Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisseaton | Hacker News Reader

> 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?

View on HN

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com