| I don't think I understand your question. The customer can be receiving extra hardware and still be paying a cheaper price due to the assembly line efficiencies you mentioned, as well as the support costs of having just one new car model every year instead of 10 slightly different car models every year. In other words, the additional hardware costs might be lower than the other cost reductions due to the increased efficiency. Furthermore, even if the customer is paying exactly the same as before for the car (but now they are getting additional hardware which they can't use), it would be cheaper and much easier for these customers to upgrade their car if they so choose. This would also mean higher profits for the car manufacturers, which allows them to reduce the initial purchase price of the cars to compete more effectively in the market. And if it turns out that the car is more expensive due to having to buy the additional hardware, since these customers are price-sensitive they can just go to a competitor who would sell them a car without the additional hardware, therefore cheaper. EDIT: > Again, pardon my ignorance, but it feels disingenuous to call it "an upgrade" if the car already has the equipment, especially to be charged more to use what you've already paid for. Perhaps that's because you're only considering the cost of the hardware and not all the other costs of producing and supporting all the different car models for every combination of hardware features each customer would choose? I mean, yeah, sure, car companies could just sell a car with all the hardware features enabled and charge all customers the same, but then the price of the cars would be higher for those who don't need all those features, as the company wouldn't be able to charge higher prices for premium customers to subsidize the cars for the "poorer" customers. |