Don't make the feature subscriptions illegal: make remote controlling any behavior of your car illegal, stop making it illegal to modify the software of devices you own, maybe even stop granting the copyright licenses for closed source software on cars (copyright being a government granted monopoly).
Idk how I feel about this. If Tesla has a known bug that causes death, the bug should be patched ASAP. People should not be able to decide if they want the fix.
Classic example is MS Windows. Unpatched windows disrupt everyone’s lives with DDOS attacks, so MS is painfully aggressive at forcing free updates.
How is an OTA update much different than a policy change requiring all new cars to do {safety thing}? The rollout is slower, but the end state is consumers are forced to have {safety thing} in their car.
> If Tesla has a known bug that causes death, the bug should be patched ASAP. People should not be able to decide if they want the fix.
Why should this be treated differently than any non-software bug that causes death? I am not aware of any car manufactures that send mechanics to your home to replace your airbags without your consent.
If you ignored the Takata airbag recall for long enough, your car was forcibly deregistered. I know this, because my car was stolen but was on their list, so I saw the escalating series of advisories that was mailed out.
> I am not aware of any car manufactures that send mechanics to your home to replace your airbags without your consent.
Not exactly a fair comparison. Mechanics coming to your home isn't economical and would require gov policy (and subsidy) to enforce.
I think a better comparison is if the gov acts a policy such that "all new cars much have {update}." As the old vehicles breakdown, everyone is forced to have the new update.
This is a slower process, but has the same end as an OTA update.
Bug fixes like that don't control behavior, so they would not be blocked by such a regulation. Bundling other changes with the bug fix would be blocked.
I was looking forward to trying out Tesla fsd as a subscription item for a month. Being forced to pay 12,000 is stupid for a feature I’m not sure works or I’d use
I don't see how that's incompatible with this legislation. You can put the feature behind a one time payment and then simultaneously allow the opportunity to try it out for a small fee for a limited amount of time. No subscription needed at any point. (Legislation should mandate that the trial fee be pro-rated toward the purchase of the feature imo.)
Paying $12k for a feature which 1% of the time will try to kill you is stupid. Because you're going to use that feature more than 100 times for sure, if it is worth $12k.
I'd happily pay a monthly fee for something like an integrated dash cam instead of trying to figure out how to mount an external camera that messes with my car's LIDAR. There are so many opportunities to build value-added services onto cars but they just can't help themselves.
> Additionally, the "ongoing expense" requirement may be easily satisfied if an OEM has to pay to maintain a server or connectivity, as would be the case with a navigation system or partially automated driving feature that pulls in data from the cloud.
I’m amazed a car manufacturer could resort to these games. If they want to increase profits, why not just focus on customers and give customers what they want?
I recently tried to purchase a luxury SUV and after 8 months, I gave up. I wanted a model with a specific color and options, all these things were clearly advertised on the manufacturers website if you looked at the specific vehicle’s page.
No car dealer had the vehicle on the lot in this configuration. Every single one of them pressured me into purchasing what they already have, and paying a $3K-$4K mark up over MSRP. I tried contacting the dealer directly, and they simply told me they can’t help me, period, and my only option is to talk to the dealer.
Meanwhile the dealer told me that even if I can find another dealer in the state who is willing to sell the exact vehicle without the mark up, this dealer has first pick on any new allocation, because they sell the largest volume, and they’d make sure they get the vehicle and not anyone else. So… the manufacturer doesn’t care, and the dealer doesn’t even hide their slimy tactics.
> I’m amazed a car manufacturer could resort to these games. If they want to increase profits, why not just focus on customers and give customers what they want?
The name of the game now in more and more industries is rent-seeking and extracting money long term, on a regular basis. This new business practice disincentivizes building quality products because then you can sell a shoddy product and include "maintenance" and "updates" into your subscription plan.
If it's not stopped legally, it'll only get worse.
The brands compete on the kinds of cars they want to sell. When it comes to less profitable kinds of vehicles, that's where lobbying and regulatory capture comes in to kill competition. Thus we have the chicken tax, much stricter fuel economy standards for small trucks than big trucks, and the extreme protectionism in the inflation reduction act when it comes to EV tax credits.
But the locality is typically only a town. Emailing all the dealers in the area for a quote and driving a bit out of your way to pick up the car isn't that hard.
In competitive industries, customer-hostile choices are much less common.
How many brands of TV are there? How many of those brands still make even one consumer model that isn't "smart" in user-hostile ways?
Having lots of suppliers doesn't necessarily create effective competition in the customer interest. If there's a customer-hostile practice that makes lots of money and is sufficiently obvious that all suppliers can adopt it without any need for legally questionable forms of cooperation then what is going to happen?
Effectively forcing subscriptions or other after-purchase limitations and costs on customers when there is nothing in it for those customer to balance what they lose is exactly the kind of predatory behaviour that government regulation should protect against.
The kind of software that truly depends on a server or some live resource that must be actively maintained and kept running can genuinely make a claim to charge a reasonable recurring fee to use said software. But for software that is essentially a standalone product which needs no upgrades, one should be able to buy the current version of the software and keep using that specific version of that software indefinitely, just as if one had bought a hammer or some other tool that will permanently belong to you, with no monthly subscription.
That just creates a loophole. Perhaps it is a "smart" heated seat. You can make anything need a live internet connection by putting some adaptive "benefits" in it. Now they'll just monetize your minute-to-minute-butt-temperature data too.
> rent-seeking and extracting money long term, on a regular basis
recurring revenue is what you're talking about, it's a financially desirable thing for them, but it's not the same thing as rent seeking. Rent seeking is not receiving payments over and over on a regular basis, rather it's a term economists use to mean making money from your position in the market without contributing anything of value to the market (without putting in any work, so to speak). For example, "monopoly rents" are the extra parts of the prices that monopolies can charge because they face no competition.
add-ons to a major expense like an automobile can qualify as rents because once you buy the car, you are essentially trapped into buying the add-ons from the one manufacturer, like being forced to get your car serviced at the dealer.
hrm, interesting... by that definition I would argue that the business model of car dealerships is specifically rent-seeking. They not only don't contribute anything of value, they actively detract from the value proposition by marking up far over MSRP and, like someone posted in another comment, engaging in shady tactics like selling your vehicle to someone else after waiting for 3mo because your bank isn't open until tomorrow. Just to scratch the surface.
The vendor still had to invest money to put the feature there, so it's a legit business transaction, even if it sounds silly. Presumably the monthly cost will be a lot less than the hundreds it would cost to buy the feature outright. Or are they charging people twice?
Car availability has been awful though. I went in about a car in the early summer that was "in transit." Which apparently meant it was scheduled and allocated but not actually built yet. Got it in 1.5 months which was probably pretty good. And I got it for MSRP and even got $1K added to my trade-in which was already pretty good considering.
In the past year you probably weren't getting any build to order vehicle with a reasonable delivery time. They'd probably take your deposit but you might wait a year.
Car salesmen are the most despised people in America. Even more so than lawyers and proctologists. Economically speaking, they are rent seeking leaches that suck out productivity from the economy. Only reason the car dealership exists is because these people made it illegal for the manufacturer to sell to the consumer
A bit off-topic, but why are proctologists despised in America? I can understand it's not an encounter you're looking forward to, but why put them in the same category as care salesmen and lawyers? Are they known for using shady tactics, being extremely expensive or untrustworthy, or something else?
What's wrong with proctologists? That's like hating oncologists. Sure, no one actually wants to get cancer, but when you do, an oncologist is necessary and can save your life. The oncologist didn't cause you to get cancer, and the proctologist didn't cause you to have bowel problems.
>I tried contacting the dealer directly, and they simply told me they can’t help me, period, and my only option is to talk to the dealer.
These are the kinds of games that causes Tesla to not sell cars directly to people in Texas. Want to sell a car in Texas? Got to have a dealership and the games that come along with that. You're not allowed to make a product and sell directly to the consumer when it comes to autos. That's how we do it in the business friendly state of Texas!?!?
American here. I've done this crazy thing when I want an exact vehicle: I order it.
Yes, you wait. You may be waiting quite a while for a dealer to give you one of their allocations. But you get exactly what you want. If you go around to dealerships and make it clear you're serious, you'll even pay no more than you would otherwise. Negotiate price no differently. This market is a bit of a nuisance, but even now the vet salespeople will still play ball, because someone that serious is actually an easy sale. They'll still sell what's on the lot or floor plan, but now they just sold ANOTHER car. Know several people recently who've done just this.
-----
Not limited to luxury vehicles either. Had someone at somewhere I was doing consulting for ask me about how he'd go about it for a Subaru Legacy, in the base trim, with ALMOST NO OPTIONS. He wanted exactly what he wanted, and nothing more. Told him just to go do it.
He did. He waited about 4.5 months (because it had to be built per the build schedule, then shipped on a boat!), but he got exactly what he wanted, for the price he asked for. To him it was completely worth not having it, "right now". He told me that after seeing how relatively little work was involved, he'd never buy a car off the lot again.
-----
Average sale price of a new car in the US is $48K. People regularly pay $60-130K (or far more!) for luxury cars. Sorry, I can't compromise on something with a 5-digit (or 6-digit) price tag.
European here. When I want a new (to me) car, I go on mobile.de, find the one I want and go buy it.
Unless it's a Rolls Royce, a brand new model or facing significant supply shortages, there's almost no point in ordering a new car from the factory. Cheaper and faster to buy a lightly used one, generally it's trivial to find fully optioned examples.
I'm not saying you HAVE to order a car. My point is if you want something very specific, you have to put in the effort.
Especially because when dealers order 300+ cars in one go (for the next few months) to stick on their floor plan, they aren't getting weird with options. They stick to what they know sells, with options the average buyer wants (or won't balk over), and hits their revenue and margin targets. To most people cars are an appliance. There's only a few configurations they're going to order. Moreover, it's rare for them to order a stripped out model -- they're not popular with buyers, and less gross margin.
You can search national inventories, find the exact car sitting somewhere and go get it. Hell, most local dealerships who DON'T have the car themselves will be more than happy to trade something they have to the dealer (of the same brand) that possesses what you want so they get the sale. Make some phone calls, and one will play ball and do most of the work for you.
Point was sometimes there isn't a free lunch, especially if a person is going to be particularly choosy about the specifics of what they want and be salty over anything else.
Just be careful you don't order from a dealer. Order directly from the mfg.
I once ordered from a dealer, left a deposit, waited 3 months (with no car at the time so busses and friends), they claimed it came in on a Sunday. I said I'd be in Monday morning since my bank is closed on Sunday. They sold it to someone else, told me I could order again and wait another 3 months if I wanted.
Since the deposit wasn't tied to a VIN or something there was nothing I could do.
American culture is all about the price being the price. With dealerships, you're haggling just to get the price down to the normal goddamn price, just because of middlemen.
I am happy to pay The Price if it means no bullshit and an assurance I'm not getting screwed. Make your car decisions based on the merits of the vehicle.
> American culture is all about the price being the price.
Variable sales tax rates depending on locale / product / usage / other arcane rules; variable tipping rates based on type of service rendered, customs, etc.; services charges, delivery fees, resort fees, convenience (of printing your own ticket) fees, so on and so forth...
No, I think Americans are quite used to not just paying list price.
Tipping was the first thing I thought of when reading the parent post. I'd call it another cultural outlier. Most American retail stores and activities do not involve tipping. The one big exception is eating at non-fast-food restaurants.
Meanwhile though, literally everything done by people living in young urban "gentrified" areas seems to involve tipping.
When I lived in the US ten years ago some of the luxury dealers (definitely BMW, I seem to recall Porsche too) had these programs where you’d buy a US-spec’d but take delivery of it in Europe. So you’d get exactly what you want, fly to Germany, drive it around there for a week, and then they’d ship it over. There was some reason why that ended up being cheaper than driving the equivalent car straight off the lot in the US though the reason escapes me now. When you factored in flights and other costs it netted out about the same, except you got to spend a week or so in Europe too.
Sadly it always remained aspirational as I never could quite bring myself to justify spending that much on a car I’d barely use.
It absolutely should and I hope this is a trend that catches on. Something that isn't integral to it being a car (sirus fm/apple music) is clearly something that isn't necessary. Heated seats? AI driving? those are integral to it's functioning. Do you deserve updates beyond X amount of time? No, up to the manufacturer, maybe the could sell those (as long as they aren't critical car blows up bugs).
Their is a big difference between selling fsd software as an upgrade (which in my opinion could be sold as a one time up front expense like it is or as a service) and a heated seat function (which should not be sold as a service). One must consider the resources required to continually service the feature or upgrade.
1 is mandatory nowadays to make eCall possible which is required by EU laws. Although, the legislation only requires for it to turn in case of a serious accident or when somebody pushes a button.
Several. Just off the top of my head; Ancient Jericho, Çatalhöyük, and Harappa. Neutral Moresnet, Celtic Medeival Ireland under Brehon Law, Pre-Communist Somalia under Xeer Law, Medeival Iceland under Godhordh Law, and many pockets of modern society peacefully cooperating without centralized supervision.
Let me give you an example. If you're a flat earther and you speak to another flat earther you may understand each other very clearly. But to someone outside of your bubble what you say may sound like gibberish.
If you share this guy world view, what he said may have sounded clear, but it may not have been as clear to other people.
Are you trying to say he's a flat earther? What exactly are you accusing him of? Why are you beating around the bush with strained analogies instead of simply saying what you were trying to ask him?
I think a subscription for heated seats is disgusting, as does pretty much anyone I would imagine.
But at the same time, is this a problem best solved by a legislature? Or the market?
Government regulations are useful when they protect our safety, health, prevent monopolies/collusion, and so on.
But do we really want the government dictating companies' business models? Dictating whether cars can be owned vs. leased, or features can be owned vs. leased? I'd much rather consumers just don't subscribe to these features, and then the car manufacturers abandon the strategy.
> I'd much rather consumers just don't subscribe to these features
Sure, if the consumers actually do have the choice. The heated seats are pre-installed and you pay for it, whether you activate the subscription or not. You can't choose a cheaper, non-heated seat, as far as I know.
As an individual consumer, you don't have that much leverage or power. As a group of consumers, aka voting citizens, it's easier to handle such rent seeking businesses practices through legislation.
> Sure, if the consumers actually do have the choice. The heated seats are pre-installed and you pay for it, whether you activate the subscription or not.
From what I've read, on models where a feature is standard, BMW doesn't charge a subscription. It's only available as a subscription when it is an option, making it obvious you aren't paying for it except in the subscription. I think their idea was to make it so different people can lease the same car and pick different options essentially.
The heated seats are pre-installed and you pay for it, whether you activate the subscription or not. You can't choose a cheaper, non-heated seat, as far as I know.
The cost of the heated seats has to be covered by the actual purchases of that option, otherwise they'd be selling a car without heated seats for the price of one with them, at which point the car is overpriced.
If car manufacturers could just arbitrarily charge more, then they would do so anyway, seat heating hardware or not.
The market was allowing it, the law prevented it. It's obviously a bad thing, so it's good that something stopped it. Why does it matter what force stopped the bad thing from happening?
I think it's okay to make any feature that requires active operation at manufacturer's side a paid operation, such as navigation (if they keep updating it with better data), FSD (if they keep updating the software) etc.
But, making any feature already built into the car that doesn't have an operational cost, paid, should be illegal. Example: heated seats, CarPlay (given they aren't actively adding more features) etc.
I thought the vaunted "free market" was supposed to sort out these kinds of issues and not require legislative intervention? One nice thing about this model is what it does for the used car market. Maybe the original owner didn't want to subscribe to a feature. Well, I can buy the car and enable the feature. Or vice-versa. Maybe the original owner was paying for a feature I don't care for. I don't have to continue paying for it. None of these features impact the sell price of the vehicle. I see a win here for both manufacturers and consumers.
93 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 184 ms ] threadClassic example is MS Windows. Unpatched windows disrupt everyone’s lives with DDOS attacks, so MS is painfully aggressive at forcing free updates.
Sure, it’s an expensive process, but maybe it would persuade Tesla to invest more into their quality control.
Why should this be treated differently than any non-software bug that causes death? I am not aware of any car manufactures that send mechanics to your home to replace your airbags without your consent.
Not exactly a fair comparison. Mechanics coming to your home isn't economical and would require gov policy (and subsidy) to enforce.
I think a better comparison is if the gov acts a policy such that "all new cars much have {update}." As the old vehicles breakdown, everyone is forced to have the new update.
This is a slower process, but has the same end as an OTA update.
Better yet, do both.
Paying $12k for a feature which 1% of the time will try to kill you is stupid. Because you're going to use that feature more than 100 times for sure, if it is worth $12k.
They can help themselves. And you're assisting by being their ideal customer - willing to pay.
I’m amazed a car manufacturer could resort to these games. If they want to increase profits, why not just focus on customers and give customers what they want?
I recently tried to purchase a luxury SUV and after 8 months, I gave up. I wanted a model with a specific color and options, all these things were clearly advertised on the manufacturers website if you looked at the specific vehicle’s page.
No car dealer had the vehicle on the lot in this configuration. Every single one of them pressured me into purchasing what they already have, and paying a $3K-$4K mark up over MSRP. I tried contacting the dealer directly, and they simply told me they can’t help me, period, and my only option is to talk to the dealer.
Meanwhile the dealer told me that even if I can find another dealer in the state who is willing to sell the exact vehicle without the mark up, this dealer has first pick on any new allocation, because they sell the largest volume, and they’d make sure they get the vehicle and not anyone else. So… the manufacturer doesn’t care, and the dealer doesn’t even hide their slimy tactics.
The name of the game now in more and more industries is rent-seeking and extracting money long term, on a regular basis. This new business practice disincentivizes building quality products because then you can sell a shoddy product and include "maintenance" and "updates" into your subscription plan.
If it's not stopped legally, it'll only get worse.
In competitive industries, customer-hostile choices are much less common.
How many brands of TV are there? How many of those brands still make even one consumer model that isn't "smart" in user-hostile ways?
Having lots of suppliers doesn't necessarily create effective competition in the customer interest. If there's a customer-hostile practice that makes lots of money and is sufficiently obvious that all suppliers can adopt it without any need for legally questionable forms of cooperation then what is going to happen?
Effectively forcing subscriptions or other after-purchase limitations and costs on customers when there is nothing in it for those customer to balance what they lose is exactly the kind of predatory behaviour that government regulation should protect against.
Subscription predation is poorly regulated. Starting with cars seems like an obvious target.
recurring revenue is what you're talking about, it's a financially desirable thing for them, but it's not the same thing as rent seeking. Rent seeking is not receiving payments over and over on a regular basis, rather it's a term economists use to mean making money from your position in the market without contributing anything of value to the market (without putting in any work, so to speak). For example, "monopoly rents" are the extra parts of the prices that monopolies can charge because they face no competition.
add-ons to a major expense like an automobile can qualify as rents because once you buy the car, you are essentially trapped into buying the add-ons from the one manufacturer, like being forced to get your car serviced at the dealer.
In the past year you probably weren't getting any build to order vehicle with a reasonable delivery time. They'd probably take your deposit but you might wait a year.
But what people don't talk about much is how recruiters and real estate agents belong on the same list.
These are the kinds of games that causes Tesla to not sell cars directly to people in Texas. Want to sell a car in Texas? Got to have a dealership and the games that come along with that. You're not allowed to make a product and sell directly to the consumer when it comes to autos. That's how we do it in the business friendly state of Texas!?!?
Yes, you wait. You may be waiting quite a while for a dealer to give you one of their allocations. But you get exactly what you want. If you go around to dealerships and make it clear you're serious, you'll even pay no more than you would otherwise. Negotiate price no differently. This market is a bit of a nuisance, but even now the vet salespeople will still play ball, because someone that serious is actually an easy sale. They'll still sell what's on the lot or floor plan, but now they just sold ANOTHER car. Know several people recently who've done just this.
-----
Not limited to luxury vehicles either. Had someone at somewhere I was doing consulting for ask me about how he'd go about it for a Subaru Legacy, in the base trim, with ALMOST NO OPTIONS. He wanted exactly what he wanted, and nothing more. Told him just to go do it.
He did. He waited about 4.5 months (because it had to be built per the build schedule, then shipped on a boat!), but he got exactly what he wanted, for the price he asked for. To him it was completely worth not having it, "right now". He told me that after seeing how relatively little work was involved, he'd never buy a car off the lot again.
-----
Average sale price of a new car in the US is $48K. People regularly pay $60-130K (or far more!) for luxury cars. Sorry, I can't compromise on something with a 5-digit (or 6-digit) price tag.
Unless it's a Rolls Royce, a brand new model or facing significant supply shortages, there's almost no point in ordering a new car from the factory. Cheaper and faster to buy a lightly used one, generally it's trivial to find fully optioned examples.
Especially because when dealers order 300+ cars in one go (for the next few months) to stick on their floor plan, they aren't getting weird with options. They stick to what they know sells, with options the average buyer wants (or won't balk over), and hits their revenue and margin targets. To most people cars are an appliance. There's only a few configurations they're going to order. Moreover, it's rare for them to order a stripped out model -- they're not popular with buyers, and less gross margin.
You can search national inventories, find the exact car sitting somewhere and go get it. Hell, most local dealerships who DON'T have the car themselves will be more than happy to trade something they have to the dealer (of the same brand) that possesses what you want so they get the sale. Make some phone calls, and one will play ball and do most of the work for you.
Point was sometimes there isn't a free lunch, especially if a person is going to be particularly choosy about the specifics of what they want and be salty over anything else.
I once ordered from a dealer, left a deposit, waited 3 months (with no car at the time so busses and friends), they claimed it came in on a Sunday. I said I'd be in Monday morning since my bank is closed on Sunday. They sold it to someone else, told me I could order again and wait another 3 months if I wanted.
Since the deposit wasn't tied to a VIN or something there was nothing I could do.
American culture is all about the price being the price. With dealerships, you're haggling just to get the price down to the normal goddamn price, just because of middlemen.
I am happy to pay The Price if it means no bullshit and an assurance I'm not getting screwed. Make your car decisions based on the merits of the vehicle.
Variable sales tax rates depending on locale / product / usage / other arcane rules; variable tipping rates based on type of service rendered, customs, etc.; services charges, delivery fees, resort fees, convenience (of printing your own ticket) fees, so on and so forth...
No, I think Americans are quite used to not just paying list price.
Meanwhile though, literally everything done by people living in young urban "gentrified" areas seems to involve tipping.
Sadly it always remained aspirational as I never could quite bring myself to justify spending that much on a car I’d barely use.
* buy off the lot, and get a discount
* they could buy from another dealer for me out of state but then there’s transport costs etc so it’s less cost effective
* factory order
And they didn’t care if I wanted to factory order and they were stuck with the cars on their lot, they’d facilitate it.
2. Cars shouldn’t come by default connected to the internet
3. Cars shouldn’t come with subscriptions to unlock features you own
There’s a lot wrong here …
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/security-and-em...
If you share this guy world view, what he said may have sounded clear, but it may not have been as clear to other people.
We've already accepted that cars can come with artificially locked features, what's wrong with paying to unlock them?
But at the same time, is this a problem best solved by a legislature? Or the market?
Government regulations are useful when they protect our safety, health, prevent monopolies/collusion, and so on.
But do we really want the government dictating companies' business models? Dictating whether cars can be owned vs. leased, or features can be owned vs. leased? I'd much rather consumers just don't subscribe to these features, and then the car manufacturers abandon the strategy.
Legislation doesn't feel like the solution here.
Sure, if the consumers actually do have the choice. The heated seats are pre-installed and you pay for it, whether you activate the subscription or not. You can't choose a cheaper, non-heated seat, as far as I know.
As an individual consumer, you don't have that much leverage or power. As a group of consumers, aka voting citizens, it's easier to handle such rent seeking businesses practices through legislation.
From what I've read, on models where a feature is standard, BMW doesn't charge a subscription. It's only available as a subscription when it is an option, making it obvious you aren't paying for it except in the subscription. I think their idea was to make it so different people can lease the same car and pick different options essentially.
The cost of the heated seats has to be covered by the actual purchases of that option, otherwise they'd be selling a car without heated seats for the price of one with them, at which point the car is overpriced.
If car manufacturers could just arbitrarily charge more, then they would do so anyway, seat heating hardware or not.
But, making any feature already built into the car that doesn't have an operational cost, paid, should be illegal. Example: heated seats, CarPlay (given they aren't actively adding more features) etc.