Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ketralnis 1019 days ago
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.
2 comments
bonestamp2 1019 days ago
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)

link
friend_and_foe 1018 days ago
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.

link
ketralnis 1019 days ago
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.
link
bonestamp2 1019 days ago
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.

link
friend_and_foe 1018 days ago
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."
link
Kirby64 1019 days ago
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.

link
13of40 1019 days ago
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.
link