Now you are seeing the great electric car scam - Selling you an under-powered electric car and to increase its power you must pay for a subscription to unlock it's full power capabilities.
The best part is, many won't care (when they should). But these days, it is okay to get scammed isn't it?
BMW tried selling a subscription on heated seats, but that failed. [0], So lets see how long this will last.
I recently bought a Honda, and yesterday they emailed me a survey focused on what subscription services I'd find useful at various price points.
Unfortunately the survey gave me no opportunity to explain how much the basic concept of them continuing to be up my business post-purchase pisses me off.
"As the car is registered at 228bhp from the factory, owners won’t need to inform their insurance company, either way."
So does this imply that if insurance companies charge higher rates for higher hp, that non subscribers incur higher costs for a feature that they don't get the benefit of?
This makes sense to me. (Not that I would personally ever buy a car with that mechanism baked in.)
They could either make two models (incurring the costs associated with having two different SKUs) and let people pay more for the one with more power or make one with intrinsically more power and let the people that don't want it pay less with it nerfed.
I would have thought that people (like me) that have spent our lives making a zero marginal cost product would understand the economics at work here.
I'm sure that by having fewer parts in the logistics chain they can build a car cheaper. They then define models via software almost for free. And that would be great if the saving was passed to the consumer. Instead every saving is definitely captured by the manufacturer and the consumer gets to buy a car that definitely does everything but "computer says no".
But the situation is objectively worse than today because it doesn't just involve a "software defined car" but a "subscription defined car". Today you buy your specs and own them, you're not at the manufacturer's mercy on the monthly price.
I'm afraid it's just a matter of time until everyone does it. It only takes one company to go first and take the heat to make it mainstream, the rest will follow.
There’s already a growing market for companies that just sell you a quality good without ongoing service fees or data harvesting/surveillance; cars only recently really joined that list, which frustrates me.
On the one hand, I appreciate the potential such data collection allows: proactive maintenance reminders, repair scheduling, TCO reductions, and even factory-line improvements by identifying flaws before they turn into class actions.
On the other hand, none of that is what they’re actually doing. It’s all about juicing revenue instead of reducing costs, and treating paying customers like loot pinatas to be clubbed repeatedly for dosh.
I’d like to believe there’s a market for smaller, simpler, EV-based “retro-inspired” cars that aren’t jam-packed with modems and sensors to phone home. Maybe someday I’ll be proven right.
This is just one example of anti-consumer antics bordering on extortion that have been building for a very long time.
The overall idea is simple --- reduce the sticker price to a competitive level and try to increase profits with prepaid maintenance, insurance, data collection and other "subscription" services. In VW's case, this appears to be an act of desperation.
Consumers don't have to "subscribe" to this sort of gamesmanship. There are alternatives --- as evidenced by VW earnings --- down almost 40% over the past year.
The US has guaranteed this will become the norm with increased auto tariffs. An auto manufacturer can produce a car with significantly lower value for import to another country, and "features and services" can be enabled later for a fee.
Great feature, this creates incentive among car enthusiasts to delve into IoT/embedded to hack these type of systems and unlock these subscriptions without paying.
I’m always disappointed in journalism like this when they don’t ask the obvious questions, like in this case where the added cost for VW lies to not offer it part of the vehicle.
If this (along with Tesla Acceleration boost) is the future of automobiles, count me out. I'd rather build an electric go kart with acrylic body panels.
I already have the option to pay for more HP on my Tesla model 3. Yes it’s not a subscription, but the capability already exists. It’s a software unlock. I’d prefer if I had the option to pay my the month. My wife already thinks the Model 3 accelerates too fast, but I’d want to try it for a month. No way is she going to support $2k, but she won’t notice $100 for a month.
Seriously people selling a product at a fair price and that being that is a centuries old thing, why does everything need to be a subscription now just because it's possible?
Whilst I hate subscriptions, I am not imediatly offended by a £650 reduction in the cost of a car to lock out the last 10% of power that I would expect to have a disproportionate cost to the warrenty.
The really offensive part of this kind of thing is that you already paid for it. Like if you wanted to buy a regular car and you could get the engine with turbo then those are two different cars. The latter costing more because it has more/better stuff in it. This is all fine and good.
In this case, all the cars have turbo and you pay to have it turned on or not. The cost of the turbo is in the cost of the normal car because the company would not sell it at a loss. You already paid for it, but aren't allow to use it. So you are driving around with this perfectly good and usable turbo that you paid for and can't use unless you paid some extra extortion money. This is abusive, wasteful, and should be illegal in my opinion. You should only be charged extra if it is in fact extra. Not something that is already there and withheld.
52 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 41.9 ms ] threadThe best part is, many won't care (when they should). But these days, it is okay to get scammed isn't it?
BMW tried selling a subscription on heated seats, but that failed. [0], So lets see how long this will last.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421730
Unfortunately the survey gave me no opportunity to explain how much the basic concept of them continuing to be up my business post-purchase pisses me off.
So does this imply that if insurance companies charge higher rates for higher hp, that non subscribers incur higher costs for a feature that they don't get the benefit of?
They could either make two models (incurring the costs associated with having two different SKUs) and let people pay more for the one with more power or make one with intrinsically more power and let the people that don't want it pay less with it nerfed.
I would have thought that people (like me) that have spent our lives making a zero marginal cost product would understand the economics at work here.
And we all know which way this is gonna go ;)
PS: Morally worse, only privatized water that used to be public free access, Nestlé-style. These people sure know how to win the public opinion.
But the situation is objectively worse than today because it doesn't just involve a "software defined car" but a "subscription defined car". Today you buy your specs and own them, you're not at the manufacturer's mercy on the monthly price.
I'm afraid it's just a matter of time until everyone does it. It only takes one company to go first and take the heat to make it mainstream, the rest will follow.
On the one hand, I appreciate the potential such data collection allows: proactive maintenance reminders, repair scheduling, TCO reductions, and even factory-line improvements by identifying flaws before they turn into class actions.
On the other hand, none of that is what they’re actually doing. It’s all about juicing revenue instead of reducing costs, and treating paying customers like loot pinatas to be clubbed repeatedly for dosh.
I’d like to believe there’s a market for smaller, simpler, EV-based “retro-inspired” cars that aren’t jam-packed with modems and sensors to phone home. Maybe someday I’ll be proven right.
Better idea --- forget Volkswagen.
This is just one example of anti-consumer antics bordering on extortion that have been building for a very long time.
The overall idea is simple --- reduce the sticker price to a competitive level and try to increase profits with prepaid maintenance, insurance, data collection and other "subscription" services. In VW's case, this appears to be an act of desperation.
Consumers don't have to "subscribe" to this sort of gamesmanship. There are alternatives --- as evidenced by VW earnings --- down almost 40% over the past year.
Car hacking will be normalized even more
So it's an extra that you can try with a subscription and buy once, if desired. Seems fair to me.
In this case, all the cars have turbo and you pay to have it turned on or not. The cost of the turbo is in the cost of the normal car because the company would not sell it at a loss. You already paid for it, but aren't allow to use it. So you are driving around with this perfectly good and usable turbo that you paid for and can't use unless you paid some extra extortion money. This is abusive, wasteful, and should be illegal in my opinion. You should only be charged extra if it is in fact extra. Not something that is already there and withheld.