| Yes, generally I don't care and I understand that how a company chooses to spend its money is not my concern. My point is essentially that it's not particularly your concern either. The only reason the topic came up is because you lead with "low margin buyers are subsidized all the time so they should also be subsidized by high margin buyers in this case". While a company may choose to do that, and I really don't care if they do, in the context of an external discussion about which strategy is better, I do care to respond to that point when presented as part of an argument by an equally outside party. This is how the specific point comes off to me: Alice: I'm annoyed Tesla's new subscription requires a $1500 upgrade for my older model, Tesla said it was FSD capable. Make me whole. Bob: I already paid in full for my FSD subscription and got the hardware included, why should you get it for free? Alice: Because Tesla could use revenue from people who have already purchased FSD in full to fund my hardware upgrade. Bob: Sure, they could. But now my "investment" in FSD doesn't go as far as I thought it would and I'm "out" $1500. Make me whole. ... Anyway that's just why I think some sort of compromise makes tons of sense so that nobody perceives themselves as being out anything and people who want to use the subscription can get the HW for "free" rather than the up front $1500. You've changed my mind on that front (: |