No, I'm pretty sure that standardizing the chair saves some money (certainly not enough to cover the entire cost, but definitely some), and the rest is made up in the subscription service. There's also the chance that they were going to offer it on every car anyway, in which case this is more of a cheaper option for people who don't want heated seats while charging people who do slightly more.
Standardizing your seats will only work to a certain extent, because components and labor still cost money. You still need to purchase components, and you still need to pay people to install them on every unit whereas before, you had less. So either they have to really punish the people who want to use them by charging more for the subscription service, or they have to spread that cost around to help pay for it. Now, they
could do the former, but most likely they will do the latter. Ergo no one is actually saving any money here.
The consumer doesn't get hit by sticker shock, and the company gets a consistent stream of revenue. It's done with tons of stuff where it makes more sense (spotify, software licensing in general, streaming services, etc) and so people look at that, see it's profitable, and want to try it out on other stuff to see if it's profitable there too.
There's no great conspiracy, just people wanting money.
This is not just some streaming service. This is an attempt to take the "sustainability" meme to the extreme, because modern cars are already designed to wear out and break more quickly than they need to. It's also being done with something that someone has already purchased and owns. If this was some kind of a lease only job, I wouldn't have as much to say, but this is literally charging someone even more money to be able to use something they already own.
Fair, and no, I'm not read up on how production lines work. I'm pretty sure not having to switch would save some money though. Obviously not a huge amount, but it would allow for easier/greater automation if they don't have to alter how part of the supply line works. Alternatively, maybe it's just not turning on a specific machine? In which case they are still effectively losing money by not making the higher value products when it costs a semi-similar amount.
Unless your factory was designed by an idiot, it is extremely easy to switch between batches. Your idea of how production works is apparently very flawed.
No, I'm not? No money's leaving my pocket, so I'm not getting your point here.
As I explained above, if you purchase one of these cars, you will have paid for everything that is in it, not only on general principal of purchasing the car, but in the sense that cost of these optional items that were installed anyway will have been spread out among all of them to make for a lower cost for their scummy subscription service, and to offset the risk of people not actually paying for said service. You yourself admitted that it was no argument that the base cost would increase.
As for right to repair, it is definitely important, but it exists largely because of government interference with the DMCA. If it wasn't for that, people would just reverse engineer stuff, and the free market could handle it. Right to Repair is a bandaid on top of a wound that's still being inflicted.
And this is yet another thing that the government is going to get involved in, because I guarantee someone is going to figure out how to bypass whatever BMW is using to keep these things from working or hack it in some way, and BMW is going to go running to the government. And again, these are for cars that have already been purchased and no longer belong to the manufacturer. Ergo property rights will suffer because of this.
We aren't in a oligopoly with cars.
Are you fuckin' for real? We have been for decades! And just like with phones and such, once one company does it and is successful (*cough*Apple*cough*), the rest will follow suit. Then where's your free-fuckin' market? And as for used cars, have you seen what a lack of computer chips has done to that market? All that'll happen is it'll artificially inflate prices on used cars, provided, of course, the government doesn't come along and do something stupid/malevolent by doing yet another "cash for clunkers" program, or just making vehicles made before a certain year illegal because "the environment" or whatever.
... No, it isn't a scam or fraud, and certainly doesn't merit government action. Seriously, where are they lying? You either don't know what you are talking about, or are just conflating definitions of things to arrive at the point you want. Again, a company is offering a service at a price point. They aren't lying about the service, the pricepoint, or colluding. That's not fraud. What you describe? Not fraud.
They are
charging even more money for people to use something
they ALREADY own!
You're a libertarian and your cool with that?
