Sorry, WHAT? People should absolutely boycott companies that try to squeeze bucks in this miserable way.
That was later outlawed with the "first-sale doctrine": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
I would say that it seems like it's time for some new legislation that supports consumer freedom. But given the state of American politics, I can only hope that Europe will do some pioneering work on this.
Option A: A vehicle that lacks the hardware for heated seats, heated steering wheel, and driver assist that costs $25,000 to produce and that you pay $25,000 for. If you want these items next year, you have to buy a new vehicle.
Option B: A vehicle that includes the hardware for heated seats, heated steering wheel, and driver assist that costs $27,000 to produce. You can pay $25,000 now and those features aren’t enabled. But next year you can enable them for a nominal fee. Or you can pay $30,000 now and there are enabled for life. Or $27,000 now and a $500/year subscription fee that you can later cancel.
If not having two separate designs and production lines means less cost to make that a reality, that seems like a reasonable trade off to me.
Do tell. I'm always keen on hearing why people prefer no regulation in the automotive space.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscription...
1. Lower total cost of manufacturing (which should be passed on to consumers as lower purchase price).
2. The cost of this hardware is only paid for those who value it.
3. You can add these features later (maybe your budget is tight when you bought the car but want to add it later).
I am definitely not a fan of the subscription model for hardware features, but I think that locking features to the customers paying for it is a logical way to make these features available for less cost. If the unlock is one-time and reliable (doesn't rely on some external service to validate your subscription) then I don't have a fundamental problem with it.
I don't think providing a cheaper model is "punish[ing] them for paying less". It is making the car accessible to a wider audience. If the cheapest model included heated seats, self driving and more then they base price would be higher and the car would be less accessible.
Software locking like this is bad for environmental / waste reasons. All of this complaining about there being a disconnect between what you willingly paid for and what the physical hardware components in the product you receive can technically do, is just a nerd’s argument. I agree with it. Subscriptions suck when there’s no ongoing cost to the seller. But I’m not going to pretend that this is some moral crusade, or be as emotionally invested as you quite obviously are.
Personally, I think it's a terrible idea in that it further changes the relationship between buyers and sellers toward a relationship of long-term exploitation. It takes the notion of enshittification [1] and extends it into the realm of physical goods.
[1] https://kottke.org/23/01/the-enshittification-lifecycle-of-o...
Unless it’s something that requires the car manufacturer to also spend money on an ongoing basis (e.g. a cell data connection or something) it strikes me as absolutely immoral that these companies are going to band together and force this arrangement upon us.
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/automakers-bmw-gm-mercedes-char...