Hacker News Reader

Comment by adav | Hacker News Reader

I used to really like BMWs but they have lost their way in my opinion. Front wheel drive models, charging a subscription for Apple CarPlay, that 4-series grill, increasingly horrific customer service at dealers and foregoing their position as the market leader in handling and dynamics really rub me up the wrong way.

View on HN

> charging a subscription for Apple CarPlay

Well that's a scam if there ever was one. Who wants a subscription for basic functionality in a car? Might as well buy an iPad and solder it over BMW's control panel.

In my 2016 BMW, CarPlay was so incredibly buggy. Unsure who's at fault on that, but the thought of paying a subscription for it makes me chuckle.

Interesting. In my Mazda it works really well. The only thing that bothers me is that the car has a no-phone system that is the default, and you always have to switch to Car Play. But Car Play is much, much better, so it would be nice if I could just make it always be on.

The big German car makers go out of their way to reinvent the digital wheel at any opportunity. The next series will have completely different electronics from different cheapest OEMs with a whole new set of bugs in all components and their integration.

In Japan, electronics seem to be more evolutionary and software reuse is practiced more, so while the rotating-car-animation-bling-factor might be lower, bugs are also ironed out over time.

Press and hold Home to switch to CarPlay quickly on Mazda.

> Who wants a subscription for basic functionality in a car?

I don't get this fundamental objection.

It's just a different way to pay. Either you pay up-front or you pay a subscription. Work out the total cost of ownership (you'll need to estimate how long you likely keep the car either way.) Now take that final figure and either it's worth it to you or it isn't. How that final figure gets paid doesn't seem like a big deal?

For subscriptions they can just change the price at a whim, stop offering your the service whenever they want or change it in a way that you don't want to. When you own / own the license to the software / feature, they can't just pull a fast one as easily.

Wait this seems like an argument for subscription. If the product is changed with an update you don't like, or becomes incompatible with your new phone, or an update to your phone, or stops being useful to you for some other reason, you can stop paying.

If you pay £2k up front for CarPlay as an option and then Apple changes the protocol and you can't use it you're stuck with a lemon you already paid for. As a subscription you can stop paying.

> the product is changed with an update you don't like

Well, you're just left with a 30-50k car with reduced functionality. And, to be honest, CarPlay functionality (or similar) is pretty much fundamental - music, maps - and there's a clear upside of having it integrated with the car (vs. the driver looking down at the phone while driving) and trivial cost (cheaper that developing own software & OS).

The reason I want CarPlay in the first place is because I don't trust carmakers to make good software (borne out of experience!). I'm buying a car to be a car, I want to BYOS (Bring Your Own Software).

But this is the case whether you pay up front or as a subscription.

So what is the upside to paying up front?

Ah right, I might have missed your point, if "subscription" is the only thing you're objecting to.

First, it's obviously a scam. I'm not getting extra value in exchange for money, the product is done. It's even worse than various software subscriptions - at least there your code is continuously being improved and updated to the latest version. Therefore, literally the only reason the company is doing that, is to scam me out of more money.

Second is the trust issue - and I'm not just talking about legal scams - e.g. changing terms and conditions in the future - which could in theory be solved via courts / customer protection laws (but in practice, won't be) but more about the fact that the car company has the ability to disable (parts of) my car! So I wouldn't be buying such a car (asterisk) even if they gave me a "special offer" of $0-forever subscription! They can still change the terms at any point in the future, and it would require massive effort on my part to fix that.

Edit: Having said that, paying $2k up front for CarPlay is also a scam - but at least it makes it easier to estimate the total cost/value of the feature, hence reducing the risk (and mental drag) of owning it...

Edit2: Btw, I have this objection with any "subscription" service... e.g. buying leasehold (subscription) house (although even buying freehold (ownership) house isn't without risk in the UK, you never know who has a preexisting claim on the property...)

(asterisk): assuming other options are available... which is the whole reason we must fight against this, sooner or later... in M$ Office and non-smart TVs, this train has already left the station!

> I'm not getting extra value in exchange for money

Wait, if you're not getting extra value from the product every extra month you use it, then stop paying the subscription! That's the beauty of it!

I mean, why not pay a subscription for a knife? You're getting "extra value" from it every time you use it!

Just, no. By "extra" value I mean "extra extra" value - in case of software, new features & updates (which, of course, could also bring no extra value to you, but they do at least in theory).

Btw, I'm not objecting to choice. You want to avoid paying up-front cost for your knives, buy subscription instead? Be my guest! But if the company is forcing you to do this, then it's obviously a good (profitable) deal for them, and a bad deal (scam) for you.

> But if the company is forcing you to do this

I'm really not sure anyone is forced to drive a BMW, are they.

> But if the company is forcing you to do this, then it's obviously a good (profitable) deal for them, and a bad deal (scam) for you.

I think this is unnecessarily cynical.

You're moving the goal post here. Obviously you can buy a different brand of car. This subscription stuff smells of anti-consumer intent to keep milking them. I think there should be legislation to prevent such things.

It seems like you're trying to catch this guy out for cognitive dissonance but I'm not seeing it.

CarPlay is offered in perfectly functional forms in the market right now for a reasonable upfront price that people will pay for a known feature set.

A subscription arguably can make the product less valuable, because of uncertainty about continuing support, changes to the subscription model or software, and an unknown price that will likely end up being higher than the flat fee offered by competitors.

This isn't cognitive dissonance, it's worry that BMW might pull a bait and switch.

But uncertainty about ongoing support is a problem anyway because Apple could change the protocol.

That doesn't justify adding additional uncertainty about what BMW is going to do with their sunscriptions and software and for how long.

And anyway, confidence in Apple is justifiably higher.

> So what is the upside to paying up front?

A ceiling on the price? Now granted this is a BMW, so I wouldn’t dare own it outside of the warranty period, but I usually keep a car 10-15 years. So the longer I keep the car, the more this feature with a low, fixed cost, costs? Screw that.

> A ceiling on the price?

So just factor that into your equation. Some people would prefer a ceiling, some flexibility. The point is it isn't obviously and inherently a 'scam.' It's just a different way to price and pay for things.

> The point is it isn't obviously and inherently a 'scam.'

For myself, and it seems like pretty much everyone except for yourself, it definitely is. ;)

But, point taken. Only ~95% of people seem to consider it a scam, and an obvious one. ;)

A subscription is only worthwhile if it reduces the up front purchase price. This being BMW, you know that won’t be the case; you’ll be stuck paying full price for the car and paying a monthly fee for a feature that comes standard on much cheaper cars.

Consumers would be more willing to accept that from a budget brand, not a luxury brand.

BMW charged $80/yr for a feature that used to cost $300 total. They since reversed it and now offer the feature for free (i.e. back into the initial cost) due to backlash.

Can confirm. Used to work for FCA in uconnect V2X. There is was no need to process diagnostic features in cloud as the TBM unit has enough capability to process it in the car and display. But the business decided to move processing to cloud and charge premium for monthly subscriptions.

I don't understand why this perfectly valid comment is getting downvoted.

It is not like BMW sold the item and only then decided to start charging. When you buy it is up to you to understand all the up front and delayed cost. Most people prefer delayed costs.

I look forward to paying a monthly fee for using Bluetooth in my car.

Without sarcasm, I think cars as a subscription has some interesting possibility and I wouldn't object to it. Land Rover has a new subscription product but doesn't seem to have a lot of momentum behind it. You pay a monthly fee that isn't more than if you financed the whole car at the moment, and you can keep getting new vehicles and absolutely everything (servicing etc) is covered because they're motivated to keep re-sale value extremely high because re-selling it is their problem.

I think software, cars, etc, as a service is somewhat liberating and I'm in favour of it.

You could call it a "lease"

A car 'lease' is an existing way to get a car that isn't the same as these new subscription services.

Land Rover already do leasing - their subscription is a different product.

I don't think you can typically lease a different car every month. I kinda wish you could. I would definitely pay to try a car for a full month before buying it.

Actually you sorta can. I know Volvo has/had a program where you pay something like $1k/month, including insurance, and you can swap out cars twice a month or something like that. I believe some other manufacturers did the same thing.

Yeah... that's the subscription thing we're talking about. Volvo and Jaguar Land Rover have it - not sure about others.

Through an altruistic lens this seems like a good idea. But realistically economy driven by quarterly reports I see this devolving into a dystopian tail really quickly.

I don't think Land Rover can get it done. However Apple and/or Tesla might have the fandom to pull something like this off.

"Cars as a service" is called car sharing. It works quite well.

However electric seat heaters are obviously not something that should be a "thing". Cars and software have been leased for ages. It's the same thing as "a subscription"

People don't need new vehicles constantly. They buy one that fits their usage and personality and become familiar with it while they keep it for years. What is the purpose of switching out so often? Especially with the limited choice of a single make like Land Rover? How many different SUVs are you going to drive and why?

I believe they are planning to sell heated seats as a subscription service as well.

Makes no sense and really transparently benefits the company over the actual "owner" of the car. Why would I ever buy something like that.

A heated seat subscription makes sense when they sell the car to you as if it didn't have heated seats and are allowing you to purchase them at a later date, much like how Tesla's rear heated seats can be bought long after the purchase of the vehicle. It allows the manufacturer to decrease MSRP $x amount (for Tesla, $300) while also saving money on the back-end by not having to handle more part choices being involved in the manufacturing processes.

The same generally applies for Carplay but it makes less sense given carplay is easy to integrate, only needs to be done once, and is then-on maintained by Apple/Google (for Android Auto), and the measly subscription cost for Carplay most certainly wasn't considered when determining MSRP. The same probably applies for the heated seats argument (did BMW really take into account the subscription costs when determining MSRP), with Tesla probably being the only manufacturer actually doing this since they already take into account things like FSD being unavailable on SR+ Model 3's and no EAP on SR Model 3's, even though all models have the same sensors and cameras and HW3 (although non-plus SR models are no longer being produced, so I'm not sure if they ever got hw2.5 or hw3 included).

No, it really doesn't.

No, I don't want to "subscribe" to everything. Only bean counters think that. I don't mind subscribing to a music service because they have constant royalty fees, new music, etc and it's a classic "thing". Heated seats are a functionality that once paid for should be yours if you paid for the option. They aren't coming out every year and replacing the heating coils with newer fancier coils, it's a freakin' heater. It also sets a horrible precedent.

M2cs or M5c are still by far the best cars in their class. While I'm not a fan of BMW's new design language (think the 4-series, or the iX), nor their move to subscription-based features, it's still my go-to brand. Other (non-exotic) brands are either downsizing (2.0 engine in the new C63 AMG for gods sake) or going fully electric – and I like my v8 rumble in the morning.

Not sure why you're being down-voted, the M2 and the M5 are among the best driver-focused cars being made right now (a dying breed, those driver-focused cars, but that's another discussion), but that still shouldn't excuse BMW for dick moves like this one (I consider it a dick move).

The Ms are overweight pigs, not drivers cars.

Have you seen an M2 with sticky tires roar on a racetrack?

I’ve seen them getting lapped by the 700 lb lighter Porsche Cayman.

2.0 engine in the new C63 AMG for gods sake

This sounds bad until you realise that over the past 20 years manufacturers switched from cast iron to full aluminium blocks, which have over twice the thermal conductivity.

There's no need for 4.0+ displacements anymore, because they were only there because of the low (tolerable) power density of iron block engines.

Sure, turbos etc. sound like a hack and a hack they are, but the era of V8 rumble is gone for good.

All this will be replaced by electric anyway.

> Sure, turbos etc. sound like a hack and a hack they are, but the era of V8 rumble is gone for good.

tell that to the new c8 corvette.

anyways, the C63 AMG is a $70,000 car. for that price you should be able to get a v8 or at least a v6, even if it makes no sense. lots of cars that are way cheaper still have more than four cylinders.

The value of an engine is not determined by the number of cylinders. You aren't owed a certain number just because you payed a certain amount. An argument can be made that v8+ are capable of being more sonically pleasing, but it ends there.

Can’t speak to the technical argument. I can agree with you that my dads Lexus sc400 from 2000 had a great sound and super smooth driver (v8). That engine was a workhorse... over 500k km and still rocking. The rest of the accessories were falling apart (door handles, leather) but that engine was rock solid.

The value is determined by the customer. An electric motor is, in every respect except its inability to use energy-dense fuels, pretty much perfect. Just not very interesting.

As a toy, an ICE has value. They shouldn't work at all! it's a ridiculous idea. It's quite cool that they do anyway.

yeah no one buys an amg because it's a sensible vehicle. these are the folks who sell a 600 hp station wagon.

I would argue that the station wagon is a great idea. A car like that allows enthusiasts to buy something that isn't completely impractical for most non-enthusiast things.

keep in mind this is a vehicle that starts at $110k. you could buy a nice sports car and a practical family vehicle for that money. I do know a guy that has one and uses it as a daily. he loves it, but he also owns a cayman and a forester, so it's not exactly the "one car that does it all".

2021 Corvette Stingray (6.2l V8), 2021 Dodge Challenger (6.4l V8), 2021 Camaro SS/ZL1 (6.2l V8), 2020 Mustang 5.0, various trucks - there's still plenty of modern car with V8, often even N/A V8s.

People buy cars like that because they like the V8 rumble. I have an older 3.0l N/A I6 BMW (N52), and not because I couldn't have gotten a more feature-loaded Honda for the same price.

Ford recently rolled out a completely new big block v8 engine family for their trucks and vans. OEMs don't do that kind of thing unless they expect to crank them out for 10-20yr.

I think it's important to point out that all those cars come from a country where gasoline is cheap and emissions rules lax. The rest of the world, for the most part, moved on.

Indeed, in my country I'd say a 1.6/1.8 is "standard" and anything over a 2.4 uncommon. Plenty of 1.2s/1.4s around for students and the budget sensitive too, and even some 1.0s (current model Nissan Micra, Honda Civic)

There's no need to pay 10x when you can buy Dacia Logan. Yet people still paying it to get something they don't have in Logan. Big bad engine is one of those features I guess.

I might be a bit biased because my first car was a used M3 e36 back in the 90s. My wife just bought the M5 last year, admittedly one of the best driving experiences in recent years.

welcome to the future, subscription services are what a lot of car makers moving too. if anything one of the first was OnStar which has some monthly fees that will make you wince.

what worries me is that app integration may be a fee based service for some cars.

As for BMW, I owned one and enjoyed it very much but the running commentary on BMW is that you own them only while they are under warranty.

There is a big difference between a BMW or BMW with M sport packet, and a BMW M.

The BMW Ms are actually developed by a different company (the BMW M company, which is different from the BMW company).

For some reason people think of them as being extremely similar, but anybody that has driven a BMW 3xx and a BMW M3 knows that there is a world between them.

Isn't BMWs V8 rumble recorded and piped through speakers?

There is a clip of the M4 with the system on and later off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB0apslghXU

The M2CS may be a great driver’s car in its class but not the best in its price bracket (at UK prices).

Exactly, they’ve gone for luxury but not as well as MB or Audi who are now eating their lunch. To say nothing of Porsche taking the sportscar and sporty SUV market profits. CarPlay subscription is just offensive.

> Front wheel drive models,

Better for driving on snow, if you're at a place where that matters.

Marginally so, under certain use cases. Unfortunately, it suddenly becomes worse when you want to steer AND accelerate. And, much like AWD, it can give you a sense of confidence in your ability to move that is not matched by your ability to stop.

If you live somewhere that snow matters, get good tires.

> Marginally so, under certain use cases.

My reality disagrees. I live in a place with a lot of snow, and pretty much see cars that have sliden off the highway every week. All of them are BMWs. And they are all required by law to have winter tires at least.

Winter tires do help, but there is a huge difference between RWD with good tires and 4 wheel drive (notice also that 4WD and AWD is not the same thing, and there are also different qualities).

(it just so happen that here, BMWs are the most popular rear wheel drive cars)

>Better for driving on snow

Until you have to go up a hill, or steer and drive in several inches of slush. I guess it's marginally more stupid proof if you floor it at a dumb time but that seems like needless optimization of the worst case while totally tanking the average case. With the weight distribution and electronic controls available in modern vehicles FWD has no meaningful benefit other than cost.

>FWD has no meaningful benefit other than cost

... and lower weight, and no tunnel, and more boot space. If anything, it's RWD which struggles to maintain its significance and show its benefits outside of sports. Modern platforms can make the front wheels turn and spin at the same time without much fuss, with driving characteristics determined by other factors.

Weight is a wash. We're talking like a cumulative 100lb by integrating the front diff with the transmission and losing the drive shaft. Tunnel is nice but most cars still don't have a flat floor because they stick a tunnel in there for exhaust and the floor-pan is likely shared at least in part with an AWD crossover that puts a drive shaft there and it's usually important enough for floor rigidity so they don't omit it on the FWD models.

>Modern platforms can make the front wheels turn and spin at the same time without much fuss

Yeah they can prevent you from losing traction but you're fundamentally at a disadvantage to RWD because no matter how you cut it you're trying to spread the front traction budget thinner. Everything that makes RWD desirable for the track also makes it desirable for consumer A to B duty.

Don't get me wrong, FWD is great for bringing 0% no money down economy cars to the masses and creating bottom dollar van chassis for employees to abuse but even at its best it's still never going to make varsity in any context where performance actually matters

there's an argument to be made that understeer is probably the better failure mode for a poor driver.

anyways, most commuters are probably not approaching the limits of grip while accelerating through corners. most people I know have trouble remembering not to brake through turns. the implications of weight transfer during acceleration for a FWD vehicle are much more noticeable during daily driving. it's especially sad to see with all these 200+ hp hot hatches. they have pretty good power to weight ratios on paper but they just can't put it down. a moderately quick start at an intersection in anything other than ideal conditions results in wheel spin every time.

> understeer is probably the better failure mode for a poor driver.

Also I'm pretty sure most of the rwd drivers I see on the side of the road up the local mountain thought they are not poor drivers until the last 2s.

> Don't get me wrong, FWD is great for bringing 0% no money down economy cars to the masses and creating bottom dollar van chassis for employees to abuse but even at its best it's still never going to make varsity in any context where performance actually matters

It's exaggerated. At least 90% of car drivers aren't "performance actually matters".

Are there realistically any cases on public roads where performance actually matters? All typical cars can reach maximum highway speed. At that point it's only a matter of how comfortable that experience is. Comfort and performance may be personal preference, but "actually matters" as in, makes a real difference? Don't think so.

How are they foregoing their position as the market leader in handling and dynamics? They’re still miles ahead of Audis where it feels as if the transmission and the engine are fighting vs each other especially in 50 engines, and Mercedes where it feels you’re driving a barge rather than a car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com