[Fezzik]

Subaru has the same thing on their new cars - subscribe annually to Starlink or no remote start for you! I live in a winter wonderland where remote start would be a dream but no way I am paying a cent for this feature. I’ll have to look in to the after market options.

[nuccy]

VW diesel cars can be equipped with Webasto (auxiliary heater which burns diesel). One gets a remote (in my experience reaching up to 500 meters) which can be used to start this heater along with car's climate control. The advantage is that it consumes 1/3-1/5 of what an idling engine does, while heating interior and engine coolant much faster. The disadvantage is that it consumes battery charge, but to counteract that the car is equiped with 30-50% bigger battery. Though this was never a problem for me, from my experience on 94Ah battery it can run for hours without any effect on engine starting, while heating the car in some 10-15 minutes when it is below freezing outside.

[gambiting]

So in my Volvo XC60 T8, the car just came with a Webasto preinstalled from factory, it was standard fit on all models(in 2020 in UK anyway). But you can only start it from the app, they don't give you a separate fob like the one you can buy from Webasto, so you have to pay Volvo's subscription to use it.

[baq]

and, in the models that use the engine coolant as a working fluid, your engine is heated up to a cozy operating temperature right from the start, so you end up about even on fuel.

[edmundsauto]

You’re not interested in paying for something that provides you with very clear value? So instead you wil go pay money for a different system to bolt on?

I don’t mean to criticize, but I have to admit that I cannot empathize.

[ses1984]

If I put a gun to your head and then sell you a service of not shooting, that's a clear value too right?

[edmundsauto]

In this narrow of a scope, yes - it is absolutely valuable for me to be able to pay to not die. The alternative is to be killed.

But of course the world is larger than this made up example. Context matters, and this context isn’t really relevant except to say that there are different contexts that necessitate different decisions.

But you knew that, even as you posted such a ridiculous comparison. I think your point would have been much more effective and less reactionary if you had actually made your point, instead of resorting to absurdism.

[kybernetyk]

Said service is called “taxation”

[Fezzik]

Would you find it appropriate for automakers to charge a monthly fee to be able to simply start an automobile you bought? If no, then why are you okay with a monthly fee to do so remotely? It’s rather straightforward - you’re either for usury or against it, I guess. This is usury.

(usury is not exactly the right word, but it’s the best I could think of at the moment).

[edmundsauto]

It’s nuanced - I don’t approve when someone changes the terms of a deal that we already agreed upon. At the same time, I think there is a reasonable expectation that companies don’t have to support something into eternity (not that is what happened here, but in general I think support for a feature that requires maintenance is okay to have an expected lifespan).

Another nuance is that starting the car is core to the functionality, remote start is not.

If they were doing this only moving forward, for new sales, I think it would be totally fine. I wouldn’t buy that car if I cared about the feature, but I totally think it’s valid to have premium subscription addons.

In the situation where they have altered the previous deal and the service does not require maintenance by the company, it’s pretty fucked up and i would love to see a class action happen for existing owners.