BMW introduces new heated seat subscription in UK(bbc.com)
bbc.com
BMW introduces new heated seat subscription in UK
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62142208
117 comments
This again.
They’re not giving you the heating hardware for free.
They’re selling you the heated seats and then selling you the ability to turn them on separately.
Not to mention the arbitrage opportunities. BMW are now the only car dealer network that can trade cars back without features and then add them in for no cost before they go back out on sale.
...or turn them off and get used car buyer to pay for them yet again.
Rent seeking MBA fuckers.
The only hope is that the market punishes them. The problem is that if every company does this then they act as a cartel and stop the market working correctly.
They’re not giving you the heating hardware for free.
They’re selling you the heated seats and then selling you the ability to turn them on separately.
Not to mention the arbitrage opportunities. BMW are now the only car dealer network that can trade cars back without features and then add them in for no cost before they go back out on sale.
...or turn them off and get used car buyer to pay for them yet again.
Rent seeking MBA fuckers.
The only hope is that the market punishes them. The problem is that if every company does this then they act as a cartel and stop the market working correctly.
Tesla discussed doing this last year: https://driveteslacanada.ca/model-3/tesla-unlock-model-3-hea...
They had paid range upgrade in 2016: https://electrek.co/2016/11/08/tesla-in-car-purchase-softwar...
Yet it seems the market gave Tesla a pass?
They had paid range upgrade in 2016: https://electrek.co/2016/11/08/tesla-in-car-purchase-softwar...
Yet it seems the market gave Tesla a pass?
The price of a 60KWh Model S was substantially lower than the price of a 75KWh one, and Tesla had economies of scale by just building 75KWh packs and using them everywhere.
It was not an unreasonable value proposition for the end user, but most importantly it was a single one-off payment. It's the monthly cost which really annoys me in the BMW case. Literally rent seeking. There is no justification whatsoever for a monthly fee for a heated seat, there is no back-end to run and maintain (other than what they build explicitly to make the rent a possibility, and fuck that).
It was not an unreasonable value proposition for the end user, but most importantly it was a single one-off payment. It's the monthly cost which really annoys me in the BMW case. Literally rent seeking. There is no justification whatsoever for a monthly fee for a heated seat, there is no back-end to run and maintain (other than what they build explicitly to make the rent a possibility, and fuck that).
BMW isn't the only company doing this, Tesla actually began all this by building one hardware platform for manufacturing simplicity and then locking the functionality behind software paywalls. Several other car companies have since done things like this with their entertainment units, remote start and the like.
It should be illegal. This is all just a new workaround to consumer protections by way of EULAs, if I buy the hardware there should be a lawful way for me to use it. If a product is pure software, fine, but if it's hardware I bought and it won't work without some specific software the manufacturer should enable me to use it with my own software.
It should be illegal. This is all just a new workaround to consumer protections by way of EULAs, if I buy the hardware there should be a lawful way for me to use it. If a product is pure software, fine, but if it's hardware I bought and it won't work without some specific software the manufacturer should enable me to use it with my own software.
> It should be illegal. This is all just a new workaround to consumer protections by way of EULAs, if I buy the hardware there should be a lawful way for me to use it.
OK, I'll bite. Why? This is a free transaction between two parties, why should it be banned?
(There are several possible answers, I'm just interested which one motivates your comment.)
OK, I'll bite. Why? This is a free transaction between two parties, why should it be banned?
(There are several possible answers, I'm just interested which one motivates your comment.)
So, when we talk naively about free markets we commonly ignore the Firm. In industries you have the propensity for cartels to form, or for "industry standards" to come to exist that enable actors to work against the interest of their consumers.
You also get economies of scale that lead to capital concentration, razor thin margins and extreme efficiency reliant on capital intensive business models. As a result you wind up with massive barriers to entry for new competitors, and so the usual "someone will come along and outcompete" doesn't really work. It works when you're selling doodads and fruit, but semiconductors and car manufacturing aren't fruit.
In particular, industries that become foundational to the workings of a society become impossible to avoid engaging in. In the US, cars are a given, you have to have a car. One car company does something and gets away with it with their customers, so the rest follow suit and now you're in an environment where everyone does it and there's no way out. There's no direct collusion here, just neither has an interest in competing on a front because the the practice benefits them both.
This is where industry regulation comes in. It comes in only when it isn't an entirely free transaction between two parties. Where a party must use a product or service, or where competitors collude directly or indirectly, state action is warranted. Examples where the party must use a product would be cars, food and car insurance. Direct collusion is interactive, indirect is passive, such as an entire industry without direct cooperation engaging in practices like this.
You also get economies of scale that lead to capital concentration, razor thin margins and extreme efficiency reliant on capital intensive business models. As a result you wind up with massive barriers to entry for new competitors, and so the usual "someone will come along and outcompete" doesn't really work. It works when you're selling doodads and fruit, but semiconductors and car manufacturing aren't fruit.
In particular, industries that become foundational to the workings of a society become impossible to avoid engaging in. In the US, cars are a given, you have to have a car. One car company does something and gets away with it with their customers, so the rest follow suit and now you're in an environment where everyone does it and there's no way out. There's no direct collusion here, just neither has an interest in competing on a front because the the practice benefits them both.
This is where industry regulation comes in. It comes in only when it isn't an entirely free transaction between two parties. Where a party must use a product or service, or where competitors collude directly or indirectly, state action is warranted. Examples where the party must use a product would be cars, food and car insurance. Direct collusion is interactive, indirect is passive, such as an entire industry without direct cooperation engaging in practices like this.
I don't think the cartel answer is a good one. The standard problem with cartels is that prices are too high. There seems no reason why this would be more or less of a problem with the approach of renting services.
Also, the claim that the car market is uncompetitive is not so easy to make. The top 5 players have about half of the market.[1] This is less concentrated than (say) the market for breakfast cereal. The market is quite global. Artificial barriers to entry have not stopped numerous recent entrants. It might even be that new pricing strategies like selling services will allow more entrants to the market - Tesla being the obvious example.
[1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-microeconomics/chapte... - probably not the best source but ok for a quickie.
Also, the claim that the car market is uncompetitive is not so easy to make. The top 5 players have about half of the market.[1] This is less concentrated than (say) the market for breakfast cereal. The market is quite global. Artificial barriers to entry have not stopped numerous recent entrants. It might even be that new pricing strategies like selling services will allow more entrants to the market - Tesla being the obvious example.
[1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-microeconomics/chapte... - probably not the best source but ok for a quickie.
It reminds me of inkjet printers and the issue with ink cartridges. Free market doesn't always result in an equilibrium which is not consumer hostile.
I suppose it can work to the benefit of consumers, too… sometimes. Remember when the cell service providers all charged per text message? And had plans with “minutes”?
Cries in German.
In Italy, prices started going down for mobile only when, back in 2007, they introduced a law to make unlawful minimum duration of contracts.
After that, given users could switch each month, prices went really down 'cause there was a _real_ market.
Here in Germany, you are locked to an operator for 24 months, and prices are crazy high. So, yes, please, more regulations.
In Italy, prices started going down for mobile only when, back in 2007, they introduced a law to make unlawful minimum duration of contracts.
After that, given users could switch each month, prices went really down 'cause there was a _real_ market.
Here in Germany, you are locked to an operator for 24 months, and prices are crazy high. So, yes, please, more regulations.
Ok, I will bite too. The transaction is not free.
First, there is a huge asymmetry in the relationship between a consumer and such a large entity as a car maker.
Second, you can’t vote with your feet much, as the market is controlled by a very limited number players who can easily collude to manipulate the market without explicitly doing so.
Third, many if not all car manufacturers receive subsidies from the government in various forms. Tesla as an example, selling regulatory credits plus consumer tax credit and rebates. If it is subsidized by tax payers, then why not attach strings to it prohibiting anti consumer behavior.
First, there is a huge asymmetry in the relationship between a consumer and such a large entity as a car maker.
Second, you can’t vote with your feet much, as the market is controlled by a very limited number players who can easily collude to manipulate the market without explicitly doing so.
Third, many if not all car manufacturers receive subsidies from the government in various forms. Tesla as an example, selling regulatory credits plus consumer tax credit and rebates. If it is subsidized by tax payers, then why not attach strings to it prohibiting anti consumer behavior.
> Second, you can’t vote with your feet much, as the market is controlled by a very limited number players who can easily collude to manipulate the market without explicitly doing so.
Well said. There are a handful of entities which control all the major car brands. It's the illusion of choice.
https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/car-manufacturer-bran...
Well said. There are a handful of entities which control all the major car brands. It's the illusion of choice.
https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/car-manufacturer-bran...
Imagine this.
You buy a fan for $20. It works. It has a low, medium, and high setting.
One of the most influential fan makers decides they want to make a new product. It’s fan 2.0. It’s $21 dollars and has a $1 a month fee to unlock high speed. The package says “optional settings for a monthly fee. Buy only what you need and save.”
Other fan makers realize this is a great way to make money. 2 years later, all fans have this option.
Influential fan corp puts a press release for their revolutionary new product that’ll change the world. Fan 3.0. Medium speed is $3 a month.
You buy a fan for $20. It works. It has a low, medium, and high setting.
One of the most influential fan makers decides they want to make a new product. It’s fan 2.0. It’s $21 dollars and has a $1 a month fee to unlock high speed. The package says “optional settings for a monthly fee. Buy only what you need and save.”
Other fan makers realize this is a great way to make money. 2 years later, all fans have this option.
Influential fan corp puts a press release for their revolutionary new product that’ll change the world. Fan 3.0. Medium speed is $3 a month.
For me it's because ownership should mean true ownership, just like how you should be allowed to repair your own devices if you want.
Don't buy a closed source car
Great. Point me to the next closest open source/hardware car that's not a jalopy, is road-worthy and crash-safe, is globally available, and that doesn't cost 2x the retail price of a "consumer" car.
How many closed source cars are approved for every country on Earth?
The point isn't that a particular closed source car is available, but that there are always a few locally-available models that do the basic things well no matter where you are in the world. With open source cars, this is unlikely.
No one said it would be easy, but offering a software suite to a hardware company shouldn't be too hard of a sell. Not like any of them really want to make software.
Because 'you must buy a product from one of 10 companies that frequently collude in order to participate in society because we systematically dismantled all other options for transport' is not a free transaction>
Second reason: even if it were, 'free transaction' is not a measure of good. We ban carcinogens in food, lawn darts, and all sorts of other things because sometimes collective decisions for the common good are better for people than allowing society to be atomised and taken advantage of. This is the entire premise behind laws in the first place.
Thirdly, if there are ongoing conditions for the use of something after it is sold, laws preventing certain modifications by the buyer, and/or secrets required for its ongoing use/editing of software that are not cha7ngeable or knowable by the buywr, then the product was not 'sold' and representing the $50k paid as anything other than rent is, in any sane society, fraud.
Second reason: even if it were, 'free transaction' is not a measure of good. We ban carcinogens in food, lawn darts, and all sorts of other things because sometimes collective decisions for the common good are better for people than allowing society to be atomised and taken advantage of. This is the entire premise behind laws in the first place.
Thirdly, if there are ongoing conditions for the use of something after it is sold, laws preventing certain modifications by the buyer, and/or secrets required for its ongoing use/editing of software that are not cha7ngeable or knowable by the buywr, then the product was not 'sold' and representing the $50k paid as anything other than rent is, in any sane society, fraud.
A free transaction between parties is a horribly abstract term.
I mean a gunman robbing you on a side of the road is a free transaction between two free parties. Gunman is free to shoot you, and you are free to run away or take the bullet.
Free transaction between peers is what is actually useful considering.
I mean a gunman robbing you on a side of the road is a free transaction between two free parties. Gunman is free to shoot you, and you are free to run away or take the bullet.
Free transaction between peers is what is actually useful considering.
[deleted]
It shouldn't. But it most certainly also shouldn't be illegal for me to then go and hack the hardware that I own to do what I want.
Tesla wasn't the first. I don't know who was but I know the differences in many printers are software only. The differences in many GPUs (Nvidia Quadro vs non-Quadro) are just drivers.
I don't know where to draw the line. I hated that Tesla has a (pay $2k for a software upgrade for acceleration). Imagine it will escalate. Pay $1k to get your air-conditioner to 60f otherwise it stops at 68f. Pay $3k to turn 15 degrees sharper. Pay $1.5k for your defrosters to work twice as fast.
On the other hand, my phones, computers, and game machines, all came with no software and I pay for apps and Apple in particular has made it popular to pay for individual features inside an app. Download a photo editing app and it will be $2 for the blur feature, $2 for the tilt-shift feature, or $10 for all features... though now it's escalated to $XX per year on most iOS apps that have top end features.
I don't know how to feel about it. I used to pay ~$50 a year for photoshop (upgrading every other version for $200). Now I pay $120 a year. I mean, I like the idea of paying once but the truth is, for software I actually used, I'd pay for upgrades, even if only to get the software working on the latest OS version.
I don't know where to draw the line. I hated that Tesla has a (pay $2k for a software upgrade for acceleration). Imagine it will escalate. Pay $1k to get your air-conditioner to 60f otherwise it stops at 68f. Pay $3k to turn 15 degrees sharper. Pay $1.5k for your defrosters to work twice as fast.
On the other hand, my phones, computers, and game machines, all came with no software and I pay for apps and Apple in particular has made it popular to pay for individual features inside an app. Download a photo editing app and it will be $2 for the blur feature, $2 for the tilt-shift feature, or $10 for all features... though now it's escalated to $XX per year on most iOS apps that have top end features.
I don't know how to feel about it. I used to pay ~$50 a year for photoshop (upgrading every other version for $200). Now I pay $120 a year. I mean, I like the idea of paying once but the truth is, for software I actually used, I'd pay for upgrades, even if only to get the software working on the latest OS version.
> The differences in many GPUs (Nvidia Quadro vs non-Quadro) are just drivers.
Are they? I mean, the GPU might be the same, and it might run with Quadro drivers, but the board might be different (cooling, power management, etc)
Are they? I mean, the GPU might be the same, and it might run with Quadro drivers, but the board might be different (cooling, power management, etc)
I wonder how long before CAN bus dongles that unlock 'locked' functionality appear for sale.
You can already unlock spec features (called VO codes) in BMWs with a $20 dongle, some pirated dealer software and a simple YouTube video. Maybe they will introduce stronger protections but enabling features you didn't spec in a BMW is already a very common and easy thing to do. The only difference is now you don't need to scavenge the hardware from a breaker's yard.
Oh, we've been there for decades. My old 2001 Peugeot 307 was sold without the "driving computer" - the function where you could click a button and cycle through fuel consumption/range/speed on the small display.
It was a popular mod to retrofit the appropriate button (the wires were still there) and to have someone with access to Peugeot Planet activate the driving computer feature.
It was a popular mod to retrofit the appropriate button (the wires were still there) and to have someone with access to Peugeot Planet activate the driving computer feature.
I wonder how long before car companies convince law makers that "unlocking heated seat" impacts critical safety of the car and voids insurance in case of accident.
The heated seat hardware isn't expensive, the blocks can be bought for about $15/chair second hand on their e90 range. I highly doubt it costs BMW any more than a couple of months of the rental cost and I strongly suspect over the life of a car they will get at least a couple of months rent and justify the cost.
I, for one, welcome this change. BMW makes retrofit kits for everything because they know people want features that aren't in their spec and they're very expensive. I buy old, second hand cars and I'm at the mercy of the original buyer when it comes to features included. This way, not only do I get the option of a feature that was never bought, but I can enable it only for the couple of months I'd actually need it. Or better yet, I'll do what I do with everything I own and hack it, unlocking everything I can.
I, for one, welcome this change. BMW makes retrofit kits for everything because they know people want features that aren't in their spec and they're very expensive. I buy old, second hand cars and I'm at the mercy of the original buyer when it comes to features included. This way, not only do I get the option of a feature that was never bought, but I can enable it only for the couple of months I'd actually need it. Or better yet, I'll do what I do with everything I own and hack it, unlocking everything I can.
Bold of you to assume they will still have the working cloud infrastructure for you to enable that in 20 years
That's not how it currently works. The car's spec is stored on a central database and set in the specific modules when the car is first produced. You only lose the customised VO codes when you update a module (not a common thing to do, even for car modders) but even then you can often convince a dealer to add your retrofit's VO code to the central database. I strongly suspect that the subscription will piggy-back off of this infrastructure and the subscription will set/unset the VO codes.
BMW are fantastic with parts and supporting older car maintenance. Even now I can order 20 year old parts (including electronic modules) new from BMW.
BMW are fantastic with parts and supporting older car maintenance. Even now I can order 20 year old parts (including electronic modules) new from BMW.
> Or better yet, I'll do what I do with everything I own and hack it, unlocking everything I can.
The problem comes when the manufacturer starts demanding legal "protection" against people hacking their own possessions, or sharing technical information about their possessions.
The problem comes when the manufacturer starts demanding legal "protection" against people hacking their own possessions, or sharing technical information about their possessions.
It already exists. All their part documentation, all the dealer software, software to unlock ECUs, remove engine restrictions to get an additional 50bhp, Android apps to unlock features.. it's all widely available on dedicated websites and they've done nothing to stop it. The only thing they have ever stopped being shared is their TIS manuals which are incredibly expensive service manuals that they sell to dealers. But even in that case, they agreed to look the other way as long as the providers of the TIS manuals only let them be accessed by existing users.
BMW have bundled features you can't access for a long term, and modders have been enabling them for a long time. Just look up the 328i to 330i tuning software for an example, you can use free software (bimmerlabs.com) to derestrict your engine to same power as the next model (it's the same engine, just restricted).
BMW have bundled features you can't access for a long term, and modders have been enabling them for a long time. Just look up the 328i to 330i tuning software for an example, you can use free software (bimmerlabs.com) to derestrict your engine to same power as the next model (it's the same engine, just restricted).
If it's cheap enough to always include then it's cheap enough to always turn on.
Given how much regulation is out there to make car road-legal... It's barely open market.
[deleted]
Is it rent seeking when people have a choice? There are plenty of car brands that don't do this garbage.
I'm pretty sure the other manufacturer are just waiting to see how this pans out before adding their own spin.
I'm pretty sure the end state here is that you just have a car-as-a-service. Now you can use the same car for someone who wants premium as someone who wants basic. After all, you will own nothing and be happy.
> And Kurt Opsahl, general counsel of digital civil liberties campaign group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tweeted: "A seat heater blocked by software is broken, and the car owner should have the right to repair their seats."
Spot on.
There should be absolutely no penalty for circumventing whatever DRM is causing these BMWs to be broken.
Spot on.
There should be absolutely no penalty for circumventing whatever DRM is causing these BMWs to be broken.
I think there is none, except you loose some warranty and access to BMW digital services, like updates.
As I see this, you are buying two pieces of stuff - the physical car and a software subscription service. Maybe we need to split the two out? Like on PCs you can install any OS you want.
As I see this, you are buying two pieces of stuff - the physical car and a software subscription service. Maybe we need to split the two out? Like on PCs you can install any OS you want.
> Maybe we need to split the two out? Like on PCs you can install any OS you want.
Only on some hardware and only some of the time depending on whether you consider Macs and arm based devices PC's.
That we can even do that is a historical accident.
Only on some hardware and only some of the time depending on whether you consider Macs and arm based devices PC's.
That we can even do that is a historical accident.
I want the software in cars to be locked down. I don't want to be on the road with a car that's running some hacked together software. That's what makes this so infuriating - the risks involved in switching to an open source version of the software are too severe.
You know people are allowed to work on their own cars right? Including wheels and brakes? And there are a lot of states that don't even require an inspection. You share the road with so many shoddy death traps as is
I want cars to be disconnected from the internet in the first place, since there is much higher risk being hacked in the middle of highway.
If the software that's deciding whether or not you're allowed to heat your seats can connect in any way whatsoever to safety-critical systems in your car, you have bigger problems than running "hacked together software".
Your in-car software's architecture should by no means put "the part that is critical to driving the car safely" and "the part that runs the entertainment system and heated seats" anywhere near each other.
If they are, your design is braindead and unsafe.
If they are properly separated, modifying heated seats is a non-issue.
If they are, your design is braindead and unsafe.
If they are properly separated, modifying heated seats is a non-issue.
Mistitled. Should read "German Automaker Pimps Your Ride to Monetize Hot Ass at Scale"
criminally underrated comment here
Paying for features to be unlocked is not new, especially in IT, but with a car it just feels wrong somehow. The hardware is there, but not in a sense when you buy a PC without an OS, because that's a multi-purpose machine, you give it context. Heated seats are dedicated hardware, they're there for one purpose only, they're already in your car and you already paid for the expense of making them and continue paying for gas to haul those heavy hunkers around, increasing emissions. Maybe not much per car, but taking into account a bunch of cars, I just see this as reckless.
I can sure as hell guarantee they didn't charge them the same amount as regular seats with the hope of you buying their subscription. The software effort is likely next to none, if any.
What makes it even funnier is that the one-time payment for a steering wheel is 200 pounds, which is roughly what you would pay for it as additional equipment, if not less. Why funking around with the customer?
I can sure as hell guarantee they didn't charge them the same amount as regular seats with the hope of you buying their subscription. The software effort is likely next to none, if any.
What makes it even funnier is that the one-time payment for a steering wheel is 200 pounds, which is roughly what you would pay for it as additional equipment, if not less. Why funking around with the customer?
I'd expect there is significantly more software effort in adding the ability to lock them behind a subscription than actually implementing the toggle to turn them on/adjust the intensity.
One of the big differences to IT, as I see it, is to do with repairs/support. In IT, a subscription covers repairs/bugs. So what you are paying for is basically maintenance.
If we transfer that to cars, then the subscription should also cover maintenance/repairs of the physical parts - in this case the heated seats. But I am pretty sure it does not.
If we transfer that to cars, then the subscription should also cover maintenance/repairs of the physical parts - in this case the heated seats. But I am pretty sure it does not.
I remember the days, you bought the car and it came with heated seats. They will slowly push this model until the public thinks this microtransactions are normal. Gaming is a good example of how predatory it will become. Just look at Diablo Immortal.
[deleted]
>The company says customers can enable all hardware features for a one-time payment if they prefer.
As long buying them once and for all exists, it's just a new option.
It might be cheaper for BMW to install these features to every car than manufacture different cars with different options.
Even for a buyer who don't want to rent, ability to buy features later is nice option.
As long buying them once and for all exists, it's just a new option.
It might be cheaper for BMW to install these features to every car than manufacture different cars with different options.
Even for a buyer who don't want to rent, ability to buy features later is nice option.
How much do optional extras weight? Why the fuck should I waste fuel everyday driving these options I don’t want or need.
I've switched out my seats for heated ones and the difference is an extra block on the seat loom and some metallic slivers in the upholstery. I have noticed absolutely no difference in my fuel economy and, being a nerd, I data log everything.
Of course this line of reasoning is extremely prone to a "sorites paradox". What happens when all kinds of other things are also disabled in the vehicle.... the radio? air conditioning compressor? motorized seat adjustment? etc?
Pretty soon the weight of those things will actually impact fuel efficiency in a meaningful way. Otherwise why not just drive a tractor trailer around?
Pretty soon the weight of those things will actually impact fuel efficiency in a meaningful way. Otherwise why not just drive a tractor trailer around?
It's a false equivalency, air conditioning units are expensive, require extra lines, a bigger belt... Besides, it comes as standard on all models.. unlike heated seats. The radio would be a software update so I can't see how that would add any weight?
This is a cheap, weightless feature that is regularly retrofitted. Don't like the concept? Buy the heated seats outright when you spec the car, it'll get coded into your VO and you'll be able to use that feature right up until we run out of petrol.
This is a cheap, weightless feature that is regularly retrofitted. Don't like the concept? Buy the heated seats outright when you spec the car, it'll get coded into your VO and you'll be able to use that feature right up until we run out of petrol.
I'm not saying that I don't like the concept... if that's what the car manufacturer thinks will get them a better profit it's up to them.
I don't see the false equivalency however. Heated seats are technically an extra physical item just like many other features of the car. Some people don't need them, nor air conditioners, nor radios.
Some people may just want a frame, engine and body.
It seems the manufacturer, in this case, has simply chosen to ignore the wishes of those consumers. After all, BMW is known to be a luxury car brand and usually won't target value conscious consumers.
Reminds me of Lee Iacocca's funny, paradoxical quote... "People want economy and they will pay any price to get it". Including fooling themselves into thinking heating elements weigh nothing. Marketing departments will run with this and spin anything they can into extra profit; good on them!
If you want, be my guest and buy the option to rent heated seats from BMW :-)
I don't see the false equivalency however. Heated seats are technically an extra physical item just like many other features of the car. Some people don't need them, nor air conditioners, nor radios.
Some people may just want a frame, engine and body.
It seems the manufacturer, in this case, has simply chosen to ignore the wishes of those consumers. After all, BMW is known to be a luxury car brand and usually won't target value conscious consumers.
Reminds me of Lee Iacocca's funny, paradoxical quote... "People want economy and they will pay any price to get it". Including fooling themselves into thinking heating elements weigh nothing. Marketing departments will run with this and spin anything they can into extra profit; good on them!
If you want, be my guest and buy the option to rent heated seats from BMW :-)
Probably less than your backpack with a laptop. I would guess its effect on fuel consumption is less than error margin.
You don't. You don't own it.
Products are rarely targeted to whole population. They are marketed to segments.
BMW cares only about what their customers think. They don't care about you and they know their average customer.
Products are rarely targeted to whole population. They are marketed to segments.
BMW cares only about what their customers think. They don't care about you and they know their average customer.
Funny how Ars was "fact checking" this the other day saying "it was only in South Korea"
Blink once again and they will be at your neck
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/07/no-bmw-is-not-making-he...
Blink once again and they will be at your neck
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/07/no-bmw-is-not-making-he...
As an eastern European I can assure you the local mechanics will offer a kit to circumvent this eventually. Might be a simple hardware switch somewhere on the dashboard - third owners aren't choosers.
Automakers already tune the exact same engine to different power depending on trim level and that is also routinely worked around.
Automakers already tune the exact same engine to different power depending on trim level and that is also routinely worked around.
Those are the first signs of the beginning of the end for personal transportation as we know it. Car ownership as a whole is inevitably moving towards a subscription model. Which in turn obsoletes car ownership, which in turn will lead to a different transportation model altogether. It will probably still take decades but this here is where it starts.
I think that's a way too positive/naïve viewpoint. For the transportation model to change, infrastructure and services are needed (trains, subways, trams, buses, everything around them like stations, signaling, staffing, ticketing system), as well as appropriate density and city layouts ("transit oriented design" in the US, "common fucking sense" everywhere else). Those won't just happen overnight because car ownership is more expensive. There needs to be significant buy-in from the population, politicians, and money. Those are present, to different extents, in most big cities in some places (e.g. Europe(including Russia), China, Singapore) but really aren't in some other like US and Canada. Car ownership would have to get a whole lot more expensive and impractical before Americans who think buses are for the poor and homeless realise the inefficiency of "a vehicle per person" and accept the investment and lifestyle changes needed to switch to a more efficient model.
I find it amazing that governments can spare the time to regulate phone charging ports but completely fail to address this sort of gouging. If I buy hardware that can do one thing, I should not have to pay a license fee to enable that thing.
Phone charger regulations were based on the need to reduce e-waste caused by every phone having a different charger.
I think the same principle could be applied here. Heated seats that can't be used are causing increased emissions as the car needs to move them around without actually providing any benefit to the owner, and so should be regulated.
I think the same principle could be applied here. Heated seats that can't be used are causing increased emissions as the car needs to move them around without actually providing any benefit to the owner, and so should be regulated.
Once you open that can of worms you’d have to regulate SUVs out of existence entirely.
Sounds good to me.
(Half kidding, half serious. If they are really that harmful, maybe a ban wouldn't be the craziest idea)
(Half kidding, half serious. If they are really that harmful, maybe a ban wouldn't be the craziest idea)
Regulating charging ports has huge on-going pay-offs in quality of life for the general public, and cuts down on e-waste. It's not something that should be discounted, and governments should fight both for this AND for device ownership like.
This is anything but new. In Germany BMW sells cars since years, where the engine power is throttled by default and the throttling can be disabled for an extra fee. Former colleges of mine are working on the business side of this, trying to figure out the sweet spot for the fees, managing marketing campaigns through every possible digital channels, etc. Serving the devil pays well btw...
That makes more sense - it's like networking vendors who sell switches that physically have 48 ports, but you've only paid for 24 and for an extra license you can activate the remainder. It's easier for the vendor to manufacture and supply one single type of hardware, and it's more flexible for the consumer because if your needs evolve (you want to drive faster or have more ports) you can pay just for the upgrade and start using immediately, not a whole replacement.
Paying a subscription for a feature that doesn't require any effort om the BMW side (e.g. not the continuously updated infotainment system) is what makes this different.
Paying a subscription for a feature that doesn't require any effort om the BMW side (e.g. not the continuously updated infotainment system) is what makes this different.
An interesting parallel to this is the work boats used on a huge construction project here in Scotland, where they had to be limited to a certain speed to be used as crew ferries. Above something like 18 knots they are classed as "high speed ferries" and the relatively slim paperwork turns into a fat wad of legalese.
While it was possible to program the engine ECU to limit the power (and therefore speed), the operator deemed it legally safer and potentially less expensive to have the engines swapped with smaller ones, and store the original engines in one of the site warehouses.
While it was possible to program the engine ECU to limit the power (and therefore speed), the operator deemed it legally safer and potentially less expensive to have the engines swapped with smaller ones, and store the original engines in one of the site warehouses.
I always thought these rental models would be great if they gave you the hardware for free. Not having hundreds of configuration options would be an advantage for buyers and manufacturers. And you'd only pay for what you're using. But there should always be the option to buy the feature outright and charging for hardware and a subscription is obviously greedy.
> The company says customers can enable all hardware features for a one-time payment if they prefer.
4th line in the article, this particular service is indeed purchasable for a one time fee.
4th line in the article, this particular service is indeed purchasable for a one time fee.
Related discussion from 2d ago about S.Korea. But I think I read another article (also linked on HN, but can't find it - maybe URL was changed) that didn't mention this to be market-specific.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32065026 2d ago, 377 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32066565 2d ago, 122 comments
(Not to diminish your link, but maybe the other discussions are interesting for those interested in the topic)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32065026 2d ago, 377 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32066565 2d ago, 122 comments
(Not to diminish your link, but maybe the other discussions are interesting for those interested in the topic)
This is not new for BMW. I have a 2016 and if I want my phone app to work, like location or open/close the doors it's a subscription. And Apple carplay was also a subscription. I tested the app the first year and was so bad... and try to enter am email and app with a wheel to scroll all alphabet just to login in the car. Horrible interface. Once I closed the doors in the app and they never closed. They are not getting new costumers. So they need to find a way to get money from the current owners.
I test drove a used 2019 BMW. It didn't have features that are quite common, such as Android Auto and adaptive cruise control.
On the one hand, I would have liked the option to turn those features on.
On the other hand, once you factor in how much all those extras cost, BMW would lose on price.
I guess they've always relied on people who are willing to pay more for a BMW. But now they can sell a base model for a price similar to other manufacturers, and win customers who value the BMW brand over features, then charge for upgrades later.
On the one hand, I would have liked the option to turn those features on.
On the other hand, once you factor in how much all those extras cost, BMW would lose on price.
I guess they've always relied on people who are willing to pay more for a BMW. But now they can sell a base model for a price similar to other manufacturers, and win customers who value the BMW brand over features, then charge for upgrades later.
I'd pay $5/month for navigation but that's it. Yes my Android Auto does it but it's nice if I want to rest my phone or just don't take it.
That might be why they're trying this with heated seat. Navigation failed as a paid product. The quality of builtin navigation was never great. Why get a subscription, when you get a better product for next to nothing. Get a $3 phone mount and using the navigation in your phone.
Heated seats are harder to compete with. Still, I don't see this working out in the long run. £15 for heated seats, £10 for the steering wheel? I get that a BMW is an expensive car, £25 per month, for something you might use for at most half the year? I haven't even paid to get the heating fix in my six year old Renault after it broke four years ago, I rarely used it anyway.
The problem is that they'll have to take something away that I actually care about. That could be power steering, gears, headlight or breaks. If they do that, they get into issues with safety and will get regulated even hard. There's no point to this subscription nonsense, drop it.
Heated seats are harder to compete with. Still, I don't see this working out in the long run. £15 for heated seats, £10 for the steering wheel? I get that a BMW is an expensive car, £25 per month, for something you might use for at most half the year? I haven't even paid to get the heating fix in my six year old Renault after it broke four years ago, I rarely used it anyway.
The problem is that they'll have to take something away that I actually care about. That could be power steering, gears, headlight or breaks. If they do that, they get into issues with safety and will get regulated even hard. There's no point to this subscription nonsense, drop it.
Not that I'm defending this outrageous rent seeking - but just to play devils advocate. If you use it for half the year, you could presumably subscribe to it for half the year.
That idea crossed my mind as well. The issue with that is the fact that the heater is already installed. So either:
* BMW charges everyone for the heater, but don't enable it.
* BMW lose money on the installation of the heaters, and overcharge subscribers. The subscribers need to cover the cost of the heaters in the remaining cars.
* A combination of the two, where everyone pay part of the heater, but the subscribers still have to pay some part the cost for non-subscribers.
There is no way around it though. Either BMW is scamming everyone or the subset of customers who are paying them the most.
If I opt for paying for the winter months only, the product is still overpriced. It has to be.
It's indefensible. You cannot launch this type of "service" and be the good guy.
* BMW charges everyone for the heater, but don't enable it.
* BMW lose money on the installation of the heaters, and overcharge subscribers. The subscribers need to cover the cost of the heaters in the remaining cars.
* A combination of the two, where everyone pay part of the heater, but the subscribers still have to pay some part the cost for non-subscribers.
There is no way around it though. Either BMW is scamming everyone or the subset of customers who are paying them the most.
If I opt for paying for the winter months only, the product is still overpriced. It has to be.
It's indefensible. You cannot launch this type of "service" and be the good guy.
The navigation on bmws is top work.
Satnav subscriptions at least made sense conceptually as you were paying for the navigation data to be kept up to date. Heated seats are just blatant rent seeking though. All costs associated with maintaining and operating them are already offloaded to the customer.
Isn’t the story here that they are _renting_ you the heated seat?
It’s not like there is any additional service burden on their end that justifies renting it. It’s obviously disgusting, rent seeking practice. But we’re used to manufacturers selling artificially limited products due to economies of scale… and can probably even tolerate it.
But _renting_ you the damn extra? Will intel now rent me an extra few hundred peak mhz too?
It’s not like there is any additional service burden on their end that justifies renting it. It’s obviously disgusting, rent seeking practice. But we’re used to manufacturers selling artificially limited products due to economies of scale… and can probably even tolerate it.
But _renting_ you the damn extra? Will intel now rent me an extra few hundred peak mhz too?
>Will intel now rent me an extra few hundred peak mhz too?
I'm _certain_ this is on an internal roadmap for fairly soon
I'm _certain_ this is on an internal roadmap for fairly soon
The 3 series I owned will likely be the most fun car I'll ever own, but the maintenance was always a multi thousand bill a couple times a year. Even a decade ago they were already charging a couple hundred for map upgrades, not that I paid for them. Personally, I'm going to stay away from German vehicles in favor of Japan, Korea and maybe Ford.
Now this could be a fake story, ie check your car seats have the elements to heat the seats or enquire with your dealer if your car has this facility, the press will keep stuff quiet if they need to, but if these heated seats do exist in your car and you are a good enough hacker, then you just a got a Brucie Bonus if you play your cards right!
I knew a guy who built a very profitable business hacking BMW software. Most of BMW dealers and especially used car dealers in Eastern Europe are his clients, his exploits are used on most new and used cars - he started with simply reducing mileage recorded, but proceeded to hack everything else.
With this new thing i guess, he'll become a billionaire.
With this new thing i guess, he'll become a billionaire.
Apart from people doing so by mistake (didn’t read the fine print), shouldn’t this sort if thing be enough to discourage almost all buyers? Seems like a huge risk.
Just a what-if thought experiment:
What if BMW announced they will perpetually donate all of the proceeds to some real charity organizations?
Would we still be opposed to this subscription?
What if BMW announced they will perpetually donate all of the proceeds to some real charity organizations?
Would we still be opposed to this subscription?
Yes.
We should have the right to decide what charities we support with our money, and not have that freedom taken away from us.
We should have the right to decide what charities we support with our money, and not have that freedom taken away from us.
Not to mention, why should big corporations get to have what would essentially be customer-subsidized tax write-offs?
As you can buy it out-right for £200, I'm not too fussed. If you could only rent it then that would bother me a lot more.
Until they alter the deal like Adobe did with Creative Cloud.
This was also a thing on a land rover I rented recently. It could only be remote started via app with a $45/month subscription.
Capitalism is truly a race to the bottom (pun intended).
Linux for cars? when?
It's already very much a thing. Installing your own distro on your car is probably quite a way off though. Of all the things I don't want instability in, it's that.
https://www.automotivelinux.org
https://www.automotivelinux.org
I drive arch btw
As an arch user (BTW), that is quite horrifying. Thank you.
"I installed a new auto steering app written in Rust from the AUR and it's taken seven minutes off my commute"
WHEN I SAID ROLLING RELEASE I WASNT TALKING ABOUT THE BREAKS
That does it, I'm canceling all my BMW orders.
How To Kill Your Sales In One Simple Step
Passing the hot seat to the brits
- “BMW heated seats subscription costs $18 per month in South Korea” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32065026
- “BMW Makes Heated Seats an $18/Month Subscription Service – Again” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32066565