Five minutes of hate news

[Bear Ribs]

Well, look at it this way -- why should the manufacturer be forced to give you options for free? This actually does give the customer more choices; by having the options physically present but software disabled, it allows you to retroactively buy the options later on, rather than just *not having them forever*.

The primary issue here is that now the Manufacturer loses if the customer can modify their own car and just turn the block off on their own... which in turn means the manufacturer is next going to start either lobbying to make repairing your own car illegal or booby-trapping it to make your car brick itself if you do your own repairs. This means everybody who tries to do work for themselves is going to lose their right to repair. Once that right starts hemorrhaging it's fairly likely to spiral out until you can't even change your own oil or repair a flat tire, got to pay their specific overpriced certified mechanic group to do it or your car turns into a two-ton paperweight. This in turn destroys competition and promotes monopolies, as who's going to trust some upstart new company when their cars may brick themselves if they go out of business, or risk that this smaller dealer doesn't even have any certified mechanics where you're moving?

Answering the question more directly and giving some TL;DR, the manufacturer shouldn't be forced to give you options for free. However they should absolutely not be allowed to modify or take away things you've already purchased, nor dictate what you're allowed to do with your own property. The problem is, the subscription hardware service cannot make a profit unless they're allowed to dictate what you're allowed to do with your own property, so they will find a way do so, and almost certainly already have a way to do so or they wouldn't be offering it.

 

[Terthna]

None of the stuff has ever been free? I mean, the previous option was buying the whole thing. Now they find that they can sell you only exactly what you are willing to pay win, which means they can fit the demand curve better. It's the same reason companies offer luxury versions of stuff: they get more revenue offering something slightly different at two price points than one product at one price. The issue is that it used to require making multiple products, now it doesn't.

Except you're not actually paying for the heated seats; you're paying for the ability to use them on a monthly basis. What happens when they decide to no longer offer the service for that particular car anymore? So that you'll buy the new model if you want to keep access to heated seats.

It's the next step to a world where you own nothing; which ought to be a nightmare for any decent Libertarian, who isn't simply a Corporatist masquerading as something less objectionable.

 

[mrttao]

"You will own nothing, and you will be happy"
- evil

 

[Rocinante]

I love the libertarian types who are basically always like "yes daddy give it to me" to big corps doing shitty stuff.

It's perfectly in line with libertarian philosophy to be against this, and hope that market forces (not buying this shit,) with disincentivize future behaviors like this from manufacturers.

It's a shitty decision for the consumers, charging more money to use a feature that's already built in. It's bullshit. If it's a service that costs them a little to maintain, like cellular signals or things of that nature, fine. Charging me money to use shit that you've already built in and doesn't cost continued resources for the company to maintain? Fuck right off with that shit.

If this trend continues, it isn't going to save anyone any money. They'll keep selling cars at inflated rates, and then charging you even more to use the built in features.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I love the libertarian types who are basically always like "yes daddy give it to me" to big corps doing shitty stuff.

It's perfectly in line with libertarian philosophy to be against this, and hope that market forces (not buying this shit,) with disincentivize future behaviors like this from manufacturers.

It's a shitty decision for the consumers, charging more money to use a feature that's already built in. It's bullshit. If it's a service that costs them a little to maintain, like cellular signals or things of that nature, fine. Charging me money to use shit that you've already built in and doesn't cost continued resources for the company to maintain? Fuck right off with that shit.

If this trend continues, it isn't going to save anyone any money. They'll keep selling cars at inflated rates, and then charging you even more to use the built in features.

If we had an actual free market, this wouldn't be a problem. We do not. We have a hyper regulated market where government intervention has created a a scarcity of car manufacturers and that limited set of companies can dictate how they sell their products. In this case, they will sell a license to the software to run the hardware.

I would say "you buy a different car" but that's not viable in a non-free market. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Buy used cars from before 2022.

Incidentally, I find it hilarious that this pisses the masses off when Teslas can be literally turned off for wrong think. That's... a distorted sense of priorities if I've ever seen one.

 

[Sobek]

I would guess the Tesla thing didn't piss people off as much because of how niche they are Atm

 

[Rocinante]

If we had an actual free market, this wouldn't be a problem. We do not. We have a hyper regulated market where government intervention has created a a scarcity of car manufacturers and that limited set of companies can dictate how they sell their products. In this case, they will sell a license to the software to run the hardware.

I would say "you buy a different car" but that's not viable in a non-free market. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Buy used cars from before 2022.

Incidentally, I find it hilarious that this pisses the masses off when Teslas can be literally turned off for wrong think. That's... a distorted sense of priorities if I've ever seen one.

I'm not exactly pro-tesla either, because of precisely that shit.

I mean, yeah, they're cool and have nice performance. But I'd never buy one.

I would guess the Tesla thing didn't piss people off as much because of how niche they are Atm

Most people probably just don't know about it, or never plan on buying a tesla so dont care.

 

[nemo1986]

I would guess the Tesla thing didn't piss people off as much because of how niche they are Atm

Read an article where some dropped their orders but most don't care enough.

 

[Abhorsen]

Except you're not actually paying for the heated seats; you're paying for the ability to use them on a monthly basis. What happens when they decide to no longer offer the service for that particular car anymore? So that you'll buy the new model if you want to keep access to heated seats.

It's the next step to a world where you own nothing; which ought to be a nightmare for any decent Libertarian, who isn't simply a Corporatist masquerading as something less objectionable.

You don't seem to understand what corporatism is, then. I despise corporations working with government. That's corporatism. I don't got a problem with corporations proposing new options. If people don't like the option, they can chose not to purchase a BMW. That's the free market, and what a libertarian believes in.

So I'd hate corporations trying to use government to prosecute people creating workarounds on their DRM (corporatism). I don't mind them offering products that have DRM (free market). Why use DRM then? Cause most people won't bother getting around the DRM even if it was legal. Steam killed the Pirate Bay because people would pay for convivence. Same deal here.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I love the libertarian types who are basically always like "yes daddy give it to me" to big corps doing shitty stuff.

It's perfectly in line with libertarian philosophy to be against this, and hope that market forces (not buying this shit,) with disincentivize future behaviors like this from manufacturers.

It's a shitty decision for the consumers, charging more money to use a feature that's already built in. It's bullshit. If it's a service that costs them a little to maintain, like cellular signals or things of that nature, fine. Charging me money to use shit that you've already built in and doesn't cost continued resources for the company to maintain? Fuck right off with that shit.

If this trend continues, it isn't going to save anyone any money. They'll keep selling cars at inflated rates, and then charging you even more to use the built in features.

I don't buy that auto makers are going to succeed if they try it. It'll cost them anywhere from $3,000-10,000+ to put those features on the cars plus whatever add'l cost to implement the cutoff features and operate the subscription services. There's no way they can recoup the costs from an average consumer.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

Whatever the industry tries, I hope they go down burning. It's ridiculously for another car corpo to go: "Hey, fellas? Know what we won't do? This shit! Buy our cars!" and make big profits.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Whatever the industry tries, I hope they go down burning. It's ridiculously for another car corpo to go: "Hey, fellas? Know what we won't do? This shit! Buy our cars!" and make big profits.

Problem is, it's an oligopoly and they're got enough regulatory capture and enough barriers to entry to prevent any other car corpo from doing so and to prevent a new company from starting up that might compete by doing so.

 

[Terthna]

You don't seem to understand what corporatism is, then. I despise corporations working with government. That's corporatism. I don't got a problem with corporations proposing new options. If people don't like the option, they can chose not to purchase a BMW. That's the free market, and what a libertarian believes in.

So I'd hate corporations trying to use government to prosecute people creating workarounds on their DRM (corporatism). I don't mind them offering products that have DRM (free market). Why use DRM then? Cause most people won't bother getting around the DRM even if it was legal. Steam killed the Pirate Bay because people would pay for convivence. Same deal here.

Defending corporations and their anti-consumer practices in the name of the "free market" (Something which Libertarians keep harping on about, but often fails to materialize in practice) is corporatism, which is the advocacy of a society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations. Politics being just one method of control; others include corporations working together to ensure that the "options" they offer aren't really options at all, and you don't actually have a choice. If you want heated seats, or power windows, or airbags, you have to keep paying the subscription; which will be more expensive than paying for those things outright, and more importantly will give the company a measure of power over you. Which they will use to threaten you into supporting their agendas: "You don't approve of drag shows for children? Well, maybe remotely shutting off access to the things you're paying for will change your mind".

 

[Abhorsen]

I love the libertarian types who are basically always like "yes daddy give it to me" to big corps doing shitty stuff.

It's perfectly in line with libertarian philosophy to be against this, and hope that market forces (not buying this shit,) with disincentivize future behaviors like this from manufacturers.

It's a shitty decision for the consumers, charging more money to use a feature that's already built in. It's bullshit. If it's a service that costs them a little to maintain, like cellular signals or things of that nature, fine. Charging me money to use shit that you've already built in and doesn't cost continued resources for the company to maintain? Fuck right off with that shit.

If this trend continues, it isn't going to save anyone any money. They'll keep selling cars at inflated rates, and then charging you even more to use the built in features.

Look, I don't like the decision, but I get where it's coming from, and there are advantages and disadvantages to it. I just find that the societal disadvantages are more than the advantages. The solution, to me, at least, is as you said, I don't plan to buy it.

What I do mind is people crying 'corporatism' when a company is just offering a product that you can say yes or no to. This just isn't it.

Defending corporations and their anti-consumer practices in the name of the "free market" (Something which Libertarians keep harping on about, but often fails to materialize in practice) is corporatism, which is the advocacy of a society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations. Politics being just one method of control; others include corporations working together to ensure that the "options" they offer aren't really options at all, and you don't actually have a choice. If you want heated seats, or power windows, or airbags, you have to keep paying the subscription; which will be more expensive than paying for those things outright, and more importantly will give the company a measure of power over you. Which they will use to threaten you into supporting their agendas: "You don't approve of drag shows for children? Well, maybe remotely shutting off access to the things you're paying for will change your mind".

How is this anticonsumer? No, seriously. Corporations aren't colluding with each other here. They aren't colluding with government either hear outside of the DMCA (which I don't like).

And you absolutely have a choice here. I personally hate heated seats, even in winter. So I'd choose no. Others might just want it during winter, and others all the time. Some might hack their car to fix it. These are options. Previously, the option might have been to produce two cars, one with the feature and one without, and make the one with it cost more. Now it's easier, produce the same car, and charge a subscription. That's the entirety of the difference here.

Meanwhile, A) you seem to be both complaining that it's optional (which is just dumb, and has happened for decades), and B) that it's a subscription, which gets into what it means to own things.

You maybe have a point with B, except that the buyer, in a free market, decided to sign up for this. If you don't like it, don't sign up for it. I don't see why government is needed for this. The government isn't supposed to stop people from doing stupid things with their own money.

You want corporatism? Look at the subsidies the government gives to the car manufacturers, the Bailouts they got in '08, etc. That's corporatism. Not this.

 

[Captain X]

I honestly don't get what you're not getting.

 

[Abhorsen]

I honestly don't get what you're not getting.

A corporation is offering a product != corporatism, even if the product is shit. They aren't lying about what the product is, they aren't colluding with other corporations or government, I simply don't see the big deal. Just don't buy it.

All this is is a cheaper way for BMW to offer options to consumers (good!) through a subscription model for physical stuff (bad). I don't think it's a huge deal, and the solution is just not to buy it.

 

[Captain X]

A corporation is offering a product != corporatism, even if the product is shit. They aren't lying about what the product is, they aren't colluding with other corporations or government, I simply don't see the big deal. Just don't buy it.

All this is is a cheaper way for BMW to offer options to consumers (good!) through a subscription model for physical stuff (bad). I don't think it's a huge deal, and the solution is just not to buy it.

You think it's cheaper to install things that customers are not guaranteed to buy into than to simply not install them? You think this is actually about providing a cheaper product rather than creating a source of constant revenue?

 

[Terthna]

Look, I don't like the decision, but I get where it's coming from, and there are advantages and disadvantages to it. I just find that the societal disadvantages are more than the advantages. The solution, to me, at least, is as you said, I don't plan to buy it.

What I do mind is people crying 'corporatism' when a company is just offering a product that you can say yes or no to. This just isn't it.


How is this anticonsumer? No, seriously. Corporations aren't colluding with each other here. They aren't colluding with government either hear outside of the DMCA (which I don't like).

And you absolutely have a choice here. I personally hate heated seats, even in winter. So I'd choose no. Others might just want it during winter, and others all the time. Some might hack their car to fix it. These are options. Previously, the option might have been to produce two cars, one with the feature and one without, and make the one with it cost more. Now it's easier, produce the same car, and charge a subscription. That's the entirety of the difference here.

Meanwhile, A) you seem to be both complaining that it's optional (which is just dumb, and has happened for decades), and B) that it's a subscription, which gets into what it means to own things.

You maybe have a point with B, except that the buyer, in a free market, decided to sign up for this. If you don't like it, don't sign up for it. I don't see why government is needed for this. The government isn't supposed to stop people from doing stupid things with their own money.

You want corporatism? Look at the subsidies the government gives to the car manufacturers, the Bailouts they got in '08, etc. That's corporatism. Not this.

My point is that the market is getting less and less free as time goes on, and that this is just another step towards us no longer owning anything. Imagine a world where you're not just paying a subscription fee for heated seats in your car, but for your car itself, as well as everything else you "buy". It's not simply the heated seats subscription itself that I have a problem with; it's the mindset behind it, and what that inevitably leads to if it's not checked.

The government isn't supposed to stop people from doing stupid things with their own money; but they are supposed to step when they're being taken advantage of.

 

[Abhorsen]

You think it's cheaper to install things that customers are not guaranteed to buy into than to simply not install them? You think this is actually about providing a cheaper product rather than creating a source of constant revenue?

Yes? The alternative is having two production lines for the seats. It's incredibly cheaper not to have a second production line, not having to worry about getting proportions of cars with it and without it right, etc.

Seriously, I'm nearly certain this has been done before, just without the subscription service.

This is especially good for something like heated seats. People are very take it or leave it on these. I hate them. My mom loves them. People in the south don't need them. So you'd actually want both options, it's not just an auto include. If it was an auto include, then this would be costing them money vs. just including it in the initial price.

My point is that the market is getting less and less free as time goes on, and that this is just another step towards us no longer owning anything. Imagine a world where you're not just paying a subscription fee for heated seats in your car, but for your car itself, as well as everything else you "buy". It's not simply the heated seats subscription itself that I have a problem with; it's the mindset behind it, and what that inevitably leads to if it's not checked.

This isn't making the market less free. They aren't forcing you to buy stuff, and they aren't colluding with governments or corporations (about this at least). You are combining the problem of an unfree market (which we do have, but this isn't part of it) with the lack of ownership, when that's a different problem.

Look, some people are fine with not owning stuff. They can get stuck in there cubical homes. Meanwhile, others like to, so they'll pay more to do so (or more accurately, not get the discounted rates others do for not owning). In a free market, both will buy what they want and get different outcomes based on what they decided.

The government isn't supposed to stop people from doing stupid things with their own money; but they are supposed to step when they're being taken advantage of.

No, they aren't. There's nothing fraudulent here. The company is being straight up honest about what it is doing. This is, in your opinion, someone doing something stupid with their money. That's all it is though.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Yes? The alternative is having two production lines.

Nope. Single production line, where some parts are put on certain vehicles and some aren't. The only 'extra' effort here is that you do or don't put that equipment on the vehicle.

If it was an auto include, then this would be costing them money vs. just including it in the initial price.

Do you really think they AREN'T going to have a general price increase when they do this to offset the cost of putting all this equipment on every vehicle, and THEN charge the subscription fee to enable the features?