BMW drops controversial heated seats subscription
forbes.com
forbes.com
It was true. The heating wires in the seats were already installed and the consumer paid for them and owned them.
I remember in the olden days some compiler vendors added a fee to "unlock" floating point code support. That was never popular (I never did such with my compilers.)
1. Those who purchase the heated seats cover the cost of all of these heating wires. So they are paying much more than the raw cost (but presumably less than if their cars needed a separate / modified production line).
2. The manufacturer is paying these costs as a "marketing fee" hoping that they will recoup their investment (and more) when people pay for this feature.
I agree that this model feels wrong but after thinking about it I have convinced myself that this can be a good thing. It allows those who what the feature to pay for it, without removing the option for a cheaper model for those who don't want or can't afford the feature.
I wrote a blog post about this a while back: https://kevincox.ca/2023/05/14/ethics-of-locked-hardware/
If the hardware to perform the capability is in the machine I bought, it belongs to me. I paid for it. I don't care if you discounted the price below your cost to produce, I gave you the money and you gave me the thing, its mine. No amount of legalese will change that, it is a simple fact of life. I'm paying for the gas to lug the hardware around with me everywhere I go. The hardware itself does not require software to function, you need a heating element and a switch, you can't even make the argument that you're paying for a license to the software without which the feature will not work. Even if a device does genuinely need software to work, unless the hardware can be used for other things and someone can purchase or create competing software for the thing, again, the hardware is mine and you don't get to tell me what to do with it. It's less like purchasing Windows for your computer and more like purchasing firmware for the proprietary WiFi card you just bought.
Those who want the feature can pay for the hardware. Make a car without it. If it's in my car and I didn't steal it it's mine, period. Even if they decide to put them in every car and charge me a one time fee to turn it on and even make that transferrable with the car I don't care, you can't gimp my property and sell it back to me, how is that different than ransomware? Make a car without it or charge for it for all cars it's in. It is that simple.
Off topic, we talk about e waste and what not but then we justify this form of waste by saying it reduces cost by streamlining manufacturing. This is bullshit. If it reduces costs then make it a standard feature. Why don't they? Because it doesn't reduce cost. It increases cost for every item manufactured and that cost is recouped by the subscription fee. In other words, they do it because it is profitable. And it's profitable not because it reduces cost, but because people have to pay a recurring fee to use the thing forever, and because it's valueless on the secondary market, you can't even pull one at a junkyard. If they charged a one time transferrable fee to turn it on I doubt they'd be saying it reduces cost, because it doesn't. But some people fall for this hand waving, and as a result thousands, possibly millions of cars are out there with device in them that are going for two hundred thousand mile ride right to a landfill, brand new and out of the box.
The entire point of amortizing the upfront costs is to keep the consumers hooked by charging a smaller recurring amount that stings less but certainly adds up to a bigger amount than the original upfront costs.
Besides, why would a company go through the added hassle of creating and managing a subscription model and risk pissing off customers through this nickeling-and-diming if not for more profits?
I am sure that there is still some silver lining to this scenario (e.g. I live in hot climate and don't need heated seats), but I fail to see any that apply to a broad number of consumers.
They are paying more for materials but less for manufacturing costs and overhead. The total cost is less. So by your logic consumers are paying less than before.
> keep the consumers hooked by charging a smaller recurring amount
Yes, I disagree with the subscription model. I am talking more about one time payment for a hardware-locked feature.
I suspect this is a complex, wicked problem. What about the marketing costs, subscription management overhead, and the ensuing PR damage?
When you eliminate that line and recognize that you've been charged for hardware you're not using, it feels wrong to many. I doubt many people realize any feature limiting in something as obscure as a CPU.
BMW and AWS ran a quantum computing challenge two years ago. One of the tasks was to figure out all the combinations of features that need to be tested (sometimes destructively) [1].
I would imagine that having features installed in all vehicles provides a less taxing testing regime than having a physical option.
And in addition, it will be cheaper to just manufacture one version of a thing (and then switch in software).
[1] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/quantum-computing/winners-annou...
Curious to learn the underlying economics, but not sure how software-locking features would make testing any easier. While different configurations would create somewhat unique feature-sets, not having to test some features on a certain percentage of vehicles (I imagine a testing technician looking at the missing buttons and writing down "N/A") seems more efficient than having to test every feature on every vehicle in an attempt to oversimplify.
However, no consumer is actually going to believe that and they're just going to assume they'd paid for something they don't get value from without having to pay more.
Wow. They still don’t get it
That's some serious gaslighting.
Maybe an argument can be made that the contract is deceptive, or so long and detailed that it amounts to a DoS on the potential buyer. I think those are important topics that deserve a lot more scrutiny and weight in the courtroom than they get. But that's a different topic.
What you say is correct - the laws as they stand do allow for this behavior by BMW, and the company is correct when they say that (buyers? renters?) don't own the gadget in question.
It's also true that a discussion around preventing this sort of behavior with new laws is probably warranted.
Laissez-faire capitalism's answer is "None at all", which is appealingly simple and works well whenever the parties involved have similar levels of bargaining power. But in practice a huge number of negotiations occur between parties with vastly different levels of bargaining power -- and in that case, having few or no restrictions can lead to emergent behaviour (especially positive feedback of wealth and poverty over time) that many feel to be unfair.
It's difficult because the alternative -- adding restrictions -- seems almost impossible to do without "playing favourites", which leads to claims of unfairness that are hard to argue against because they are so plain: They're right there in writing. It's harder for many people to see how the absence of restrictions is also a kind of "playing favourites".
Obviously, that's completely insane and I'm sure anyone can see this. Why treat cars differently?
This additional cost however is less than just adding the higher trim to every configuration, e.g. the additional room, so it doesn't make economic sense to do so.
But let's assume you now get the ability to sell and unlock a higher trim after the initial purchase. Let's say that 20% of your customers would be willing to purchase such an unlock at a later point in time, resulting in increased revenue.
If that revenue plus the reduced lifecycle expense exceeds the cost of adding the higher trim as baseline you would have a business case, which wouldn't be the case if you just add the room for everybody (where you'd have to raise the base price and lose buyers on the lower end).
I think I'm not alone in saying that yes it SHOULD override what it says in the contract. You can write whatever you like in contracts, but that does not make it reasonable behavior.
More generally, what restrictions should the law place on contracts, in your opinion? That is, can you describe a general rule that would rule out BMW's heated car seats from being a valid contact clause (but, presumably, not rule out every possible contract)?
You can't charge a subscription for something someone already physically owns.
That ought to stop this sort of nonsense while still allowing most all SaaS stuff to keep going. Heck you could still charge a service contract for the seat heaters. You just can't go "No we won't enable this thing that's already fully wired up and ready to go and fully owned by you"
Though honestly the "correct" way to fix this sort of nonsense is to rework or possibly repeal DMCA entirely. It's absurd a manufacturer can put a lock on my stuff and have it be illegal for me to remove the lock.
>You can't charge a subscription for something someone already physically owns.
I suspect the contract is worded so that the buyer of "the car" actually does not own the seats, or perhaps the heaters in the seats. If that's the case, do you feel that such a contract clause should be illegal? If so, you're claiming that there are circumstances in which it should be illegal to "separate out" some things that are usually "bundled together" (here, car seat heaters and the rest of the car) -- what general rule would you propose to decide what things are unacceptable to separate out like this? (In case you're thinking of proposing "things that are physically connected can't be sold separately", you will run into problems: Lots of raw materials, e.g., steel, need to be cut up to be sold in the quantities customers need.)
But let's suppose the contract does not in fact leave ownership of any physical part of the car with the seller. If you buy a router from an ISP, are they not entitled to also charge you a monthly subscription to use it to access the internet?
How is it possible that they can get away with it without any lawsuits? I'd want to be compensated for carrying other people's crap around town.
If a feature requires constant development (like self-driving) then it makes more sense. But even that has been subverted these days with SaaS companies that charge a subscription but only offer new features as upgrades so your version doesn't really improve that much unless you pony up.
How much more $ do these people really need?
Well, you could read the contract, see that clause, and choose not to buy that particular car, couldn't you?
It's likely that there are other cars available to buy that don't have clauses like that in their contracts. But even if there aren't (either because this car manufacturer has a monopoly on cars where you live, or there's a cartel operating in which all car manufacturers secretly agree to adopt this type of clause): Do you feel you have a right to buy a car without a clause like that in the contract?
If your answer to that is "Yes, I have that right": Suppose for the sake of argument that this car company is a monopoly. What happens if it goes out of business, or decides to stop making cars altogether? Should they be prevented from doing so by law, in order that your right to buy such a car remains undisturbed?
If you live on a remote island, do you likewise have a right to buy a car with no such clause in the contract?
I'm interested in understanding what rights you feel people should be entitled to when it comes by buying things, and how you would have the government deal with the downstream implications of legally guaranteeing those rights.
Devil's advocate: how would you know if BMW subsidized what would have been an add-on package?
There’s no way for a car owner to know whether their $120k car cost $300k to make or $20k, so how can we have a genuine discussion about the cost of anything else?
People paid double. They did get it. Even before they tried.
"People realised they were paying double. So that is the reason we stopped"
[0] https://www.thedrive.com/tech/41678/full-rear-wheel-steering...
One such risk is china. German carmakers desperately need new markets and china is one of them. But germany and the eu cant bully china and they will want access to european markets in return. And what i am reading and hearing is that chinese ev carmakers are rather competitive.
There’s “declining quality,” and then there’s “the roof melts.” I wouldn’t consider buying a bmw for a long, long time.
My porsche 981 had the roof peel off, and the door panels gradually ungluing. More worrying they made a recall on my model, whereby the rear axel can crack in certain circumstances, years after issuing the same recall for US customers.
BMW owners of certain models have told me about timing chains snapping, or differentials breaking.
Not buying any of these brands again, ever. Chose an american brand instead, part due to quality, part due to politics. Couldnt be happier. At least i dont need to pay thousands just be able to play music or stream my maps. Even if it breaks down i’s still have saved money so i can fix it.
This i think is relevant to this forum because it underlines a fundamental issue with a country who’s economy is largely reliant on manufacturing quality goods. That quality seems to decline rather fast, and it will have serious impact over european affairs in my view. First warning sign was cheating on emissions. Second warning was desperate attempts at charging owners monthly fees. Now it’s clear there’s something rotten in germany.
-their attempts at lowering fleet emissions is to just drop trucks and make all their cars use a series of efficient engines but not actually adopt EVs seriously until way down the line. This meets the goal(others get to the same number by selling gas guzzlers + compliance EVs) but is really against the grain.
Other times this old school mentality is good.
-insisting on not using touch screens so drivers dont get frustrated and can focus on the road
-sticking with traditional transmission instead of those god awful CVTs
-probably not adopting the infrastructure to make mass surveillance in their cars possible (or so I guess).
It's our job to be whiny assholes about it.
They could’ve just taken a page from Audi’s playbook and made heated seats standard. No subscription bs.
Grandparents often would not believe the headline, and that's understandable. However, they would also sneer at such a sneaky idea as what BMW brought to the table. They're at peak marketing if they actually believed whatever professional advice led to charging for heated seats in a supposedly "luxury" brand vehicle. Wow
(I say "is" rather than "was" because everybody bitched when they forced ads onto smart TVs and swore they'd never buy one, and yet it's nearly impossible to find a name brand TV without them. Won't be long before there's a monthly fee to mute the voice telling you what's on sale at every burger joint and strip mall you drive by)
Lol. Porsche takes this to a whole other level in my experience.
* $31.6k + 8% tax. Couldn't fit into a used one, so had to order it new deleting the sunroof.
I expect a luxury vehicle (that I can fit into) to have both heated and cooling seats because it's damn hot here.
One problem with too many features is they add complexity and they break. Only add features that are essential because most are a rent-seeking ripoff. Preferably, a low mileage used vehicle that's periodically but barely driven by a retired elderly person is best.
Admittedly they fitted a Blaupunkt (when that was a luxury brand), but still …
But you are right that the outrage-bait titles made people almost uniformly upset, since it wasn't clear that this was an additional option, and that people could still purchase heated seats outright.
To me this isn't nuanced at all. It's my fucking car, get out of here with this rent-seeking DLC shit.
In fact, as someone who likes to buy lightly used cars, I love this idea even more... even though the original buyer didn't want heated seats, I can still have them for the original option price? SOLD! (I would not do the subscription option of course)
The license to these software enabled features is not usually transferrable. And why would they be?
It's not nuanced. If I pay you money for an object I expect the object to work. I don't care if you're selling it to me at a loss, that's your prerogative. What's not your prerogative is how I use my property.
This kind of thing is common in software where all of the code is there for the premium/business/family/group/team/etc features, but how much you pay determines which features you get access to. In the case of the BMW, the heated seat control only appeared on the screen if you paid $250 for it.
The only difference between some cars power is the ECU tune on the car. Are you entitled to the fastest version from the factory because you bought the cheaper model? I would say no. But you're free to add your own ECU tune via aftermarket methods.
If I rented the heated seats, or hadn't bought or rented the heated seats, then the new buyer should have the option to rent the heated seats or make a one-time purchase to just buy them.
This seems pro-consumer to me. I don't want heated seats (no, really, I don't!) and I would never buy them on my car. But, when I go to sell my car the new buyer can purchase heated seats if they so choose. That increases the market to which I can sell my car, and makes more cars available to buyers. Increased supply drives prices down.
No matter how you slice it and dice it the end result is the same: drive prices down and provide more options to consumers. I don't understand the backlash.
Among more thoughtful folks, there were still concerns that this was a first step toward increased nickel-and-diming. What feature would be subscription-ized next? And would the one-time purchase options silently disappear?
Consider that these things cannot be sold on the secondary market. You can't pick and pull the hardware.
1. Lowers manufacturing costs. If there were a Law of Manufacturing it would be this: the less differentiation among the widgets, the more cheaply the widgets can be made. That thinking was behind Ford saying you could have any color you want, so long as it's black. Note this doesn't just affect assembly, it affects the supply chain as well. Your supplier only has to provide one kind of seat. The company making the heating units can crank more out and reduce the unit cost of each.
2. Increases supply - which reduces cost. As I said above, heated seats can be sold as an option. Any owner of the car can buy the option at any time. That increases the supply of cars in the used market. If I want a car with heated seats I can buy the model where that feature hasn't been enabled and enable it myself.
You mention you can't pick and pull the hardware. There's nothing in principle preventing that. All the hardware is the same. If for some reason your seat were to become damaged, you don't have to look for a heated seat. Any seat will do. If BMW is doing anything to prevent that then they're going to run afoul of Right to Repair laws.
When I buy a physical object, that is my object. If they want to charge subscription fees they can do it on something they own. If they want to charge for new functionality they can do it own something they own.
"Nice BMW you got, what's the monthly rent?"
Subaru sells first-party remote start units which operate this way. They also have a subscription service that offers remote start, but make no mistake: if your carmaker ONLY allows remote start with a subscription and won't install a standalone unit, you are being had.
I was surprised, though, that it would "upgrade" my phone to apps that wouldn't work anymore and didn't bother to say it wouldn't work.
Bought a new phone, transferred my setup over, and they started working again.
With new cars, what I dread the most is scenario where something breaks after an upgrade, especially after car is out of warranty. Would that mean I need to get an expensive repair, or an entirely new car just because my 5yr old hardware isn't compatible with latest software?
I want a car which is reliable enough (including the software) to run as long as I want to keep it even if it's decades. May be keeping cars for decades is about to become a distant reality
Step two: Charge subscription fee to get paid to finish developing product
Step three: Add useless features and do confusing redesigns to justify subscriptions
Step four: "Subscriptions are necessary to cover ongoing costs"
What's the principle here? That because it already exists, consumers don't have to pay for it? How far can we stretch this? Suppose there's a streaming service (eg. netflix or spotify) that supports downloads, does that it's "anti-consumer" to deny them access to the audio/video files because it's already on their device, and the cost to produce it has already been paid for?
Moreover, is there anything fundamentally different between paying $2000 (one time) for a heated seat upgrade, and $200/year for 10 years (or whatever the expected life of a car is)?
I disagree. This literally happens for CPUs, and people don't seem to get angry at it. There might be different models of CPUs sold that use the same die and come off the same manufacturing line. The only difference is that cores are disabled/fuesd off and/or clock speeds are lowered.
Compare to a "land grab" or "rent-seeking" behavior. Also compare to "financing". It may be economically efficient to establish bargaining over the value but it matters asymmetrically to the parties to the transaction who is assigned property rights and who is renting.
Were heated seats previously free? I don't shop luxury cars, but heated seats on regular cars are definitely a premium trim feature.
Yes, it’s extremely different. You own it vs you lease it.
How so?
>the fact that a car can be purchased wouldn't make an expensive lease more attractive.
Yet plenty of people lease their cars.
Opinions my own. EDIT: typo.
Chances are nobody would care, but just buy what peer pressure tells them to buy.
Those are, and have been legally required, for several years in Canada because cars have gotten so big, and visibility so bad, people kept hitting (typically their own) toddlers.
This sits in the same realm as adblockers for a browser.
> Is it even possible?
the car maker might be able to make this impossible, but last i heard, people have done it. Unfortunately, due to a lot of cars being software, the manufacturer could detect and cause headaches for you, in an attempt to discourage it.
I reckon there ought to be laws, akin to the right to repair laws, that ensures you truly own your car and the manufacturer cannot lock you out.
Authorities care. Yes it's your property and you can do whatever you want with it. The question is whether you're allowed to operate the vehicle on public roads afterwards. Cars go through thorough certification processes (homologation) and that includes software.
Can you prove that your change does not negatively affect a certification-relevant function?
They still have eg footwell lights that are physically there, but not available for activation in the RWD version (LR and P only). They might just flash on during a software upgrade, never to be seen again!
It makes sense that automakers want to segment features at the lowest possible cost, but the acceptance of something as basic as seat warmers being a subscription service on a premium car is probably lower than for advanced autopilot stuff.
This is beyond stupid.
Is it completely understandable though? Maybe I'm an old man shouting at clouds, but I remember when the concept of a software subscription was itself seen as an unseemly money-grab.
Not true. You could pay once up front for the heated seat option, just like every year they offered heated seats as an option in the past. I'm not defending the subscription option, I agree the subscription option is silly.
If they were, its an interesting proposition...the heated seats are there but behind a paywall...I would say the long term economics of it probably don't favor the consumer given that BMW is doing this to make more money.
Using MyQ through their own app is free. If anything that seems like a deal to not have to pay subscription.
I'm gonna use this zinger at my next pitch meeting.
I'll forgive you if you weren't already aware that Chamberlain traded to a new PE firm shortly before all of this nonsense began to be introduced. IMO The only reason that the product remains subscription-free in any capacity is because that toothpaste had already been squeezed. I assure you, they see a future in subscribing to your garage door, and if you think otherwise, woe to you.
That's not how this works. Everyone who buys the car is paying for the feature equally. All of the cost of the R&D, the materials, the labor to build the feature in your car, that's all in the price you pay to buy the car. The subscription is entirely an additional cost to use the feature you've paid for. Mercedes are not discounting the car for everyone and then making the discount back from subscriptions. They're nerfing the car and then charging people to unnerf it.
BMW has really lost their way.
I don’t know that heated seats is a hill I would personally die on, but I’m just glad that pushback is taking place so manufacturers get the message that there are limits to what they can gate behind a paywall.
That is some real stockholm syndrome mentality there my friend. It is now 100% free, as it always should have been.
The "hack" to enable it is a cable and a switch. No digital rights management can prevent that.
Monitor how much current is being drawn from the battery, and if it's more than what's calculated from all of the authorized OEM things, then hard-brick the ECU.