Thats the beauty of it. You can not. Because we do no longer have a free market. All car companies, belong by shareds to a few titanic entities, who will push this in lock step to all there companies. Welcome to the gilded age.
I think you under estimate how many OEMs there are.
Which “few titanic entities” are you referring to? Tesla? BMW? Toyota? Volkswagen Group? Gheely? BYD? Hyundai? Honda? … the list goes on. Basically there isn’t a more competitive anti-monopoly industry than the car industry.
Really? I could always buy an Alfa Romeo instead, which not only comes with heated seats but also with leather as standard upholstery in the Giulia and Stelvio models.
The Chinese car manufacturers are going to eat them alive soon anyway.
BMW is a pretty recognizable brand and other than Mini / Rolls Royce (the latter of which you probably won't need to avoid and the former tries to sell you on the fact that they are a life-style rather than a vehicle for an entirely different demographic) voting with your feet may well have the desired effect.
I'll bet you a barrel of beer that all luxury cars will have all features locked behind perpetual subscriptions within 5-10 years.
"Great" thing about consolidated megacorporation dominated markets: you have nowhere to go if only three companies decide to squeeze more money out of you. And shareholders WILL demand that every car manufacturer squeezes more money out of you by locking equipment you own now behind subscriptions.
I don't drink beer, but I would take that bet.
No one has followed bmw into subscription model for Apple car pay. The only reason other companies works follow this model, is if it succeeds
Breaking DRM on that physical computer is illegal and good luck getting your modified vehicle insured if it fails the manufacturer bootloader lock check ;)
It sounds like you missed last 15 years of developing DRM technology and IP law.
My insurance company doesn't care about the infotainment center in my vehicle and DRM hasn't stopped anyone ever. Look at all the farmers waiving their middle finger to John Deere. When has anyone in the history of buying insurance been forced into a bootloader check? Never, you're making stuff up.
If I own the car outright, I own the computer and can do whatever I want to it. Seems like you missed all the DRM hacks, and think vehicle insurance companies do IP law.
> My insurance company doesn't care about the infotainment center in my vehicle
Driving habits and all the data tracking that will be standard in a few years will absolutely be critical to your insurance company, and it stands to reason that they would use any semblance of hacking any part of your car and thus risking the purity of the data (nomatter how unrelated) as a pretense to deny coverage.
What happens if the computer is destroyed in an accident? Nothing, because insurance companies aren't insuring driving habits, they're insuring property. People modify cars every day all day and can still obtain insurance.
I think real workaround would be getting in contact with your local congressperson and passing legislation outlawing the practice because this is a prisoner's dilemma that forced cooperation would fix -- the car market would be better for everyone including sellers if this was forbidden. But that kind of thing requires a functioning government.
We just lost the vote on TVs is all (for now). As the wolf sheds the sheep clothing though that might change (not optimistic).
I doubt BMW is going to nail this on their first pass, but subscriptions are obviously more lucrative so they may keep trying (or others will).
Regardless, software running everything is a nightmare in progress. The quality standards are atrocious and regulations haven’t even come close to keeping up.
It seems unlikely that regular TVs will come back without some very stringent legislation preventing monetization. As it is, Vizio makes less money from selling their hardware than from other BS.
I think its just as good to vote by hacking. Like when pirating music was a result of people just saying f-u to the way industry was trying to sell us music, why not have hacking car software be a way of saving f-u to the car industry trying to rent-seek us to death. The music industry changed and now we have reasonable streaming alternatives. See if the car industry gets the message as well.
I know this is a rhetorical question, but presumably because the benefits outweigh the negatives in their case. If you're looking to buy a fancy car in Texas, you're probably not particularly interested in heated seats.
Something about a monthly fee for basic functionality screams “low class” to me. It’s like the difference between renting and owning. “You don’t have enough money to buy outright, so you’re forced to pay for a basic thing in perpetuity.” That taints BMW’s brand. I’ll buy a Lexus, thanks.
Also, customer service aside, they're not great cars in the first place. If you're buying a gasoline car and it's not a Toyota or a Mazda, you're doing it wrong.
Mazda is doing the exact same thing. When my wife and I purchased our CX-5 that was an option and we said "hell no" even though it gets to -30 F in the winter in the Upper Midwest.
The trend toward turning products into subscriptions has been in flight for at least 20 years. It was bullshit when it started and it continues to be bullshit today.
Tesla pioneered this nonsense via FSD subscriptions (which doesn't even exist) and limiting the battery. And yet everyone around these parts cheers them on.
I'm torn about this. One one hand, the slippery slope of this is car microtransactions, so the pushback is very much needed and understandable. People had to vote with their wallet until manufacturers gave up on charging subscriptions for Apple Carplay/Android Auto.
On the other hand, the use case BMW is presenting is actually quite reasonable: making car extras available to second hand buyers (and presumably, making their pipeline more effective and flexible so they don't have to customize cars at build time). I'd be thrilled if I bought a used car without heated seats and was able to "add" heated seats and other upgrades on the spot, by paying one-time fees for the extras that the original owner didn't purchase. Car extras are already very much a thing and always have been – the alternative is that BMW physically has to remove the heater components or disable them permanently, so as a second hand buyer, I'd be permanently locked out of the upgrade. Forcing the car maker to have to physically neuter the hardware out of "purity" strikes be as something a bit silly.
> the alternative is that BMW physically has to remove the heater components or disable them permanently, so as a second hand buyer, I'd be permanently locked out of the upgrade
No, the alternative is to simply sell what you have 'as is', and not to try to graft a subscription model onto every sale.
Rather than selling unnecessary services BMW should focus on selling cars. And with the number of software issues their vehicles suffer from (a friend of mine was an avid BMW fan for many years his cars spent more time in the shop for software issues than mine ever did for all of their maintenance put together over the same 20 year period) they should strive to have less software related components rather than more of them.
Finally, what do you think the chances are that they are able to keep that service up and running over the service life of their vehicles?
> On the other hand, the use case BMW is presenting is actually quite reasonable: making car extras available to second hand buyers (and presumably, making their pipeline more effective and flexible so they don't have to customize cars at build time).
Wouldn't both of those goals be accomplished just by letting anyone who buys the car use the heated seats?
> Car extras are already very much a thing and always have been – the alternative is that BMW physically has to remove the heater components or disable them permanently, so as a second hand buyer, I'd be permanently locked out of the upgrade.
The point is that if BMW is willing to pay for the heated seat components in every car they make, then anyone who buys a BMW should be able to use the heated seats. You shouldn't have to pay someone else money for the privilege of fully utilizing something that you own outright.
>I'd be thrilled if I bought a used car without heated seats and was able to "add" heated seats and other upgrades on the spot
This is an odd interpretation.
You aren't buying a car without heated seats and "adding" them. They are already there.
>the alternative is that BMW physically has to remove the heater components or disable them permanently, so as a second hand buyer, I'd be permanently locked out of the upgrade
How on earth is that the alternative? That would cost them more money in labour. Once the car is sold, why does BMW have to do anything?
Car extras always existed, and they will always keep existing. If someone doesn't want to pay for heated seats, right now, the car manufacturer will ensure that the hardware just isn't there or is somehow disabled, even if it costs them more to ensure that you don't have access that extra.
As a second-hand owner, or just the owner who changed their mind later down the line, there is an obvious benefit to being able to purchase an extra without going to a dealership or a mechanic and incurring in extra costs in replacing the whole part – you really wouldn't bother for something like heated seats.
What the car manufacturer is saying here is that they would prefer to ship the extra part in all the cars because it doesn't cost them that much and letting the owner (or next owner) change their mind is an obvious benefit, but that if they're not allowed to charge extra for a part that they already shipped, then they will keep on ripping out or damaging the part before it gets sold.
That is a very convoluted path towards getting a device - this is not limited to cars - with some optional extra. It breaks with the first sale doctrine by giving the original seller power over what is done with the product they sold which in my opinion is a big and resounding no-go. The idea of BMW having to 'physically ... remove the heater components or disable them permanently' is silly, if the original buyer did not order heated seats BMW could simply not have installed them. If they still install the heated seat cover because it is cheaper for them to just install the thing on every car that is their problem, not that of the buyer who does not want it. They can just leave out the controller - these things are controlled by a separate CAN-bus connected power supply without which they don't do anything - for those cars which are ordered without the option. Again, if they install the controller in all cars because that is cheaper for them that is their problem. Giving them the the ability to enable or disable components after the first sale based on a license payment suddenly makes this your problem. Don't fall for this ruse.
They used to but fake "buttons" on the dash for features you could have gotten but where too cheap too. As opposed to just a flat surface it was raised plastic. The folks at the dealership my dad worked at called them "guilt buttons".
If you aren't using the heated seats, you're lugging around extra weight, more electrical complexity. You can't sell your car as having them, as you have no idea if they work after how many years.
Exactly. You're not "buying a car with heated seats that you can't use", you're buying the car without heated seats because you didn't pay for them. The difference is that BMW has to cripple the car before they give it to you if you don't pay right now.
> Car extras are already very much a thing and always have been – the alternative is that BMW physically has to remove the heater components or disable them permanently, so as a second hand buyer, I'd be permanently locked out of the upgrade. Forcing the car maker to have to physically neuter the hardware out of "purity" strikes be as something a bit silly.
this is buying into a market differentiation approach that I see no reason to tolerate
it's one thing to differentiate by installing something extra (at cost) to charge a price higher than the cost to some market segment. sure, do that as much as you want, makes sense
Agree. Besides I think the larger point is that this is an idea whose time as come. Now people take this in a rather positive manner about things they feel righteous. For me it is about so many things irrespective of my liking.
Is that a fair comparison? You'd expect to less for seats without a heating element, rather than paying less to have them rip out something they already put in.
Are you factoring in the hit in productivity in the production line so that you have to do N variations instead of 1 for all of these things? At some point, if the heating element is cheap enough, it costs them more to NOT put the heating element in.
The doctrine of first sale says I own the car, and I own the heated seats in it.
And once its ours, they do not have the right to charge us for something our car has the capability to do without them. And its unethical for them to try to add microtransactions on something we already physically own. This is a form of fraud, IMHO.
BMW is losing the trust of buyers; they will not last long if they continue this.
On one hand, they're following industry into your-purchase-is-really-a-license-and-subscription-model-all-the-things. On the other hand, the public and legislators have been pretty clear about this never having been OK and cut it out right now (e.g. right to repair).
Right to Repair would imply that individual components of a vehicle can't be under a subscription to use because that implies you don't have full ownership of the part.
Also Right to Repair usually includes some requirements on manufacturers to publish the schematics and repair manuals publically or at least provide them to owners. That means whatever piece controls the subscription would be known, and could be bypassed or removed more easily.
The connection is computer freedom. We should be able to replace their shitty defective-by-design subscription software with free software that does what it's told and it should be illegal for the corporation to put any barriers to stop us from doing it.
It comes down to if we're buying products that we own and then can make any repairs or modifications that we want to with them or if we're merely licensing the product.
> And God help you if an A-list blogger finds out that your premium printer is identical to the cheap printer, with the speed inhibitor turned off.
As it turns out, you don't need divine help if every manufacturer has the consumer already conditioned to accept abuse in the form of EULAs, subscriptions, and microtransactions from all directions...
“In 10 years, you will own nothing and you’ll be happy”
What if instead of owning cars, we rented them? Less garbage parked on all our streets when not being used. Less fossil fuel monopoly lockin. Self driving upgrades would be the norm. Then this approach by BMW would make sense.
For me, the real racket has really been the pushing of ownership on everyone. Own a car. Own a house. To do so, RENT MONEY from a bank and go work to pay back millions of dollars over decades or we will reposess your house. You’re welcome, pleb!
On the other hand, if you own a house and don't miss payments, you are left alone to do what you want with the place and have no real risk of someone making you homeless on more or less a whim.
If you're renting, your landlord can decide to sell your home out from under you, or evict you to have family move in, or renovate without your choice, or or or. You aren't really in control of your own home when you rent. Most rentals I've lived in wouldn't allow pets for instance. And you can't even choose the color of paint on the walls. It's a joke.
So yeah. Borrow money from a bank, buy a house. Paint it whatever you want. Plant whatever flowers you want. Grow your own food. Have pets. Enjoy having actual choice and freedom about your surroundings.
In the world of "we only rent" we limit our options by an extreme amount.
This extends to cars too. You can't even change the tires on a rented car. And you're limited to only driving what is available for renting. What if I want a sports car? What if I want an SUV? What if I'm doing some yard work and need a truck, but none are available?
Seriously if you're ok only ever renting, houses or vehicles, or anything else... How do you apply any kind of agency on your surroundings? You just live by other people's rules and accept the surroundings other people have crafted for you all the time?
Of course we should have a choice of buying a house with rented money. Just like we should have a choice to smoke cigarettes privately.
I am just saying there is a lot of propaganda to get people to do stuff that is in the bankers’ and corporations interest. People are told en masse what they should be doing: go to college, get a job, pay off a mortgage, own a home. Lean in. Make partner at the firm.
Slowly the public is waking up and millennials onwards don’t care so much. They even started to realize that college isn’t essential to an education in many fields, given how much can be learned on the Internet. At least, not the four year college. I wager most people on HN learned far more on the Internet than in college. People are starting to wake up to the idea that renting money from banks also locks you into slavery for decades, and prefer to be free.
> I am just saying there is a lot of propaganda to get people to do stuff that is in the bankers’ and corporations interest
I agree. And nothing fits this description more than "Banks and Corporations should own literally everything and everyone else should only ever rent what they need"
If you can't see how "rent everything" plays exactly into the hands of banks and corporations, I don't know what to tell you.
> People are starting to wake up to the idea that renting money from banks also locks you into slavery for decades, and prefer to be free.
No, see. Slaves owned nothing and had to rely on their masters to provide for them. Slaves were never free, not after decades of work, not ever. Also slaves couldn't decide to terminate their mortgage early, sell their house and relocate.
I don't know how you got these backwards ideas about the implications of renting versus ownership, but you really should give some really careful consideration to what you're giving up and what you're gaining if you choose not to own anything. Trust me, you aren't gaining freedom.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Of course you own things. But you think of them as "investments". You can own bitcoins or shares in the stock market. You can lend money to the government in recession times. You can own real estate if it's for investment purposes.
But don't confuse that with needing to own things instead of renting them. If you borrowed $2 million and bought Bitcoin in 2012 you'd be a lot better off than if you bought a house cause "only a fool would want to pay off someone else's mortgage".
Cars are increasingly moving to a more-or-less rental model, with lots of finance and little eventual ownership.
But this doesn't solve the "less garbage parked" problem; for that you need short-term rentals and although ZipCar and others are making inroads there are real challenges here: the demand is bursty (everyone wants a car on a sunny weekend) and the model is inconvenient (can't leave stuff in your car).
Renting a car is a process that takes at least 10 times longer than it seems like it should. Also, rental car facilities are not on every street corner.
How would you pay the rent for your home in your theoretical world without working a job? You’re paying to live no matter what. At least when you own something you have something to show for your labor. Also, I think there’s a lot of truth to the old adage: “buy real estate, they’re not making any more of it.”
Money is the new land. They are making more of it but they know everyone needs it, and the banking system has a monopoly on it.
The “American Dream” was promoted was a way to get the plebs to take out large mortgages (to finance home construction, etc.) and be nice little workers and pay it off (this creates demand for the bank’s finance products and by extension the dollar). At least back then, only one parent worked long hours for corporations, because the culture mostly had women be homemakers and raise kids.
Once both sexes started flooding the labor market, wages got repressed and corporations started promoting a new “Lean in” version of the “American Dream” to the men AND women… now everyone’s self-worth and satisfaction was supposed to be determined by climbing the corporate ladder:
Well, allow me to do a few simple math operations for you. (It’s the old math Ph. d student in me lol, I sometimes try to make a simple math argument)
Let’s compare
B = Buying
R = Renting
B > R ?
To do so, add and subtract R on the left:
B - R + R > R ?
This operation can be described in the real world as “Buying a house, renting it out to someone else, then renting a similar house anywhere you want”
Now we can subtract R from both sides and we get:
B - R > 0 ?
In other words, is buying a house and renting it out to a tenant better than doing nothing? It turns it into an investment question: is real estate the best investment of your money? It depends on the housing market, the rental market, and the individual situation of the rental, location, tenant, financing, closing costs, broker fees etc.
Well, in the real world, if your salary and credit allows you to borrow X, then you should look at what you can invest it in. If you had rented since 2012 and invested all that money into Bitcoin or a stock index, you’d be able to sell it and buy 1,000 houses. So yes, renting could be far better than buying.
Zip car is one of many short term car rental firms for city dwellers (at least in boston). There were also some services that allowed car owners to rent their cars short term to other people, but I'm not sure they took off. Zip cars have dedicated parking spaces adding to the value proposition.
You spent some amount of money on the car, money that you would otherwise have available to either spend or invest, when you eventually replace your car you will get less if anything. So even if the car just sits in your garage you are paying for it (or really already have)
this might be less than you would be paying for renting a car (or more! depending on how often you'd need to rent), but it's obviously not 0
Of course it is. Musicians are signed by record labels. Startup entrepreneurs are signed by VCs. Franchisees are signed by McDonalds. A few make it big. Everyone is told an inspirational story and works hard — while the owners collect the rents.
You just believe you can be the owner… but the big owners in this country are usually much better connected than you. They sit on each other’s boards, too.
Chances are, you won’t win that game… but they will make money off you competing and trying:
Capitalism is private property. Capitalism means owning land, physical property, factories, companies, the means of production. If you don't own these things, it means you are alienated from capitalist society. It is irrational for any citizen of a capitalist society to accept such a state of affairs.
The idea that an average car buyer won't understand that computer stuff can be "hacked" so they don't have to pay is pretty ridiculous. If your making money to buy a new BMW you probably don't live under a rock and have some idea of how computers work in a very high level way.
I think subscription services for hardware features is a bad idea, and I will only be motivated to hack it rather than ever accept it. It reminds me of the overpriced pay to wash machines you see in large apartment complexes that don't put them in units.
If it’s cheaper for the production line to have fewer spec changes, but marketing can still create tiered products through software unlocks… how is this different to a normal saas subscription? They are just software unlocks as well?
I buy a car with heaters in the seats. I own the car. I own the seat. I own the heater. I'm still waiting to hear any reasonably cogent explanation about how I should be prevented from using the heater I own that's inside of the seat I own.
Because you don’t own the software that activates it.
Similar to how you can’t modify the gear ratios or the traction control system on the ecu of the car you own. Because you don’t own software, you license it.
