[abandonliberty]

So people should not have the option of paying less of paying less for less features? Everyone must pay for features that only a subset of customers use?

You make a common argument that's deceptively anti-consumer.

Yes, this can be abused - but that's a different argument.

[ajsnigrutin]

If they sell you a car with heated seats, you should have heated seats. They already sold you the heated seats, you already have the heated seats, and they just want more money for something they already got money for, and you already have.

[kevincox]

But they didn't get money for it. They get money for it from the people who enable it. If they didn't get money from people paying for it the effective cost of manufacturing the car they sold you would go up (and they may need to raise the price they charged you to cover it).

Imagine that 1/2 of the owners want heated seats. It is more cost effective to just install the hardware in every car rather than creating a new production line. These owners now need to pay 2x the raw cost of installing the seats (because they need to cover the cost of installing the hardware in the car that won't purchase it) in order to cover the cost (and of course there is some profit margin on top). But this can still be much cheaper than the extra overhead of setting up a second production line. But in this model the price of the car that didn't pay for the seats hasn't changed. The cost increase is covered by those who do pay for the seats. Making two separate production lines would raise the cost (of both models) for no benefit. Adding the feature to all cars would necessitate raising the price for the base (and only) model to cover the additional manufacturing cost.

(Ok, money is fungible so it is a little hard to say anything for certain, but in theory it is rational and fair)

[ajsnigrutin]

If their business model is broken, it's their problem.

You bought a car, paid for the car, and that car has heated seats. Now they want more money for using hardware you already bought, paid for and received.

I would understand if they had recurring costs with your heated seats (like they do with eg. a music streaming service or something like that), but nope, they sold you the hardware and now are blackmailing you for more money to use something you already own.

Not adding heated seats does not mean a different production line, just one skipped step for the seats without heating, and this was done on every car before they started with this subscripton and "pay extra" crap. This would also reduce e-waste for those who do not want and/or need heated seats.

Do you really want to live in a world, where you have to pay extra to use something you already bought?

[kevincox]

You paid for a car with non-functional heated seats. You got a car with non-functional heated seats.

I agree that if people figure out how to easily enable those seats they have a problem. Because now they are getting less payment for those seats (as some people are using them without paying). But that doesn't make it wrong to sell you a car with non-functional heated seat hardware.

> blackmailing you

They aren't blackmailing you. There is no threat. They are making you an offer. They can turn your disabled heated seats into functioning heated seats.

Skipping a step effectively creates a different production line. Now you need to track these inventories separately, ensure stock of each, schedule the production and ensure that various stockpiles around the world have each model. There are very significant cost there. It is entirely possible that this complexity and cost results in more e-waste. But it definitely increases cost.

> where you have to pay extra to use something you already bought?

But you didn't buy it. You bought a car without heated seats. (or with disabled heated seats if you prefer). You got exactly what you were promised and what you agreed to pay for.

[ajsnigrutin]

You bought a car with functioning heated seats, where the manufacturer intentionally implemented a lockout system, so you can't use them unless you pay. This is like buying a house with an extra room, but the door is locked until you pay. Yes, you own the house, you own the room, you can break the lock, but if a shitty timing chain breaks within the warranty period, the fact that you broke the lock on that room will cause the manufacturer to complain and not want to fix the timing chain because you supposedly voided the warrantly.

[TobyTheDog123]

>So people should not have the option of paying less of paying less for less features?

They should, it's called buying a different car without those features installed.

>Everyone must pay for features that only a subset of customers use?

You are already paying for those features upfront as part of buying the car - there is no recurring expense to the manufacturer. If you do not want or are unable to pay for those features, you buy a different car without them installed.

What you're arguing for is for everyone to have to pay another monthly subscription, and conflating "paying more for a car" with "paying monthly for non-consumable resources for a car".

[kevincox]

But this would simply result in both groups paying more for no benefit. Due to less volume both models would end up costing more.

I do agree that making this a subscription is ridiculous, especially such an expensive subscription. But I think making two models of car and raising the price for everyone is illogical.

[hot_gril]

I'd be happy paying less for less features. Or paying less and then hacking the features in. It's kinda like ad-supported YouTube, pretty nice for me cause I just ad-block.

[BeFlatXIII]

> So people should not have the option of paying less of paying less for less features? Everyone must pay for features that only a subset of customers use?

Yes. I'm sick of concern for the value-conscious dragging down the entire market.