[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.