It took some time but most people now accept the SaaS model and even often prefer it. It ensures continual support and improvements for the user and a stream of revenue for the producer.
Since software is essentially free to distribute, companies have to put up artificial barriers to use (e.g. dark mode as a paid feature). One of the big problems of car industry is their legacy mindset. For instance they don't make continual improvements, and their technology rarely has over the air updates.
In regards to this being a "safety" feature (high beam assist button), if the feature is not required and you can still buy a car without this feature, I don't see why BMW shouldn't be able to charge for it
Can we require them to list any features that are soft disabled at time of sale, in a clear, compact document?
I don't feel real strongly that they should be legally prevented from implementing this sort of price differentiation, but I think everyone is better off if we make it unpopular.
I disagree with your second paragraph is what it amounts to. The thing driving them to do this is making money, they could just sell cars where the minimum feature set is dictated by what the hardware is capable of.
Is it just me or does it not seem like a really bad practice (and like a dark pattern) to put this „buy the package“ page onto a TLD and not a subdomain?
My car currently has no way to deactivate the passenger seat airbag, so a $200 option would be better than nothing.
Besides, I get offers from the dealer all the time for an engine computer upgrade (+30hp for about 700 euro), so it's not unheard of.
For features requiring continued support (like Carplay or better Bluetooth connectivity with modern phones) a yearly payment makes sense. The really small features not so much.
So are you telling us they charge you €700 for a measly 30HP, which the car can already do safely? I'd be interested in knowing what manufacturer this is so I can steer clear from them.
Save your money, get yourself an ECU flash utility like a Cobb AccessPort. They're still expensive, but at least you get to control what your car can do.
Multiple manufacturers do artificially limit the performance of their engines as market segmentation; they do have physically identical ones with different software and thus different performance. The customer is not being cheated, they get exactly what they paid for.
The manufacturer will never offer re-flashing the ECU to get more performance; that would be problematic from the paperwork side, so I suppose that the offer was an aftermarket one. If someone is willing to go this way, he might just heed your advice as well.
>Multiple manufacturers do artificially limit the performance of their engines as market segmentation
I don't think it excuses it, TBH, especially if they offer it as an "upgrade" later. If I own a car, I want to be able to access all its physical features, which includes all the performance I can squeeze out of it.
Software stuff, like satellite radio or even Tesla's self-driving updates? I can understand the model, though I believe those should be tied to the car instead of the user like they are now. That way you'd be able to sell the car and those licenses are not wasted money. But if all you get is a software update that tweaks some numbers to unlock something the car could already do... then we have a problem.
I really hope the "right to repair" movement picks up, so car software modding becomes more commonplace.
> TBH, especially if they offer it as an "upgrade" later.
Well, the point was, that it is not manufacturers that offer the upgrade later. They can't, even if they wanted to, because the different software results in different CO2 (for example), thus different "fine" that is paid at the time of sale. If they were able to offer such a thing, it would be a workaround against the environmental fees.
It is being done by some guy in a garage with a suitable cable and firmware image. Of course, you are losing warranty when he does that. It's no different than the chipping that was done 20-30 years ago.
That's not the problem, the problem is that your car already has that function, but it's just activated if you pay and unlock a function (also already implemented in software).
Let's say in the future with self driving cars, you can pay a premium and all other cars have to go on the left side to left you thru..oh damn, if give them ideas.
Thank you Tesla for showing others how to make their products and experience of "ownership" worse. /s
At least some car makers have now seen through the marketing garbage and decided to go back to buttons for critical functions and options to disable tracking etc.
13 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 42.2 ms ] threadSince software is essentially free to distribute, companies have to put up artificial barriers to use (e.g. dark mode as a paid feature). One of the big problems of car industry is their legacy mindset. For instance they don't make continual improvements, and their technology rarely has over the air updates.
In regards to this being a "safety" feature (high beam assist button), if the feature is not required and you can still buy a car without this feature, I don't see why BMW shouldn't be able to charge for it
It turns the high beams on and off. What "continual support and improvements" could there possibly be?
> companies have to put up artificial barriers to use
Is paying tens of thousands of dollars for the car, and the software loaded on it, not enough of a barrier?
I don't feel real strongly that they should be legally prevented from implementing this sort of price differentiation, but I think everyone is better off if we make it unpopular.
I disagree with your second paragraph is what it amounts to. The thing driving them to do this is making money, they could just sell cars where the minimum feature set is dictated by what the hardware is capable of.
> bmw-connecteddrive.com
Do you love your baby? Pay 200$ to deactivate the passenger-seat airbag.
PowerBreaks for additional 30% breaking-power...today for just 300$
Besides, I get offers from the dealer all the time for an engine computer upgrade (+30hp for about 700 euro), so it's not unheard of.
For features requiring continued support (like Carplay or better Bluetooth connectivity with modern phones) a yearly payment makes sense. The really small features not so much.
Save your money, get yourself an ECU flash utility like a Cobb AccessPort. They're still expensive, but at least you get to control what your car can do.
The manufacturer will never offer re-flashing the ECU to get more performance; that would be problematic from the paperwork side, so I suppose that the offer was an aftermarket one. If someone is willing to go this way, he might just heed your advice as well.
I don't think it excuses it, TBH, especially if they offer it as an "upgrade" later. If I own a car, I want to be able to access all its physical features, which includes all the performance I can squeeze out of it.
Software stuff, like satellite radio or even Tesla's self-driving updates? I can understand the model, though I believe those should be tied to the car instead of the user like they are now. That way you'd be able to sell the car and those licenses are not wasted money. But if all you get is a software update that tweaks some numbers to unlock something the car could already do... then we have a problem.
I really hope the "right to repair" movement picks up, so car software modding becomes more commonplace.
Well, the point was, that it is not manufacturers that offer the upgrade later. They can't, even if they wanted to, because the different software results in different CO2 (for example), thus different "fine" that is paid at the time of sale. If they were able to offer such a thing, it would be a workaround against the environmental fees.
It is being done by some guy in a garage with a suitable cable and firmware image. Of course, you are losing warranty when he does that. It's no different than the chipping that was done 20-30 years ago.
Let's say in the future with self driving cars, you can pay a premium and all other cars have to go on the left side to left you thru..oh damn, if give them ideas.
At least some car makers have now seen through the marketing garbage and decided to go back to buttons for critical functions and options to disable tracking etc.