[gnicholas]

It was actually a little more nuanced — they offered a one-time purchase (at a normal-ish price), or the option to purchase via subscription. I have no problem with this arrangement, which literally offers consumers more choices. The concerns I would have are (1) that the one-time pricing would gradually creep up, so that in a few years it becomes untenable, or (2) that when you sell the car, the heated seats would be deactivated. We'll never know if (1) would have happened, and I wasn't ever able to figure out if (2) was the case.

But you are right that the outrage-bait titles made people almost uniformly upset, since it wasn't clear that this was an additional option, and that people could still purchase heated seats outright.

[ketralnis]

In either of these cases the car you exchanged your money for physically had the seat heaters in it already. You were buying (or renting) the password to be allowed to use your own belongings.

To me this isn't nuanced at all. It's my fucking car, get out of here with this rent-seeking DLC shit.

[bonestamp2]

It is nuanced. If they did not sell the car for a penny more than last years model without heated seats, in other words they put up the money for the heated seat hardware in hopes of recouping that cost (and making their usual profit on it) later, then I don't see why people have a problem with getting the same features for the same price as last year.

In fact, as someone who likes to buy lightly used cars, I love this idea even more... even though the original buyer didn't want heated seats, I can still have them for the original option price? SOLD! (I would not do the subscription option of course)

[friend_and_foe]

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21127243/tesla-model-s-aut...

The license to these software enabled features is not usually transferrable. And why would they be?

It's not nuanced. If I pay you money for an object I expect the object to work. I don't care if you're selling it to me at a loss, that's your prerogative. What's not your prerogative is how I use my property.

[ketralnis]

None of that is my problem. My belongings belong to me. I don't care if a bean counter somewhere was slightly happier about it before it got to me. The moment the car is my car, it's no longer their car to start charging me access to.

[bonestamp2]

I see your point. I don't have a problem with it personally, but I understand your logic. I guess now that everything is controlled by software, and software is rarely ever owned (mostly licensed) that has started to blur the lines between what we own and what we license.

This kind of thing is common in software where all of the code is there for the premium/business/family/group/team/etc features, but how much you pay determines which features you get access to. In the case of the BMW, the heated seat control only appeared on the screen if you paid $250 for it.

[friend_and_foe]

They're not the same thing. If I buy a computer, you can say "if you want to use adobe software you have to pay an adobe license fee", you cannot say "if you want to use WiFi you need to pay for a license to the firmware for the hardware in your machine."

[Kirby64]

And I'm sure you'd be within your rights to add a switch somewhere to toggle the heaters on manually, for instance.

The only difference between some cars power is the ECU tune on the car. Are you entitled to the fastest version from the factory because you bought the cheaper model? I would say no. But you're free to add your own ECU tune via aftermarket methods.

[13of40]

The devil's advocate could argue that they provided the hardware at a loss under the assumption that they would recoup their money through subscriptions. That's a silly position in this case, though, because heated seats have been a thing for decades so there's no R&D work they need to pay off, and the cost of the actual heating elements and wires is trivial compared to the cost of the car.

[taylodl]

If I bought the heated seats via a one-time purchase then that feature should transfer to the new owner. It may require that transfer of ownership be registered with BMW.

If I rented the heated seats, or hadn't bought or rented the heated seats, then the new buyer should have the option to rent the heated seats or make a one-time purchase to just buy them.

This seems pro-consumer to me. I don't want heated seats (no, really, I don't!) and I would never buy them on my car. But, when I go to sell my car the new buyer can purchase heated seats if they so choose. That increases the market to which I can sell my car, and makes more cars available to buyers. Increased supply drives prices down.

No matter how you slice it and dice it the end result is the same: drive prices down and provide more options to consumers. I don't understand the backlash.

[gnicholas]

I think the backlash comes from incomplete reporting (and article-skimming, on the part of readers), which led people to think they were replacing the one-time purchase option with a subscription. I think we can all agree that would be bad.

Among more thoughtful folks, there were still concerns that this was a first step toward increased nickel-and-diming. What feature would be subscription-ized next? And would the one-time purchase options silently disappear?

[friend_and_foe]

How does it drive prices down? I can see how it drives profits up, so costs down when weighed against profits, but I don't see how it drives prices down.

Consider that these things cannot be sold on the secondary market. You can't pick and pull the hardware.

[taylodl]

There's two ways it helps drive prices down:

1. Lowers manufacturing costs. If there were a Law of Manufacturing it would be this: the less differentiation among the widgets, the more cheaply the widgets can be made. That thinking was behind Ford saying you could have any color you want, so long as it's black. Note this doesn't just affect assembly, it affects the supply chain as well. Your supplier only has to provide one kind of seat. The company making the heating units can crank more out and reduce the unit cost of each.

2. Increases supply - which reduces cost. As I said above, heated seats can be sold as an option. Any owner of the car can buy the option at any time. That increases the supply of cars in the used market. If I want a car with heated seats I can buy the model where that feature hasn't been enabled and enable it myself.

You mention you can't pick and pull the hardware. There's nothing in principle preventing that. All the hardware is the same. If for some reason your seat were to become damaged, you don't have to look for a heated seat. Any seat will do. If BMW is doing anything to prevent that then they're going to run afoul of Right to Repair laws.

[Etrnl_President]

It means track users across cars, enabling or disabling features based on who owns or drives it. Might even simplify things by tying it to a social credit score. Screw that.

[taylodl]

The state already tracks users across cars. Not sure what data you think you're protecting.

[plagiarist]

I will not pay extra for heated seats. I will also not be paying for heated seat hardware that is deactivated behind a paywall.

When I buy a physical object, that is my object. If they want to charge subscription fees they can do it on something they own. If they want to charge for new functionality they can do it own something they own.

[CamperBob2]

I'm fine with the option but if it's backed up with the force of law, I'm not fine with that. If you install the seat-heating hardware, lock it down with DRM, and prosecute me for hacking it, well, we're going to have a problem.