Hacker News Reader

Comment by Night_Thastus | Hacker News Reader

The supply and install problem clearly isn't that hard, auto makers have been doing it for many decades at this point.

Plus, it seems backwards from a business standpoint. You always have the cost of installing the hardware, but now you only get a % of users who agree to pay for the additional cost? The only way to "fix" that is to artificially raise the price of the product so effectively everyone is paying, which means now you're double-dipping from the people who do want it.

It's just crap. If I buy a physical device (not renting) then I own it and should be able to use its full capabilities. The only thing that should cost more is anything that has ongoing cost to the manufacturer if I use it.

View on HN

From the perspective of the manufacturer, having fewer model variations and factory/assembly configurations may end up saving more money overall.

They may also believe that there is a large-enough group of people who would decide not to get heated seats installed at purchase time, but would later regret that and wish they had it. The manufacturer might make more on "install hardware unconditionally and charge a fee for zero work later" than "install hardware later on demand".

The true cost of things to the manufacturer often depends on more than just the cost of that item and the direct labor cost to install it.

But I absolutely agree that we should applaud people who get around these sorts of software lockouts. If the company is going to give you a piece of hardware, it should be fair game for you to figure out how to get the most use out of it.

>The only way to "fix" that is to artificially raise the price of the product so effectively everyone is paying

You know what's better than "artificially raising the price of the product" so you can pay for the heated car seats or whatever? Raising the price of the product, and not installing the car seat in the first place and keeping the extra money for yourself. The idea that carmakers can pass the cost of software locked (ie. non-functional) parts to consumers makes zero sense.

> The supply and install problem clearly isn't that hard, auto makers have been doing it for many decades at this point.

Are you referring to the legacy auto manufacturers that still can't make EVs profitably in 2023? Perhaps Ford with its negative 58.9% EBIT margin on their EV division [1]?

Of course you can "solve" a more complex supply-chain and multiple vehicle configurations. It just costs more money. And therefore reduces your profit margin. If you do too much problem-solving of this type, your margin might end up negative. Not every EV manufacturer can subsidize their EV business with a high-margin ICE business.

[1] https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2023...

Installing heated seats or these common add-on features has nothing to do with EVs vs ICEs. It's not specific to either, or harder/easier for either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com