather grim. Goods will get more and more expensive. People will have less money to spend on frivolous items. Before they'd ignore minor expenses, now they will look for the best possible deals.
Subscriptions only work when people don't pay attention. BMW will be OK because it's just a rich person's toy anyway. I don't see it working for mass-market cars.
> this is the extreme, extreme minority of features from an extreme minority of cars, by the extreme of car manufactures.
the problem is you don't see the big picture: all modern tractors are internet connected and farmers are not allowed to repair them.
all TVs are smart, you cant't buy a new 'dumb' TV. Philips recently added adslvertisements to TVs people bought years ago.
This isn't some niche thing that won't affect you, this is a paradigme shift like we haven't seen in a century.
if you rent an apartment in 2050, it will come with a smart oven, frisge and toilet. The oven will be brans-locked to wallmart and if you buy food somewhere else it will refuse to turn on with the warning "unauthorised substance detected"
the problem is you don't see the big picture: all modern tractors are internet connected and farmers are not allowed to repair them.
all TVs are smart, you cant't buy a new 'dumb' TV. Philips recently added adslvertisements to TVs people bought years ago.
This isn't some niche thing that won't affect you, this is a paradigme shift like we haven't seen in a century.
if you rent an apartment in 2050, it will come with a smart oven, frisge and toilet. The oven will be brans-locked to wallmart and if you buy food somewhere else it will refuse to turn on with the warning "unauthorised substance detected"
Sounds like someone is trying to morally justify their success off the back of those sweet, sweet subscription revenues.
Heated seats is a luxury, sure. But what about music? Kitchen appliances? Movies and TV? Productivity software? Transportation?
All these things are things we own much less of (or "own," as it were, since we got to keep physical custody of the bits, and they didn't try to authenticate against a web service)
The situation is positively feudal, people are sharecropping increasingly large parts of their lives. And the lords sit in their castles, surrounded by yes-men, pushing the limits of legality and ignoring the cries of the people that make their businesses happen.
Heated seats is a luxury, sure. But what about music? Kitchen appliances? Movies and TV? Productivity software? Transportation?
All these things are things we own much less of (or "own," as it were, since we got to keep physical custody of the bits, and they didn't try to authenticate against a web service)
The situation is positively feudal, people are sharecropping increasingly large parts of their lives. And the lords sit in their castles, surrounded by yes-men, pushing the limits of legality and ignoring the cries of the people that make their businesses happen.
> Sounds like someone is trying to morally justify their success off the back of those sweet, sweet subscription revenues.
I implied nothing about myself. I myself did not go to university.
> Heated seats is a luxury, sure. But what about music? Kitchen appliances? Movies and TV? Productivity software? Transportation?
Subscription is just one way to pay for things, sometimes it makes sense sometimes it doesn't. Public transport have been using subscription for decades and people somehow don't think that's a bad thing.
For cars people usually use loans, and that ends up being just another form of monthly payment.
They have advantages and disadvantages depending on many factors. To have moral outrage because something in particular uses subscription makes no sense.
The waste majority of the things you named the waste majority of the time don't need subscription. And the reality is that while you don't need a subscription for music for example, people do actually prefer it in some cases and that is fine.
> people are sharecropping increasingly large parts of their lives
Comparing digital goods to land ownership is a terrible analogy.
> And the lords sit in their castles, surrounded by yes-men
You have a real flair for storytelling, next you will add some more fantasy element and you will tell me they have 'greedy grins' or whatever. Makes for good drama I guess.
I implied nothing about myself. I myself did not go to university.
> Heated seats is a luxury, sure. But what about music? Kitchen appliances? Movies and TV? Productivity software? Transportation?
Subscription is just one way to pay for things, sometimes it makes sense sometimes it doesn't. Public transport have been using subscription for decades and people somehow don't think that's a bad thing.
For cars people usually use loans, and that ends up being just another form of monthly payment.
They have advantages and disadvantages depending on many factors. To have moral outrage because something in particular uses subscription makes no sense.
The waste majority of the things you named the waste majority of the time don't need subscription. And the reality is that while you don't need a subscription for music for example, people do actually prefer it in some cases and that is fine.
> people are sharecropping increasingly large parts of their lives
Comparing digital goods to land ownership is a terrible analogy.
> And the lords sit in their castles, surrounded by yes-men
You have a real flair for storytelling, next you will add some more fantasy element and you will tell me they have 'greedy grins' or whatever. Makes for good drama I guess.
> Many people manage to pay of their student loans and don't have to live in debt if they don't want to.
Probably varies a lot by location. IIRC, the UK government's own report on their current university fee/loan structure anticipates a large number of people paying off their loans so slowly that they will end up being written off.
I think this counts as both a stealth tax and stealth government borrowing.
Probably varies a lot by location. IIRC, the UK government's own report on their current university fee/loan structure anticipates a large number of people paying off their loans so slowly that they will end up being written off.
I think this counts as both a stealth tax and stealth government borrowing.
It's some weird mindset of can't-do speaking there. Maybe a sliver of truth but just failure dialling in to HN. They never offer anything useful, just want to feel important in their nihilism. They are a disease.
Feudalism was more like slavery. Serfs could not marry, move or own land without permission. Serfs could be sold (not individuals but entire villages). Comparing it to BMW ownership is disgusting!
Conversely, I been seeing more people then ever riding, building and modifying electric and motorized bicycles. You can modify a regular $200 mountain bike with a $200 motor kit from amazon and have a $400 motorcycle that you don’t need a motorcycle license for. If you really don’t want to burn fossil fuels, a $1000 bafang mid drive ebike kit can turn a regular bicycle into a hill crushing monster and can be installed with almost no specialized tools.
The housing crisis is definitely a tougher nut to crack, but I don’t believe the auto manufacturers have quite the same leverage over the American population long term, especially if gas prices and electric vehicle prices keep skyrocketing significantly faster then inflation.
The housing crisis is definitely a tougher nut to crack, but I don’t believe the auto manufacturers have quite the same leverage over the American population long term, especially if gas prices and electric vehicle prices keep skyrocketing significantly faster then inflation.
> If you really don’t want to burn fossil fuels, a $1000 bafang mid drive ebike kit can turn a regular bicycle into a hill crushing monster and can be installed with almost no specialized tools.
I love electric bikes and want to install the bafang kit myself, but lets keep things in perspective - it's not gonna get my pregnant wife to the hospital.
I love electric bikes and want to install the bafang kit myself, but lets keep things in perspective - it's not gonna get my pregnant wife to the hospital.
you keep a car for something that will happen once per ~ 4 years?
Commenter provided one obvious example.. that doesn't imply a lack of other examples.
Hypothermically cold/wet days, if you suffer a physical injury, going anywhere with friends, trips to IKEA, groceries that last more than a week, vacations, or the reason I stopped cycling:
a car driver randomly forces you to pay for a new bike while also giving you a concussion and 7 stitches to your face then drives away.
Happier now with my 'cage' than with the ego I used to have.
Hypothermically cold/wet days, if you suffer a physical injury, going anywhere with friends, trips to IKEA, groceries that last more than a week, vacations, or the reason I stopped cycling:
a car driver randomly forces you to pay for a new bike while also giving you a concussion and 7 stitches to your face then drives away.
Happier now with my 'cage' than with the ego I used to have.
When I tried to go car-free, I was surprised to learn just how many different kinds of once-or-twice-a-year occurrences there can be in a single year.
Most people in big cities live without cars and rent for the once every few years moving or whatever that requires a car.
Yes, that was the theory as I understood it at the time. As a single man in my late 20s with a remote job, I moved to the most densely populated neighborhood of the largest city in the region, bought a bicycle and a transit pass, and signed up for a car-sharing service, expecting car-free life to be easy. Instead, I found that it was... possible.
I got through a full year before giving up and buying another car. I have never been motivated to repeat the experience, though I still love city life and try to keep car usage to a minimum, getting around primarily by motorcycle.
I got through a full year before giving up and buying another car. I have never been motivated to repeat the experience, though I still love city life and try to keep car usage to a minimum, getting around primarily by motorcycle.
I take it you think people that get life insurance are suckers?
Statistically, yes. Assuming n of m people get insurance money, m-n people are suckers. Sorry.
life insurance is priced for once in a lifetime events
There are many people who would happily pay 4 years of car ownership if it means difference between safe birth and unsafe one. If you think its rare mindset, see what happens if (very frequent when I look around) miscarriage happens, how it fucks up people in most fundamental ways and insecure they become.
And obviously there are tremendous use cases to enjoy weekends, do groceries/other shopping, helping friends and family and so on and on...
I come from Europe, currently living in Switzerland which has best rail system in the world and general decent public transport... but still owning a car is a must for 4 of us, travelling anywhere with kids is a chore and amount of stuff for weekend is impossible to carry in public transport (stroller(s), child bed, all clothing, food equipment etc. and thats just kids).
Sure you can spend all weekends in the same place if thats your thing, but it certainly ain't ours, not when we have alps just in the backyard.
And obviously there are tremendous use cases to enjoy weekends, do groceries/other shopping, helping friends and family and so on and on...
I come from Europe, currently living in Switzerland which has best rail system in the world and general decent public transport... but still owning a car is a must for 4 of us, travelling anywhere with kids is a chore and amount of stuff for weekend is impossible to carry in public transport (stroller(s), child bed, all clothing, food equipment etc. and thats just kids).
Sure you can spend all weekends in the same place if thats your thing, but it certainly ain't ours, not when we have alps just in the backyard.
With some exceptions (especially in places where car ownership is a real financial/hassle burden like Manhattan), my observation is that people who choose not to own a car even in an urban environment with good public transit end up making a lot of lifestyle compromises. Even leaving aside trips to the emergency room, sick pets, etc., they just don't head to the mountains/beach/etc. because it's too big of a hassle. And especially once you get past a certain age, you can't rely on friends with cars like we did undergrad. Perfectly valid choice but, for the most part, you just don't do things that are a pain to do.
Well, there's also the baby after that happens.
Baby on a bike is easy (well, once they're big enough to hold their heads up). Ours (one and five) pretty much want me to take them on the bike everywhere, unless the weather is brutally wet or cold (< 25˚F for me, though a friend here takes his kid on the bike down to about 15˚).
When the weather's sufficiently bad, we take the BMW with heated seats instead =)
When the weather's sufficiently bad, we take the BMW with heated seats instead =)
> once they're big enough to hold their heads up
I don’t think this happens before mom and baby are discharged from the hospital, so it is not relevant to the discussion.
I don’t think this happens before mom and baby are discharged from the hospital, so it is not relevant to the discussion.
Clearly I was taking a longer term view of the phrase "after that happens".
That said: my wife and her mother _did_ ride home on the back of her father's bicycle after she was born (in 1980s China).
That said: my wife and her mother _did_ ride home on the back of her father's bicycle after she was born (in 1980s China).
This is not new tech, we've had this tech for over 100 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_rickshaw
Some modern takes:
https://www.vanraam.com/en-gb/advice-inspiration/news/van-ra...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_rickshaw
Some modern takes:
https://www.vanraam.com/en-gb/advice-inspiration/news/van-ra...
That's not going to shrink your target demographic too much in the Western world. Birth rates are low and declining.
Birth rates of Europeans are low and declining. Birth rates of immigrants in Europe is very high, and keeps the population from declining.
The EU's prediction is that population is about to reach its peak and will then decline slowly until the 22nd century or so. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/D... Imo there will be new niches populated by middle aged and old people with no kids.
more people then ever
More people than ever maybe, but that is a tiny fraction of the number of cars, at least in the U.S. It is like saying more people than ever are turning vegetarian/vegan. Yes, it is true, but it is still a miniscule number in the grand scheme of things, and the the change is way too slow/small to have any real impact, at least in my life time.
I love Jetbrains products, it was irritating when they went subscription model. Tableau did the same. I guess it is just a matter of time before everyone started doing it, both in digital and real world. Next would be what? 10 bucks for my washing machine that I own, $10 for my fridge, $10 for my air conditioning, stove, vacuum cleaner...
I don't know how we can fight back. They will keep pushing and pushing trying to eek out every possible cent. There are products we can simply stop using, but cars (at least in the U.S) are much difficult to avoid, outside of cities like NYC. Much of the country is built for cars
More people than ever maybe, but that is a tiny fraction of the number of cars, at least in the U.S. It is like saying more people than ever are turning vegetarian/vegan. Yes, it is true, but it is still a miniscule number in the grand scheme of things, and the the change is way too slow/small to have any real impact, at least in my life time.
I love Jetbrains products, it was irritating when they went subscription model. Tableau did the same. I guess it is just a matter of time before everyone started doing it, both in digital and real world. Next would be what? 10 bucks for my washing machine that I own, $10 for my fridge, $10 for my air conditioning, stove, vacuum cleaner...
I don't know how we can fight back. They will keep pushing and pushing trying to eek out every possible cent. There are products we can simply stop using, but cars (at least in the U.S) are much difficult to avoid, outside of cities like NYC. Much of the country is built for cars
I thought the JetBrains subscription was actually a good example of a subscription - when you buy an annual subscription, you get a 'perpetual fallback license' for the version at the time of purchase - i.e. you can continue to use that version forever without further payment.
Isn't that basically a traditional (90's style) software purchase?
Isn't that basically a traditional (90's style) software purchase?
The JetBrains subscription model is excellent.
But not only that, they went through a couple revisions with the customer to determine what the right model is.
The software that JB produces as has massive value, but it is also fragile in that it needs to be kept up to date as the ecosystem evolves. That value is fragile in the face of constant change unless you pin yourself to a snapshot of the language and all its dependencies. The JB subscription model allows for this while also enabling constant upgrades.
The way that JB handled the outcry about the original subscription model is the real innovation.
But not only that, they went through a couple revisions with the customer to determine what the right model is.
The software that JB produces as has massive value, but it is also fragile in that it needs to be kept up to date as the ecosystem evolves. That value is fragile in the face of constant change unless you pin yourself to a snapshot of the language and all its dependencies. The JB subscription model allows for this while also enabling constant upgrades.
The way that JB handled the outcry about the original subscription model is the real innovation.
Not to mention the yearly price breaks for continuing to subscribe to their services. I think I pay less than $15 USD a month for their All Products pack, and it's worth every penny. Much more economical than buying every release of Visual Studio.
> Next would be what? 10 bucks for my washing machine that I own, $10 for my fridge, $10 for my air conditioning, stove, vacuum cleaner...
This was already happening with planned obsolescence. The EU fought that by implementing a new law that requires big home electronics to have a 10year warrant. I guess the next step for vendors is bundling “service” features for subs
This was already happening with planned obsolescence. The EU fought that by implementing a new law that requires big home electronics to have a 10year warrant. I guess the next step for vendors is bundling “service” features for subs
I stopped using jet brains because they went to subscription
That makes no sense.
Before you payed for a version of the IDE and a year of updates.
Now you pay for a year of use and you get the most updated version of your last subscription day for ever.
Basically the difference to buying every year is that you don’t keep old versions. You still get to keep/own the version of your last paying day. And you get discounts…
Unless there are really bad feature changes, there is really no reason to prefer the old model
Basically the difference to buying every year is that you don’t keep old versions. You still get to keep/own the version of your last paying day. And you get discounts…
Unless there are really bad feature changes, there is really no reason to prefer the old model
IntelliJ is Apache Licensed, https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community
That seems like a pretty spiteful thing to do for a (F|f)ree Software.
That seems like a pretty spiteful thing to do for a (F|f)ree Software.
First they tell me I can use their IDE forever if I pay for it. Then they go back on their word and prevented me from using the thing I already paid for. They’re being spiteful to their customers
You can still use the versions you paid for…
You still get a perpetual license for the version that was out when you purchased the subscription.
That has not been my experience
The built environment in most of the US is based entirely around the idea that you get in your car whenever you want to go anywhere. It's going to take a massive re-engineering of society to fix that, but it's totally worth it.
I would love to live somewhere where an electric bike is an option, but for many of us it is a non-starter.
I have to disagree because at the end of the day, the consumer has a choice. BMW, Stellantis and other car makers are charging subscriptions for features. I see an immediate solution: buy another car.
I see this argument a ton, people complain that new cars are too expensive, super high monthly payments and subscription features. Yes these are all problems but they are only problems if you choose to buy a new car. Seems that folks forget in these arguments that there is a sea of affordable, reliable used cars without any of the bullshit they add to new cars these days, at a fraction of the cost of a new car.
I see this argument a ton, people complain that new cars are too expensive, super high monthly payments and subscription features. Yes these are all problems but they are only problems if you choose to buy a new car. Seems that folks forget in these arguments that there is a sea of affordable, reliable used cars without any of the bullshit they add to new cars these days, at a fraction of the cost of a new car.
Buying an old car doesn’t really solve the problem in general, it just solves it for you, temporarily.
The auto sector is one of the most competitive in the world. There are tons of automakers that don’t have subscription services.
Yet. Because if there is money in subscription services, they will add those — or go bust if they don't because, as you've said, it is one of the most competitive sectors in the world.
Or they’ll realize there’s a market of people who don’t want subscription services and they’ll price their car at a profit making level without subscriptions…
...which will still lead to lower profits than if they instead tried to push into the higher-margin section of the market. The Innovator's Dilemma, you know?
Sure, but there’s competition in the subscription car space, just because you make one doesn’t mean it will sell. Businesses will make products that people want when they are in competitive markets.
For now. The problem is that anticonsumer grift will eventually pervade the entire space. If not prevented legally then it will just be a matter of time, because incidental cooperation between all competitors is just so much better for them than trying to compete on this point.
And this is an industry where starting a competitor is simply not feasible without incomprehensible amounts of capital.
And this is an industry where starting a competitor is simply not feasible without incomprehensible amounts of capital.
> The problem is that anticonsumer grift will eventually pervade the entire space. If not prevented legally then it will just be a matter of time
This isn't a guaranteed thing.
Toyota makes money hand over fist selling decade behind the competition vehicles for high prices based on a premise of reliability that the overwhelming majority of buyers will not keep the car long enough to take advantage of and HN never misses an opportunity to praise them for it.
I feel very confident saying that the market for cars that don't include SAAS-esque BS subscriptions will be large enough to sustain a decent number of offerings in the same way that the sedan market is still healthy despite the crossover-ification of everything and the hatch market is stronger than it's been since the 90s.
This isn't a guaranteed thing.
Toyota makes money hand over fist selling decade behind the competition vehicles for high prices based on a premise of reliability that the overwhelming majority of buyers will not keep the car long enough to take advantage of and HN never misses an opportunity to praise them for it.
I feel very confident saying that the market for cars that don't include SAAS-esque BS subscriptions will be large enough to sustain a decent number of offerings in the same way that the sedan market is still healthy despite the crossover-ification of everything and the hatch market is stronger than it's been since the 90s.
but something as big as an auto purchase is a amalgamation of many decisions into one. what they are relying on is that the pain of subscription does not out weighs the rest of value a BMW provides. esp if they can bury this in details and give it away for a couple of years like volvo does.
My suspicion is this will become a lot more pervasive & render every auto purchase to choke full of these under the surface sour decisions.
My suspicion is this will become a lot more pervasive & render every auto purchase to choke full of these under the surface sour decisions.
Kind of true but also not as true as it was pre-COVID. Used car prices skyrocketed during COVID to the point that people are selling their 2-3 year old cars for more than current new MSRP. And a 10 year old Corolla is often more than $10k. Prices are just now starting to come back down, but probably not to pre-COVID prices.
Used cars are now just $3k USD more than new cars, on average.
There should be absolutely no reason to buy a used car anymore.
I feel like I'm living in a bizarro world b/c everyone seems to claim buying a used car is the much better financial decision. It isn't for me, by a long margin.
There should be absolutely no reason to buy a used car anymore.
I feel like I'm living in a bizarro world b/c everyone seems to claim buying a used car is the much better financial decision. It isn't for me, by a long margin.
There honestly hasn't been much reason to buy a new car since the GFC. It's really felt like new cars were subsidized because they were necessary to create used cars. With the last several cars I bought, or tried to buy, the negotiation ended up with the new car price being the same, or lower than 1-2 year old models with the same options.
I feel like most used car buyers look at inflated MSRP and judge the "discount" for the used car based on that. They don't factor in the sometimes massive discounts (pre COVID, of course) that practically every new car would have. So a used 2018 model looks $3k cheaper than an identical new 2019, but the 2019 has $4k on the hood, plus better financing, lower miles, and better legal protections (lemon law). Granted, "certified pre-owned" cars often come with better sounding warranties than new ones, but I'm sure there are some fine print details that make them worse than the factory one.
Granted, the post-covid market is all kinds of skewed.
I feel like most used car buyers look at inflated MSRP and judge the "discount" for the used car based on that. They don't factor in the sometimes massive discounts (pre COVID, of course) that practically every new car would have. So a used 2018 model looks $3k cheaper than an identical new 2019, but the 2019 has $4k on the hood, plus better financing, lower miles, and better legal protections (lemon law). Granted, "certified pre-owned" cars often come with better sounding warranties than new ones, but I'm sure there are some fine print details that make them worse than the factory one.
Granted, the post-covid market is all kinds of skewed.
I bought a new car recently because of problems with my existing car. I didn't have a lot of negotiating leverage on the new vehicle but I was shocked by the tradein I was able to get on my existing car and was even able to negotiate it up by about $1K.
We've all ready reached that for lots of other parts of the consumer spectrum.
e.g. you used to own your music and movie collection but now you rent access to it via Spotify, Amazon Music, Netflix etc
Even games: it used to be it was YOUR game but now you pay a subscription.
e.g. you used to own your music and movie collection but now you rent access to it via Spotify, Amazon Music, Netflix etc
Even games: it used to be it was YOUR game but now you pay a subscription.
I think the value proposition with stuff like Spotify is different. a.) there are still services where you can own your copy of the music, there is still - at least some semblance of - consumer choice. b.) the amount and variety of music I listen to on Spotify and pay per month is WAY more than paying for individual songs (at least personally)
And I think there's some value in not actually having the music in physical form, at least as we knew it. I have fond memories of the music I discovered and enjoyed on tape and CD (only owned 2-3 records), but I don't miss the CD towers and shelves of video tapes.
Even if you cart around audio files on 5TB portable drives, or have a drive per key location (home, office, etc) there are advantages to streaming. One less drive I need to maintain.
Losing everything when you unsubscribe is shitty though. I guess that's the choice made.
Even if you cart around audio files on 5TB portable drives, or have a drive per key location (home, office, etc) there are advantages to streaming. One less drive I need to maintain.
Losing everything when you unsubscribe is shitty though. I guess that's the choice made.
>Losing everything when you unsubscribe is shitty though. I guess that's the choice made.
Yes. There's nothing keeping anyone from buying the music they like even if it's just digital. Music is probably the thing that there's there's the greatest choice between renting and very reasonably buying.
I have a big library which I got in order a couple years ago. But I made the decision that there was no need--at this point--to buy any gaps. I'd just stream and could always buy pretty much anything I wanted at some point if I wanted to. (My interests are mostly very mainstream.)
Yes. There's nothing keeping anyone from buying the music they like even if it's just digital. Music is probably the thing that there's there's the greatest choice between renting and very reasonably buying.
I have a big library which I got in order a couple years ago. But I made the decision that there was no need--at this point--to buy any gaps. I'd just stream and could always buy pretty much anything I wanted at some point if I wanted to. (My interests are mostly very mainstream.)
> There's nothing keeping anyone from buying the music they like even if it's just digital.
Unfortunately this isn't true anymore. If you want to buy a song there's beatport and bandcamp but they're missing a ton of music, Amazon Music is only available in a few countries and Google Music doesn't exist anymore. That leaves just iTunes which is a terrible experience and only available on macOS and Windows.
Unfortunately this isn't true anymore. If you want to buy a song there's beatport and bandcamp but they're missing a ton of music, Amazon Music is only available in a few countries and Google Music doesn't exist anymore. That leaves just iTunes which is a terrible experience and only available on macOS and Windows.
There are also CDs although that probably doesn't apply to niche artists.
This exactly. I am constantly exploring and consuming new music, many of which I wouldn't buy the CD of, but I will listen to for a while before moving onto something new. Nothing really beats being able to go through an artists entire discography over a few days. I've started buying the CD's of the stuff I really love again, but the price would be astronomical compared to my streaming service if I did that for everyone I listened to.
What’s funny is how ethics around this get compartmentalized. I still refuse to use spotify because it’s only a viable model for the biggest artists (I buy digital albums mostly).
But then I don’t seem to stop myself from using Netflix.
But then I don’t seem to stop myself from using Netflix.
I think of Spotify as an evolution of radio. You can even just pay with your attention by listening to ads instead of money.
You can still purchase all of that media if you want
You can still purchase all of that media if you want
> If someone can charge you for using things you already bought and 'own', then average man has no property rights.
That's the plan (at least according to the World Economic Forum)
"Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better"
https://twitter.com/wef/status/813869325635424256
"Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better"
https://twitter.com/wef/status/813869325635424256
You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.
If you want to know more about the history of IP laws and how it relates to this concept of modern age feudalism where someone owns all the rights on anything of value, this is an excellent book: https://thenewpress.com/books/information-feudalism
The goods that are sold are available to be sold based-off what people have chosen to buy or what is seen as a solution to a problem.
Example: Manual transmissions available for sale in the United States vs Europe. Europe has many more available to be sold new than the United States at maybe 3% and dwindling.
I see the only reason that smart-TVs are some prominent now is that the market for those eclipsed the market for dumb-TVs. While there are individuals that would like a dumb-TV, I've seen them post on HN, outliers don't make a sustainable market for revenue.
If individuals don't purchase the subscription, it won't be a revenue stream and then decision-making individuals should make decisions to change it.
The housing market is another conversation altogether.
Example: Manual transmissions available for sale in the United States vs Europe. Europe has many more available to be sold new than the United States at maybe 3% and dwindling.
I see the only reason that smart-TVs are some prominent now is that the market for those eclipsed the market for dumb-TVs. While there are individuals that would like a dumb-TV, I've seen them post on HN, outliers don't make a sustainable market for revenue.
If individuals don't purchase the subscription, it won't be a revenue stream and then decision-making individuals should make decisions to change it.
The housing market is another conversation altogether.
I was reviewing my Steam library recently and thought to myself. How would I access these games without Steam? What happens when I die? Can I sell my Steam library? I realized I don't own anything other than a temporary license to use the software.
> What happens when I die? Can I sell my Steam library?
HN frowns upon trolling.
HN frowns upon trolling.
Why is that “trolling”? Seems like a fair question.
A quick check with Uncle Google tells me that games are non-transferable as they are bound to your account. So I suppose if in your legal will you wanted to designate someone as a benefactor (lol) then that's your prerogative.
That said, if you're asking that kind of question, I just assume you're trolling but then I thought about it and realized it was an earnest inquiry.
That said, if you're asking that kind of question, I just assume you're trolling but then I thought about it and realized it was an earnest inquiry.
I certainly don't like it for cars and etc.
But I don't mind it for some things. I have no interest in owning a pile of movies, music and etc.
But I don't mind it for some things. I have no interest in owning a pile of movies, music and etc.
At least it will not be illegal to move.
the same thing with games and that you only own a license of a game and not the game itself.
Started with WoW and getting kicked for "using" exploits which are ultimately just faults in a product that I purchased - why should I as a customer know and care for what an exploit is and what not?
Started with WoW and getting kicked for "using" exploits which are ultimately just faults in a product that I purchased - why should I as a customer know and care for what an exploit is and what not?
See : The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab
I read somewhere that, in the future, “you will own nothing and you will be happy”.
its lately been coined "technocratic neofeudalism"
[deleted]
Relax, it's just heated seats. It's user hostile and I imagine they'll drop it because it'll be seen as annoying.
There are real problems with housing affordability but a subscription to heated seats in a luxury car is not indicative of a bigger issue.
There are real problems with housing affordability but a subscription to heated seats in a luxury car is not indicative of a bigger issue.
People relaxing on shitty behaviour is how you end up with a subscription for heated seats in the first place
No, people having a meltdown about some luxury car brand charging a subscription for heated seats is how regular people dismiss real concerns about privacy and ownership rights. Wait until you hear about how Sirius is disabled without a monthly fee.
Do those that 'own' a home today in the US really own it?
You still have to pay property tax against the "property value" which is a completely arbitrary number set by an outsider. If you don't pay, you lose your home - that is not my definition of ownership.
You still have to pay property tax against the "property value" which is a completely arbitrary number set by an outsider. If you don't pay, you lose your home - that is not my definition of ownership.
It's kind of a false equivalence to compare taxes, to something like rent.
If you wanted an argument for not owning housing, a better argument would be something like zoning restrictions.
If you wanted an argument for not owning housing, a better argument would be something like zoning restrictions.
But where did you get your definition of ownership?
Property taxes in the US predate the US as an independent country. Do you think the owner should be able to set the value? Should anyone be able to declare that their property is worth $0 and therefore no tax is owed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax_in_the_United_Sta...
Property taxes in the US predate the US as an independent country. Do you think the owner should be able to set the value? Should anyone be able to declare that their property is worth $0 and therefore no tax is owed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax_in_the_United_Sta...
Good point, don’t understand why it’s downvoted. Could people who downvote leave a comment with their reason?
Because it's a very misinformed opinion. For 1 it isn't arbitrary and it isn't a random person. It is elected officials that set the tax and the price is based on the community budget. Where I live we have high property taxes but we don't complain because we vote for this. We want nice schools, clean parks that are manicured, frequent refuse and recycling service, clean streets, a well staffed police force and fire departments, a fancy 4th of July parade, etc. This stuff isn't free and we choose to fund it with property taxes instead of income taxes, etc.
If you won't or can't pay your tax then you have to sell your property to someone who can. This is what the community that lives in an area agreed on. You can take your house with you though. It's totally up to you to lift it, put it on a truck and put it on a different piece of land, considering the bank doesn't own it. Feel free to find land with no taxes and put your home there.
If you won't or can't pay your tax then you have to sell your property to someone who can. This is what the community that lives in an area agreed on. You can take your house with you though. It's totally up to you to lift it, put it on a truck and put it on a different piece of land, considering the bank doesn't own it. Feel free to find land with no taxes and put your home there.
No, they will be worse off than serfs. Serfs could still grow their own food (though of course they had to pay tribute to the landlord) and they had way more festivals and days off.
No, this is not what feudalism is.
Consumer finance is a real thing.
Before these financial innovations - people could not by homes, or ironically cars. They could not 'insure' themselves against fire etc..
Being able to 'buy a feature' on a monthly basis, instead of paying up front for it, actually may have some benefits.
That said, obviously if people just want to buy it they can/should do that.
Consumer finance is a real thing.
Before these financial innovations - people could not by homes, or ironically cars. They could not 'insure' themselves against fire etc..
Being able to 'buy a feature' on a monthly basis, instead of paying up front for it, actually may have some benefits.
That said, obviously if people just want to buy it they can/should do that.
Does somewhat seem to play into the dystopian economic models that we all love to read and watch, but not experience.
Though marketing models for things you already have, is just handing over money so you can enable a feature you own and they add nothing. No AI to measure your heating needs or add on's ahead, just money to turn on the heat with no added value.
Shame as when your business model is a death of an innocent away (say child died of hypothermia as unable to enable the heating) from a PR disaster - then it's in need of some adjustments. But certainly, will encourage people with little skill and lots of willingness to try modifying their cars they own.
Though marketing models for things you already have, is just handing over money so you can enable a feature you own and they add nothing. No AI to measure your heating needs or add on's ahead, just money to turn on the heat with no added value.
Shame as when your business model is a death of an innocent away (say child died of hypothermia as unable to enable the heating) from a PR disaster - then it's in need of some adjustments. But certainly, will encourage people with little skill and lots of willingness to try modifying their cars they own.
For cars with internal combustion engines, the company tends to get constant income via service thanks oil filters, other filters, and a whole bunch of stuff that needs to be replaced (assuming people take it to authorised service centers, which I assume most people do when the car is relatively new).
With the transition to EV, those avenues dry up because EVs need lesser maintenance (as per my understanding).
So, are they trying to create new recurring income sources due to the possibility of existing such incomes drying up?