[jrockway]

Of course. It being cheaper is why people like it. Same reason that games are free and offer DLC, or Mercedes offers a car that could go faster if you have extra money laying around this month.

I hate the nickel and diming but it does make things more accessible in general.

[ryandrake]

Just because somebody buys something, that doesn't mean they like it. I don't like my ISP. It's shit service at a ridiculous price. I pay for it because the glorious free market has failed to provide acceptable options. No ISPs provide good service for a reasonable price. Therefore, my choice is to pay for something I don't like, or not have Internet.

Every time a company finds a way to make the product worse but increase profits, they will do it, and all other companies will eventually have to do it in order to remain competitive. It's an inevitable force that is built into the so-called free market. Nearly every product available today is worse and/or more expensive than an otherwise comparable product 10 years ago.

Mark my words, bookmark this comment and come back in 10 years. If these subscriptions turn out to be profitable, then in 2033, every car manufacturer will have functionality locked behind monthly subscriptions. And people will buy them because they have no other choice besides not buying a car. There will be no way to vote with your wallet--you'll just have to abstain with your wallet.

[xp84]

Yeah, it's especially toxic to capitalism when tight oligopolies (like the car industry, telecoms, mobile phone OSs) develop. Barriers to entry are super high, so when one company does a customer-hostile move like this and makes money, the others know everyone else will follow suit too, so rather than advertise how they won't exploit you like the bad guys do, everyone just adopts or "improves on" the d*ck move. Think about it. Some car company was the first to do a Destination Fee. Some ISP invented the bandwidth cap. And somehow these became universal, because who would/could challenge the oligopoly?

[SketchySeaBeast]

A $60/month difference is not what's going to make or break someone buying a Mercedes. Flying economy is cheap enough that many people can do it, there is no right Mercedes subscription model that will get people into one of their cars.

[jrockway]

That's exactly right. If they want $6000 dollars more for the car over the lifetime of the car, the $6000 being right there in the sticker price might dissuade some buyers. But if they say it's $60/month, now you're only looking at the sticker price, and the Mercedes is cheaper than the everything-included BMW, so you buy that instead. (Sorry, I don't know enough about cars to know if Mercedes vs. BMW is a comparison that people make. I never even got a driver's license.)

This additionally acts as a nice A/B test; you sell the same car and get data on whether or not people would pay $6000 more for it to be faster.

I reflexively hate this, but it seems so rational to me.

[bick_nyers]

It would maybe make things more accessible if there were caps on corporate profits. As it stands, corporations have 0 obligation to pass those savings on to consumers.