[Denvercoder9]

> I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc).

While I intuitively agree with you, I'm having a hard time arguing against the economic argument in favor it. Producing a single version of a product is generally cheaper than producing two different versions. Also offering a lower-margin, software-locked variant can (in certain conditions) make things cheaper for everyone, and it gives the consumer more choice: if you don't need or want the features of the premium model, you don't have to pay for it.

For example, imagine a manufacturer that sells two versions of its product, a basic model that makes up 20% of sales which costs $1000 to manufacture, and a premium model that makes up 80% of sales and costs $1250 to manufacture; this gives an average cost of $1200/unit. If they can save $100 per unit by only manufacturing the premium version and software-locking it, that reduces the average cost of goods sold to $1150/unit. They can pass on half of the savings to the customer, and still come out $50/unit ahead.

[beiller]

Producing the extra weight of the seat heater requires extra fuel to burn. Now multiply that by the number of cars on the road. Will cost the customer a (small) amount extra in fuel costs for a part that is not being used. So there is an economic argument that ya, we can subsidize manufactures by taxing people more. Seems like a bad deal to me.

Now lets talk about CO2 output of driving around extra dead weight. Makes it worse.

[ryandrake]

I think the usual "heated seats" example is a poor one, since it's so obviously an optional feature that not everyone would want to hack around.

Let's say instead that BMW decided all their car models would be physically 4 seaters, but in order to be allowed to use the back two seats, you had to pay a large monthly "sedan fee". And if they caught you using the back seats without paying, they'd sue you. Would anyone accept this? Likely no. And the reason you shouldn't accept this is the same reason you shouldn't accept the "seat heat" fee.

[Denvercoder9]

> Would anyone accept this? Likely no.

I wouldn't be so sure, it's all about the price. There's plenty of people that don't have a need for the backseats, and at a certain discount on the purchase price it becomes worth it to have two unusable seats in the back of the car. Think about the extreme case, in which the car is free: there are certainly people that would take that deal.

[beiller]

Not sure what you're getting at, but the back seat example here has all the same issues I pointed out above. They actually would weigh even more than seat heaters. I only gave some examples above of why it's bad but there are many more off the top.

Either way if I truly think I am right, then BMW, etc should just go ahead with this plan. It should be a money loser for them in the long run. But on second thought why burn all this CO2 just to prove a point. We should probably collectively put a stop to it sooner rather than later.

[ryandrake]

I agree with you 100%. Sometimes on HN we assume when someone replies to us they're disagreeing!

[beiller]

Haha yeah I wasn't quite sure from the response, so I just expanded on what I was saying before. I wonder if there is any examples of it being a good thing in any way shape or form.

[nichtverstehen]

No need to imagine. That's public transportation. You can physically enter a bus and sit there and get to places for free.

But you're supposed to get a ticket. Or is it fair game to use public transport for free because you can?

[Denvercoder9]

The extra weight/fuel costs just shifts the price point where it's a good deal (as it makes the product slighly worse), it doesn't change anything fundamental to the argument.

Or to put it in another perspective: carmakers have never optimized for weight at the cost of everything else (as otherwise we'd all be driving around in cars made from titanium or carbon fiber). What's the difference between putting in a heavier seat with a non-functional heater to reduce production costs, and using steel instead of aluminium to reduce production costs?

[Sebb767]

> Now lets talk about CO2 output of driving around extra dead weight

We're talking about a few grams of extra weight on an ICE vehicle over 1.5 tons, if not even an SUV over two tons. If you put a spare bottle of water in your car you'll most likely have similar dead weight.

Now, I get where you're coming from, but the amount of dead weight this adds is so miniscule compared to the general overhead any modern vehicle carries that making this argument is borderline disingenuous.

[beiller]

I question it myself a bit but I think I will stick to my argument. Yes it is a small amount of weight, but from what I understand passenger cars contribute a lot (28%) to total greenhouse gas emissions. 290.8M cars on the road in USA alone. I will say a copper heating coil in a seat weighs 3 Lbs. 4,094 Lbs is the average weight of car. So we could save .1% of the weight of the car maybe? Over the lifetime of a vehicle couldn't it add up?

Then we can add in the CO2 emission of manufacturing dead material to place in the car.

To top it all off, no one wants this.

[kelnos]

You're probably right that the loss in gas mileage or EV range is pretty small, to the point of being statistical noise.

But a few grams is definitely not correct. It's probably more on the order of 3-5lbs per seat.

If we don't like the heated seat example, let's use power seats. Those are much heavier than the equivalent seat with manual controls to adjust its position and angle. Granted, I don't know of any car manufacturer gating power seats behind a software lock...

[MetaWhirledPeas]

I wonder if you framed the question a different way if people would be more accepting of the arrangement.

Option A: Buy our car for $50,000

Option B: Buy our car for $40,000, but we'll software lock the "full self driving" feature

It sounds bad if you frame it as the company withholding functionality. It sounds better if you frame it as the company offering a discount, given some software stipulations.

This is really about paying for software. When you spend $400 for Ableton Live you are "unlocking" new capabilities for your PC. When you buy the latest PC game you are "unlocking" new capabilities for your GPU.

If you wanted to do all this yourself you are technically able to do so, at great difficulty and expense. You could develop your own software to operate your vehicle. (Not advisable.)

I prefer to look at it as a value proposition, rather than a battle of ideals. If a car with x, y, and z features disabled at a price of a is attractive to you, then buy it. If not, don't.

[fragmede]

That assumes consumers are entirely rational, totally informed beings. Except every economist knows that's not actually true. So you give the consumer option B to get them in the door, and then spring the cost of full self driving on them. Option B can even end up being more than option A. See also: buying a cellphone on contract, back in the day.

[kelnos]

It's not so simple, though.

First, they absolutely will not pass the savings on to the customer. Prices are governed by what people will pay, not by what it costs to make the car. If they can make the cars for $100 cheaper, they will pocket the $100, unless market forces (like cheaper cars from other manufacturers) signal that they should lower their prices.

Second, heated seats are heavier than non-heated seats. Customers who get software-locked heated seats and don't want the feature will get slightly worse gas mileage or EV range. So not only is the manufacturer potentially saving money building the car (savings they likely are not passing on to the customer), but they're pushing added operational costs onto the customer.

I think it's fine (though somewhat shady[0]) for a company to use these sorts of software interlocks. But the product sold to the customer belongs to the customer. If they want to hack or mod it to disable that software interlock, the company should just have to live with that, and shouldn't be allowed to punish the customer in other ways (like refusing to provide software updates, refusing to do maintenance, making that maintenance more expensive, etc.).

[0] Ultimately they can do whatever is legal. But customers don't like being nickel-and-dimed for things, and doing too much of this might cause customers to find alternatives. For example, I refuse to fly on super-low-cost airlines like Frontier and Spirit because I don't want a super-bare-bones experience where I have to pay extra for every little quality of life improvement. Flying is already not a particularly great experience, and I don't care to make it worse. It's Frontier & Spirit's prerogative to operate like that (and clearly enough customers are fine with it for these companies to be successful), but it's also my choice to spend my money elsewhere. But if the only option was airlines like these (or car manufacturers who software-lock everything), that would really suck.