You missed the biggest flaw in all those arguments: “yet”.
I’m not going to have “slippery slope” arguments today. If they do those things you’re claiming they will then, I’ll argue with you (perhaps on your side) if they do.
Because there’s nothing to discuss besides wild speculation. If they’re going to do “something” what is that “something”? Nobody knows because its a future undefined event. We CAN objectively discuss what exists today.
We know exactly what that something is. It is putting features that have been in cars for a long time (distance start or heating seats for example) behind a subscription. Some car manufacturers already tried that (BMW in 2022). There is no slippery slope here, it’s already happening.
“The first approach has been to go to specialized companies that, for a one-time fee, will unlock the software-locked features. According to Slashgear, the U.K. tuner Litchfield Motors can unlock the features for under $50. It can also unlock the ability to show content on screens while the vehicle is moving. Slightly illegal, don’t you think?”
You, the buyer, benefit because BMW lowered the price of the car expecting to get seat heating for years. The person that lives exclusively in warm climate and will never use seat heating benefits because of the lower priced car.
Doesn’t change the fact that is is already happening as per the original poster of this comment chain. It is not because you can circumvent it that it is not a trend that we see in the industry. And what about when this is no longer possible? Then what is the option?
It is a lot easier to not open the pandora box than to try to close it.
I am pretty sure that regardless of the subscription or not, it is less expensive to produce one model and lock the options and sell them, than fitting each option separately. But this is me talking out my ass.
Doesn’t change the fact that is is already happening as per the original poster of this comment chain.
I addressed that in my very first comment in the chain, so this isn’t new nor did I ignore it.
It is not because you can circumvent it that it is not a trend that we see in the industry. And what about when this is no longer possible? Then what is the option?
I am pretty sure that regardless of the subscription or not, it is less expensive to produce one model and lock the options and sell them, than fitting each option separately. But this is me talking out my ass.
I’m confused by you saying this, because this is the primary point I’ve been trying to make the entire thread. Did you miss a word negating your statement when wrote it or are you in agreement with me?
You missed the biggest flaw in all those arguments: “yet”.
None of that stuff is required… yet. It will. As soon as the subscription model catches on, it will be required.
Just look at: everywhere. How far did video streaming go from cable? Well, it’s not there… yet. But it’s going there.
Don’t think for a second this time will be different.
I’m not going to have “slippery slope” arguments today. If they do those things you’re claiming they will then, I’ll argue with you (perhaps on your side) if they do.
How is that a slippery slope when we see how every other industries handled the same thing in the same way?
Because there’s nothing to discuss besides wild speculation. If they’re going to do “something” what is that “something”? Nobody knows because its a future undefined event. We CAN objectively discuss what exists today.
We know exactly what that something is. It is putting features that have been in cars for a long time (distance start or heating seats for example) behind a subscription. Some car manufacturers already tried that (BMW in 2022). There is no slippery slope here, it’s already happening.
First, thank you for giving a specific example. For this example, you can pay a third party $50 for a one-time unlock and not have a BMW subscription.
“The first approach has been to go to specialized companies that, for a one-time fee, will unlock the software-locked features. According to Slashgear, the U.K. tuner Litchfield Motors can unlock the features for under $50. It can also unlock the ability to show content on screens while the vehicle is moving. Slightly illegal, don’t you think?”
You, the buyer, benefit because BMW lowered the price of the car expecting to get seat heating for years. The person that lives exclusively in warm climate and will never use seat heating benefits because of the lower priced car.
Doesn’t change the fact that is is already happening as per the original poster of this comment chain. It is not because you can circumvent it that it is not a trend that we see in the industry. And what about when this is no longer possible? Then what is the option?
It is a lot easier to not open the pandora box than to try to close it.
I am pretty sure that regardless of the subscription or not, it is less expensive to produce one model and lock the options and sell them, than fitting each option separately. But this is me talking out my ass.
I addressed that in my very first comment in the chain, so this isn’t new nor did I ignore it.
Third party seat heaters have been available longer than first party seat heaters. So at worst, rip out the BMW seat heaters and add third party seat heaters.
I’m confused by you saying this, because this is the primary point I’ve been trying to make the entire thread. Did you miss a word negating your statement when wrote it or are you in agreement with me?