Hacker News Reader

Comment by invalidusernam3 | Hacker News Reader

The fact that the hardware needed for the heated seats is already there and you're paying to turn it on is the weird part. For BMW, the cost of the heated seats must be very low if they're prepared to install them in all cars without knowing if the consumer will pay for the them or now.

It's like buying a new laptop and paying to unlock additional RAM that is already installed, just not available. It would make me feel like the cost to the manufacturer is so low if they're prepared to risk it, that me paying for it after the fact feels like I'm getting ripped off (or that I've already actually payed for it in the original cost)

View on HN

I don't disagree with your point but it's worth noting that this practice does actually happen in IT as well. For example some software licenses are tied to physical hardware (that was common with servers back in the day) so you'd often have to hardware disabled at the software level. AMD also sold a bunch of functioning 4 and 8 core CPUs with cores disabled when their 3 and 6 core CPUs were selling faster than AMD could meet demands. Albeit in that latter case it wasn't a subscription service to have them enabled. In fact with computing hardware, it's really common for the same hardware features to be supported across a range of models but only have specific features enabled in software (eg with graphics cards).

It's slightly different (but only slightly) in the CPU case in that the disabling they're doing is a special case of an operation they have to do anyway. I don't know if it's the case for the specific 3 and 6 core AMD chips you're referring to, but it's common practice for that sort of CPU to be a 4 or 8-core chip where one or more core has failed validation. Cores that have failed testing then get disabled, and the CPU is bucketed into a lower grade but is still sold as a working unit. All AMD would have been doing here is using the disabling process which must already exist to intentionally nerf working cores because the yields they were getting in the various buckets were too good for the market conditions.

I'm not sure what BMW are thinking with the seat heaters. I suspect someone thinks they can make a saving by reducing variation in seat construction and that saving offsets the additional material costs. All the software/subscription/after-market nonsense flows from that, but the fundamental design driver is, I would bet, manufacturing complexity.

As I said, they were working 4 and 8 core CPUs that had a working core disabled and then solder at a cheaper price as 3 or 6 core CPUs.

The reason AMD did this was because they had the genius idea of selling off some faulty CPUs at a cheaper price but with the faulty core disabled. However those cheaper CPUs sold so well that AMD ended up having to disable working cores on non-faulty units to meet demand.

Since you could actually unlock those cores, lots more people started to buy 3 and 6 core CPUs in the hope that “CPU roulette” might pay off and they’d end up with a stable 4 or 8 core computer for the cost of a 3 or 6 core one.

> the fundamental design driver is, I would bet, manufacturing complexity.

One of them. If it was only about manufacturing, they could just as easily make heated seats standard on all bmws.

I think a big motivator would also be the ability for owners to opt in at a later date. In most cars you only have the chance to offer an upgrade at the time of purchase. Making it a software thing means that I can add it on 6 months after buying the car. Or the second owner can add it on.

The point is that they wouldn't have that marketing flexibility if they weren't going to do the technical thing for manufacturing reasons. Like, the marketing folks will be all over that crap once they've got the capability, but I doubt they would be the original reason it was done.

> the fundamental design driver is, I would bet, manufacturing complexity

I think that recurring monthly revenue is also highly appreciated, especially considering how other industries (game, movie) are moving in spite of manufacturing complexity.

Appreciated, yes, but I wouldn't be shocked if they did it anyway even in the absence of the recurring revenue opportunity.

Maybe that's the point – more consistency in the manufacturing line might actually reduce costs for BMW and/or allow them to ship more vehicles faster.

Perhaps the majority cost for the option is not for the equipment but for the labor involved in installing it.

So then make it a standard feature. If it's cheap enough to install, it's cheap enough to include as a base model feature.

If BMW can earn more money by always installing it but making it optional rather than making it a standard feature, guess what BMW will do?

Does that consider the fact that people might choose a different car instead because this is not included by default? Or perhaps BMW bets on the Apple effect, that people won't chose a different car anyway.

Again, though, that labor is paid for either way if the installation was already done and it wasn't activated. Essentially, I think the argument being made here is that -- whether this was true or not -- when the heated seats had to be paid for up front to even have them in your car, you could tell yourself that they legitimately cost something (for the parts or the installation or whatever: that doesn't matter) related to how much you were paying for them... but if everyone has them and you are merely paying to turn them on the facade dissolves and you almost have to assume that the feature didn't cost much to put in your car and you are simply being charged as much as they think they can convince you to pay, which is often true but never fun to realize.

It's not the labour itself, it's the variability in that labour. Complexity has a cost over and above the raw labour costs, and I can well believe that someone's spreadsheet tells them that the additional parts and labour is cheaper in terms of both supply chain management and reliability than retaining that degree of freedom in that particular supplier relationship.

IBM does this with their mainframes.

Intel wanted to do this with floating point operations on the Pentium, in the 1990s. A set of e-fuses would give you access to (say) another hundred million floating point adds or something, then the CPU would burn a fuse and you'd have to buy more (a final fuse would do a complete unlock).

Yes, it's a horrible idea.

Cashing in on Excel users is what Intel marketing was betting on. Only it wasn't just Excel users using the FPU: One of the things that killed this plan was the upswing in 3-D games that used floating point math (in other words, Quake).

Intel is bringing this back right now: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Intel-SD...

Good reminder to stay with AMD if that’s an option for you.

And oscilloscope manufacturers. You can typically "unlock" more bandwidth with a code after purchasing. The delivered device is capable of sampling at greater bandwidth but the software prevents it above the paid-for bandwidth. I think Keysight are probably the worst offenders but I think many of them do it now. FOSS firmware for modern scopes seems a pipe dream given many now use custom FPGAs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com