|
|
|
|
|
by ajsnigrutin
1048 days ago
|
|
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? |
|
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.