Submitted by kishiki18_91 t3_z42jnn in worldnews
Comments
reb0014 t1_ixq1am6 wrote
But without the cool parts, just the depression corpo overlords controlling everything bit
Jethro__Flatline t1_ixr1msf wrote
I reread the Sprawl Trilogy a couple years ago. Hadn't read it in twenty years. It sure hit different! What's really meta is the presence Gibson has on Twitter and what we're witnessing now with THAT.
Heres_your_sign t1_ixoy3yq wrote
When you start fucking with critical drive systems on a pay-to-play basis there's going to be a mistake made and someone will die as a result.
If we had anything that looked like meaningful corporate regulation this would be illegal.
NiceHaas t1_ixp46m2 wrote
Car companies will take the risk when they make more money than they have to pay out to the victims family. GM was guilty of this a few years ago
ConsolesQuiteAnnoyMe t1_ixp580c wrote
Cost of doing business, money is more important than human life.
NiceHaas t1_ixp5m2m wrote
The GM recall scandal of 2014. 13 people died as a result.
ConsolesQuiteAnnoyMe t1_ixp6lwh wrote
This just affirms what I said.
Capitalism, am I right?
Pons__Aelius t1_ixpcpxc wrote
Narrator:
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
notyettakenusermame t1_ixpr16q wrote
Which car company do you work for ?
Pons__Aelius t1_ixpvsl0 wrote
A major one.
kissabirdgently t1_ixppjhm wrote
It’s just ecu flash or code injection to turn on disabled map. Not as complicated as you would wonder.
Unlocking blocked mapping should be way safer than a custom tune by a shop.
mooseup t1_ixoxdl6 wrote
WRT BMW’s heated seats, honest question. What happens when you buy the subscription and the seats are broken? Does BMW pay to have the feature fixed since you bought the subscription, or are you on the hook for that too?
Heres_your_sign t1_ixoxmc5 wrote
What do you think. When it's broken, they say you own it.
TheStegg t1_ixpgfs7 wrote
There’s a disclaimer that basically says the subscription is only valid as long as the hardware can support the service, and at some point in the future they can unilaterally decide that the hardware is no longer supported.
[deleted] t1_ixpgwbe wrote
My question is about what happens when they buy the car and don't pay the sub? They just put extras in that bmw for no reason? No way, they definitely included the hardware in the cost of the vehicle. You're paying extra because they can charge extra.
OneAndOnlyJackSchitt t1_ixpifnt wrote
Fun times to be had when car people bypass the subscription hardware with a couple of jumper cables and a switch.
vanbikejerk t1_ixqmdbi wrote
Yeah, you'll be able to root it, depending on skill level. There will be a reliable percentage of rich fucks who never both to, though. It's like they figured out the math already on this.
shmip t1_ixwtopj wrote
Then they'll introduce a safety feature to detect that and completely lock the engine because bypassing existing safety features "has unexpected and unreliable results"
bergmoose t1_ixpwodk wrote
The claim is that it is cheaper to make them the same than to have different manufacturing to the different specs, so they would be (and were) putting the hardware in there anyway but turned off to differentiate between trim levels. Dunno if it's true but seems lots of car companies have done it over the years so I assume so. To me the issue is the wastefulness of trying to create fake differences between trim lines in that case, if you are putting it in anyway then just include it in the lower trim.
I know why they don't, as people will pay to get some features and if seat heaters are on the "important" list then they definitely don't want to give it for free when it can be a hook to buying a whole bunch of crud you don't really want.
Specialist-Life-3849 t1_ixqi1iz wrote
kinda like cable company?
ledasll t1_ixph5cc wrote
When it's broken then it's hardware issue. Subsctiption is just for software.
[deleted] t1_ixoyi3k wrote
[deleted]
LazyturtleX1 t1_ixozd86 wrote
Not a great comparison, because Netflix didn't build the tv and then charge you a subscription to unlock the feature ( yet ) haha.
AltNationReality t1_ixoz8u6 wrote
Sort of like when the old school garage mechanic fucked up your carburetor and then said he could fix it... for a nominal price.
If you're going to introduce performance degrading software into your cars, expect people to do one of two things:
- The will stop buying your cars
- They will buy your cars and then figure out a way to undo your shitty software limits
Either way... your money-making scheme will bring down a world of shit PR. (What moronic executive thought this would be a good idea? The one with the most stock options?)
EagleTake t1_ixq50mv wrote
>They will buy your cars and then figure out a way to undo your shitty software limits
And there is already a black market that exists for this. It removes software limitation to reduce engine performance to reduce environmental emission. The thing is, you can do that and have more HP but if you have an accident and your insurance gets in, you are in hell of a trouble if they find out that your software is modified. Insurance INVALID
[deleted] t1_ixq45e7 wrote
[removed]
cballowe t1_ixp2bru wrote
It may not be "performance degrading software" - you can maybe think of it like computer overclocking a PC. Though if you go back to mainframes, they've been doing that for decades - the physical hardware is often more CPUs/higher speed than what the company is licensed for and additional capacity can be enabled after the fact (sometimes even temporarily - need extra capacity for quarterly closing reports, you can do that with no downtime). Compute services have almost always been "pay for what you use" and you don't really think about how the vendor makes that happen, but when it becomes too obvious, people kinda freak out.
I don't know what the terms of warranty on Mercedes cars look like, but there would definitely be parts that wear faster when pushed to higher power output so having a "we give you the hardware with parameters tuned to last the lifetime of your warranty for $X and if you want to push past that, we'll let you do it but will charge based on expected additional costs to replace worn parts within warranty".
Some people really want the performance and would be willing to pay for a bigger engine up front, but the electric motors are probably cheaper to maintain one SKU and differentiate in software/pricing to account for the extra component wear - people who aren't pushing those limits don't pay for it.
skofan t1_ixp4lk4 wrote
this is not at all comparable to overclocking.
overclocking exists because chip manufacturing has always had a very high variance in product quality, due to extremely complex designs. instead of testing the limits of each individual chip, several sets of minimum standards, used for product segmentation due to performance differences, are put in place during the prototyping stages of chip design. chips are then tested against those minimum standards.
since the standards for each product segment are minimum standards, most chips will have additional performance headroom left over if the user chooses to tune that specific chip for its specific pecularities.
in contrast, electrical engines are very simple constructions, and the manufacturing tolerances are much much smaller, meaning that engineers know pretty much exactly what the performance limit is during the design phase, way before even prototyping.
cballowe t1_ixp650w wrote
Sure, but you can overbuild by 20-40% for not much more cost in lots of cases, but wear on things like bearings and other moving components can change in big ways if you push above some level. Imagine a car with a 5 year warranty but it will need an estimated extra $5k of parts and labor if you drive it hard (using the 5 second 0-60 instead of the base 6 second every time you get on the highway) vs keeping it to the lower limit.
And it's very much the same as overclocking (aside from the fact that you don't pay the original manufacturer to do the overclocking). They sell you a part for a price based on the performance they're guaranteeing. In this case they charge you a higher price to guarantee more from the part.
In a world where it's cheaper to manufacture one physical SKU and differentiate in software, you're going to start seeing more of this kind of thing. Not everybody needs the performance that sells for a higher price. I'd bet that at volume production the cost difference between a motor that can only do X and one that can handle more is pretty minimal and some is recouped by not needing to change over any manufacturing to manage the different production schedules. You would definitely lose some segment of the market if you didn't offer a vehicle at the lower price point, though.
[deleted] t1_ixp7s55 wrote
>And it's very much the same as overclocking (aside from the fact that you don't pay the original manufacturer to do the overclocking).
It's not though, this is essentially just unlocking features that are inherently there to begin with.
Overclocking is essentially exploiting the specific performance a chip may or may not have. That performance headroom isn't necessarily there to being with, and it's not necessarily something that offers any benefit to the consumer (stability issues, power consumption, compute errors etc).
cballowe t1_ixp8csn wrote
Overclocking is still... Get a motherboard that lets you tweak voltage, current, and clock settings, and push the buttons until you get somewhere. Most enthusiast chips are good for a fair bit over what the box says. Electric motors are similar - push more electric power through them and you get more power out at the wheel.
The only difference is that they charge you to flip the bits that the overclocking motherboards use as an up front feature for selling the board.
[deleted] t1_ixp8qqt wrote
>Get a motherboard that lets you tweak voltage, current, and clock settings, and push the buttons until you get somewhere. Most enthusiast chips are good for a fair bit over what the box says.
Lol that's been completely false for the last few years or so, so you're talking out of your ass.
There's basically no meaningful headroom available on CPUs unless you start cranking out chilled water or liquid nitrogen (how does the normal consumer benefit?).
GPUs essentially have to be modded on the circuitry side to get any additional performance (but highly unstable) due to the power limits they have.
AltNationReality t1_ixp97q7 wrote
Really.... It's about the "monthly fee" part. No car needs that. BMW took severe flack for a monthly fee for butt warmers. Sell the car... not a monthly fee schedule.
cballowe t1_ixp9lsq wrote
That might be, but would you be upset if you walked in and they were like "we have this car ... It's $80k, or we can install the performance software on it and sell it to you for $100k"? Or would you prefer "you can pay $80k and if you decide you want the performance upgrades you can have that for $100/month and take it for the months where you use it" or similar.
Or maybe you buy it and the fact that you never licensed that option helps maintain your resale value due to less overall wear, but the next person could have the option to turn it on if they wanted.
fatpandana t1_ixpbcam wrote
this perfomance software will also allow them to tune down the car to make consumer spend money on repairs and/or new vehicle. No different old iphones getting slower.
monthly fees for product you paid for already that every other vehicle have is beyond dumb.
cballowe t1_ixpbiyo wrote
Iphone getting slower made some sense - there's lots of weird considerations in UX, but getting slower to ensure that the battery lasts through the day makes a ton of sense as a default.
fatpandana t1_ixpbovi wrote
it doesnt when the version prior to that perfomed at peak capacity as long as user knew how to prevent updates. Problem is inability to go backwards in version made it impossible to go return to peak perfomance.
cballowe t1_ixpc0c2 wrote
Sure... I could make the case either way - the fact that I think someone doing UX research on the experience of having a phone run out of battery before the end of the day could reasonably find that a majority of users would prefer a little slower but not running out and make a product case that the best way to ensure people are happy with their phones longer would be a software update that does that.
The fact that it's a reasonable outcome makes it hard for me to say they did something wrong. The fact that I can also see how someone might disagree doesn't change that.
fatpandana t1_ixpc72u wrote
The fact that apply was forced to pay a fine for this bad practice basically it is illegal.
cballowe t1_ixpcqjo wrote
Just because the courts got it wrong doesn't mean the choice was bad. Also doesn't mean it was illegal, just means someone found a court that would listen and it was cheaper to just pay something than to fight it.
When a reasonable person could flip a coin and come up on either side of the outcome is an indication that it's not wrong. We'll have to disagree on this. Later updates, I believe, better tuned things and gave more options, right? The first version of the feature is rarely perfect.
fatpandana t1_ixpcyky wrote
That just means you were wrong in first place. If you can provide proof of non-deliberate tampering and take a fine, then yup, you purposely made mistake. If you cant fight it, then yup, you purposely made mistake.
This isnt a flip of a coin, this is deliberate. Unlike a flip of a coin, you can always roll back software. Apple doesnt allow that.
cballowe t1_ixpd9hc wrote
If it costs more to fight it than to pay the fine, you pay the fine and move forward. It's not worth wasting the resources on the fight, learn from it and improve the UX moving forward. They didn't break anything with the update, they just re-tuned some operating parameters.
fatpandana t1_ixpdd2l wrote
that retuning is what users complained about and they ignored it. Imagine retuning something and u end up paying 113million, because you cant win it in court.
cballowe t1_ixpdl1o wrote
You can win but it's going to take months and millions of dollars to litigate - it's a distraction and not worth fighting. Doesn't mean they did something wrong, just that they got to a number where it was cheaper to pay than to fight.
fatpandana t1_ixpdq1k wrote
if it was cheaper, they could just avoided the whole court cases long before it got to court. if it was just a retune, you could just fix it long before it even getting to court.
cballowe t1_ixpeewq wrote
Eh... Users complain and file suit or whatever and even if you fix it they still pursue the case. They had fixed the issue with additional controls by 2018, the settlement happened in 2020 based on a case filed in december 2017.
The states were charging that apple was making changes to cause people to buy new phones, apple was contending that they were trying to prevent unexpected shutdowns due to old batteries losing capacity over time.
fatpandana t1_ixpevfc wrote
it happened between 2014 - 2016. apple admitted in 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42508300
It wasnt just shutting down. It was straight up perfomance lowering.
cballowe t1_ixpg088 wrote
The issue prior to that fix was that the phones shut down mid day due to running out of battery. Lowering performance on a phone with batteries degraded to the 80% level or worse in order to not have it shut down before the end of the day makes sense.
When the feedback you're getting is that people are complaining that their phones are shutting down and you then task some engineers to fix that, you get a fix. Apple said early on that it was a small number and it probably was, but lithium batteries have somewhere between 500 and 2000 charge cycles before they degrade to that level so over time more and more of the older phones would start falling into that mode.
But the accusations early on were "you're making my phone worse to force me to buy a new one" which wasn't the case. From an engineering perspective the change made the useful life of the phone longer (fixing the battery life issues).
fatpandana t1_ixpgf5b wrote
Cause and effect. Feedback forced statement. Statement forced lawsuit. Denial of the problem and hiding problem under the rug has consequences. that is full 3 years to admit fault. This is for things that are fully software controlled.
Imagine for cars. Normally perfomance u paid for now software controlled with pay 2 get getting perfomance. How easy it is to nerf perfomance to force a new purchase? even easier than an iphone.
skofan t1_ixpqhkk wrote
thats not anywhere near the same as overclocking. nor is it acceptable business practice.
if you want a suitable IT analogy, its like pre-installed ransomware, it locks down parts of your devices functionality until you give in to the blackmail and pay up.
AltNationReality t1_ixp8tlq wrote
Would you pay a monthly fee to "overclock" your CPU? I think not.
cballowe t1_ixp8y41 wrote
People do all the time. Look at cloud computing pricing, or old (even modern) mainframe stuff. Customers demand compute with burst capabilities that they only pay for when they use.
helm t1_ixpcz7p wrote
Think again, that’s not the same thing at all.
cballowe t1_ixpdbv4 wrote
Can you explain how people aren't constantly paying for features that they use only during the duration of their use?
helm t1_ixpdke0 wrote
This is a yearly subscription to unlock something in a car you bought. Cloud computing doesn’t involve equipment that you own. It’s rent.
You can rent a car for a limited time too.
A straight comparison would be to buy a throttled GPU and pay rent to unlock higher speeds.
Buy adding this feature, Mercedes isn’t improving their car in any way, they’re simply trying to get customers to accept a new pricing scheme.
cballowe t1_ixpdrj9 wrote
Mainframes are often delivered with more CPUs in the box then you're licensed for. You can call ibm and have them enable more at any time and only pay for them while you use them. The machine is sitting in your data center with double the power that you can use.
This has been how IBM does things for decades.
helm t1_ixpee6a wrote
I'm unfamiliar with this pricing model. But I'm quite sure a mainframe comes with yearly service fees, software licenses, etc, that makes it quite different from a one-off purchase in the first place.
I recently helped shut down an old Oracle database (physical + software) that cost our company $100k/year. Again, different pricing models, different expectation. If you buy a house, would you want to pay a subscription fee to have access to heated floors?
cballowe t1_ixpfean wrote
That's true. But also, you have hardware in your data center that can be turned on and off with a phone call to IBM (and assorted monthly or one time pricing). The maintenance contracts etc are tied to what you're licensed to use. Software licenses tend to cost way more than hardware, but in all of it you only pay for the things that you use. (Or ... You pay for the things you want to use, but they can be dynamically enabled or disabled.)
Other industries are trying to go a similar way. I've heard that some heavy equipment companies want to sell some sort of uptime/operating guarantees and not necessarily specific equipment. That might mean you need 5 trucks but they ship 6 to your site and some spare parts etc because that gives them the flexibility to have spares and deal with downtime/repairs while still hitting the contract requirements. If you put that 6th truck in service, those numbers might be missed or if you want to have 6 operating then the contract goes up.
helm t1_ixpgf32 wrote
Yes, but it's clear that your examples involve a negotiation in which the supplier is trying to more effectively match the buyer's needs.
This is all about building one car for everyone, but locking parts of it down with software. This reduces production costs. The value for the customer would be to upgrade/downgrade features at will. But so far, car makers haven't sold it very well, I think.
cballowe t1_ixphb2y wrote
I think the "car makers haven't sold it very well" is more of the issue than building one physical model and enabling/disabling bits with software to meet customer needs.
I don't need a <5 second 0-60, so the option to not pay for it makes sense. There's definitely some people who would pay for it. With gas motors you get the difference between the base model and the performance model, with electric - it's software and not a bigger motor. Seems fine to me. you need to have that base model spec available.
PSUSkier t1_ixqowmq wrote
That’s not overclocking, that’s renting a computer FFS.
lilhippieboi t1_ixpllen wrote
I’ll get you a funnel for Christmas so guzzle Mercedes cum faster
creativename87639 t1_ixozhs1 wrote
Sounds illegal. Probably is illegal. Definitely should be illegal.
PM_ME_A_PLANE_TICKET t1_ixp102s wrote
Spaceballs AI voice
"Your payment for 'Braking function subscription' was declined. Braking function disabled. Good luck!"
HDSpiele t1_ixpnwp9 wrote
Hot take but people who use the pedal break can not drive. Engine break is much better and more fuel efficient.
PM_ME_A_PLANE_TICKET t1_ixppaw3 wrote
Brake pad salesmen hate him!
DreiImWeggla t1_ixptyu8 wrote
It causes more wear on your clutch and motor. I'd rather pay for new brakes than a new clutch or car. Sure it's necessary when going downhill, but the real mvp play is to keep enough distance and drive passively enough that you don't need pedals or motor brake. If you see a red light early, just go of the gas and let friction bring you to a stop.
Similarly I see a lot of impatient people overtaking one car at a time accelerating and braking all the time even on a motorway.
HDSpiele t1_ixpu2sy wrote
Modern clutches are made for motor breaking the motor breaking destroys you clutch is an old myth.
desertedchicken t1_ixpx7wx wrote
Back when I drove a manual, sure, engine braking was easy. But my current automatic takes a good 2-3 seconds to downshift in manual/tiptronic mode, a massive pain in the balls. So I think I'll stick to using the pedal dedicated to slowing my car down, thank you very much.
HDSpiele t1_ixq1raf wrote
Oh yea I never drove an automatic I only ever drive manuals but even so engine breaking is even more important in electric cars as they can generate a lot of electricity from engine breaking extending you millage massively but even more important is that you never fill up a electric car to the brim because if you do so engine breaking will no longer work if the battery is fully charged to avoid overcharging the battery.
Grins111 t1_ixp1pu2 wrote
You’ve ran out of car starts. Purchase more to start car.
JOrifice1 t1_ixp3y1q wrote
I see this as the eventual goal, using the mobile gaming model. You can start your vehicle once every, say, 8 hours. Or you can buy Ford Bucks and use them to start your vehicle whenever you want. They will run media campaigns around the idea that people who find themselves in trouble for not having a working vehicle due to the restrictions were "irresponsible" with their "free" start, or simply "foolish" for having a vehicle in the first place when they "obviously couldn't really afford one".
Grins111 t1_ixp41wu wrote
Yep. I seen it in games years ago and I’m seeing it creep into life. They can’t resist that delicious cash flow. Why pay once when you can get people to pay forever?
ctdca t1_ixp3jy6 wrote
The supposed benefit of a subscription-based service is that the consumer receives some type of regular improvement, new content, or maintenance. You, the consumer, are paying somebody to work on a product regularly and, as a result, get to enjoy the fruits of that labor. I might pay for a newspaper subscription to get new content (or new printings), Netflix to get new shows, or a cell plan to ensure the network is maintained (and expanded).
Breaking a feature on an already-sold product and then charging continuously to "maintain" a one-time unlock seems like something closer to... extortion.
markedbeamazed t1_ixp0kiv wrote
First subscriptions for heated seats now this bullshit. Next they will introduce a subscription fee for the ability to turn on your engine. They are just price gouging the customers. Best thing to do is boycott their cars until the price gouging stops.
HELIGROUP t1_ixp31nx wrote
Have they considered going back into car manufacturing? And make decent cars like they used to 30 years ago.
Squrkk t1_ixp41cl wrote
At what point do we start jailbreaking our cars and flashing in new open source plug-ins that unlock everything.
TSL4me t1_ixpiy8k wrote
A hacked electric car would be quick as fuck. If you are fine with draining the battery quick they can takeoff like a rocketship.
Pure_Pazaak_ t1_ixpjuaq wrote
Don't need to last long if you're going 5x escape velocity and arrive in 10 minutes.
JOrifice1 t1_ixqan9h wrote
Look into the Right To Repair movement. Farmers in the US are currently facing exactly this dilemma regarding their tractors and are fighting this through the courts for the right to fix their own stuff.
2h2o22h2o t1_ixp4x7y wrote
Some dude in Eastern Europe is gonna make a fortune off hacking this shit.
adyrip1 t1_ixpezvk wrote
I live in EE, on generic sales websites you can find dudes that can unlock any features on your BMW, Mercedes, VW, etc. All for 50-100 euros. Pay 100 euros one time and all the features are unlocked forever. Those guys are going to make a shit tone of money due to this stupid policy.
calor t1_ixoympg wrote
When the revolution comes, MBAs will be the first one against the wall lol
[deleted] t1_ixp42id wrote
[deleted]
NoEngineering5990 t1_ixp4dn8 wrote
Holy shit.
I know this is BBC...but it's satire, right? No fucking way a company would screw with a critical system such as that?
autotldr t1_ixowtx5 wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot)
> Mercedes-Benz is to offer an online subscription service in the US to make its electric cars speed up quicker.
> "Mercedes is asking you to pay for hardware it has already installed in the car - and which it presumably already made a profit margin on when you bought the car."Trying to leverage even more profit out of subscription services is a worrying trend and I hope there is a consumer backlash against it.
> The Acceleration Increase subscription is listed as "coming soon" on the US Mercedes storefront, with no exact date given for its release.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: subscription^#1 car^#2 second^#3 pay^#4 Mercedes^#5
Enjolras55 t1_ixp90n2 wrote
This is peak stupid capitalism.
>For an annual cost of $1,200 (£991) excluding tax, the company will enable some of its vehicles to accelerate from 0-60mph a second faster.
What an idiotic idea.
tcgreen67 t1_ixozdfm wrote
It's mind blowing how the public go along with the tighter and tighter control the corporatocracy have on them.
Due_Secretary_2338 t1_ixp51u4 wrote
Brakes fee coming soon
Somhlth t1_ixpdfb3 wrote
Why not just have a credit card reader in the dashboard, in case we want to turn on the wipers, heat, or air conditioning? Greedy fucking bellends.
99OBJ t1_ixozupx wrote
Orwellian
ButregenyoYavrusu t1_ixpxowi wrote
The forced Ads on the car’s display will say something like: Did you know you could have saved your uncle if you had airbags super plus enabled? Begin your 2 days trial today!
PukGrume t1_ixp9ovi wrote
Imagine your subscription getting canceled mid drive
[deleted] t1_ixp7agb wrote
DLC in cars.
Mister_Fuzzyboots t1_ixpbkp7 wrote
You wouldn`t download a car!!
E1520 t1_ixrdooo wrote
The whole product as a service model makes a car (brand) stone cold for me. That bmw and mercedes does this kind of crap is beyond me. We are no longer customers, we are money taps.
I sincerely hope that they loose a great chunk of their net profit and that brand trust takes decades to build again.
Thump604 t1_ixp3gb3 wrote
This trend sucks.
otacon7000 t1_ixp510l wrote
checks calendar
Nope, not April 1st.
Wow.
7andhalf-x-6 t1_ixp5p97 wrote
Just stop around. If you really want one of these cars there is most definitely, at least in the states, going to be aftermarket tools/software/or service stations/etc. Available to unlock any of these options.
Chaise_percee t1_ixpgw34 wrote
M-B needs to get its head out of its corporate arse. This will turn a lot of potential customers away.
Extension-Lettuce-45 t1_ixpjiqf wrote
You vill own nussing
araararagi-san t1_ixtgqpt wrote
you vill eat ze bugs
TestThePenetration t1_ixpmd09 wrote
“Please pay $49.99 subscription fee to use brakes”
Icy-Medicine-495 t1_ixp3owj wrote
I thought this was satire the first time I saw this.
any_gopher t1_ixp6cgp wrote
Holy shit.
oldnuthammer t1_ixpxaz7 wrote
It is better for the environment to keep an old vehicle running, cash for clunkers in the U.S. and the push for evs are nothing more than a mask to drive profits for these large corporations.
Everything in the future will be a subscription, because it is more profitable. Do not buy smart appliances, because soon they will be subscription based. Want to flush your toilet, use your dishwasher, take a shower, use a coffee maker or water kettle, stove or microwave....Literally everything is going to be on a subscription.
skovalen t1_ixpxcan wrote
This is not going to go well for Mercedes. Shall we start the clock at 7 days until this is no longer a thing?
ronnysteal t1_ixq5yn9 wrote
Let‘s hope a bunch of great devs group up to show Merc and the other fuckers how easy it is to overwrite their system by a custom OS. Fuck vendor locked systems… Customers should give a shit on all of those subscriptions…
darthvirgin t1_ixqky8o wrote
I actually love that luxury brands like Benz and Mercedes are doing this. Continue to tax the people who have more money than sense.
Some will argue this will trickle down to the lower end brands if consumers don’t balk, but I don’t think so. Since the more mass market brands are fairly commoditized, they largely compete on price, so it’d be a bad strategy for say, Toyota or Chevy to do this. They might try, but they’ll see a lot more pushback from potential buyers than the luxury brands would.
5leeveen t1_ixqxy8j wrote
> I actually love that luxury brands like Benz and Mercedes are doing this. Continue to tax the people who have more money than sense.
It's stupid, but it's hurting BMW and Mercedes Benz owners . . .
5leeveen t1_ixqwvez wrote
Just wait until someone is in an accident and able to argue that it could have been avoided if they had been able to accelerate out of harms' way just a little faster.
5leeveen t1_ixqyclp wrote
5 years ago I would have called the cautionary tale of Rush's Red Barchetta libertarian nonsense. But it's sounding more and more like reality.
[deleted] t1_ixp69sc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixp92x1 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixpb5bq wrote
[deleted]
1x2x4x1 t1_ixpjjl2 wrote
I will take out a loan for the Benz, and finish paying once they give me the acceleration.
Unfinished product for unfinished payment.
Kernel_Paniq t1_ixpqavw wrote
Have they ran out of ideas how to make stuff?
WomenRepulsor t1_ixpzwi1 wrote
Now Introducing *Tata Motors: A car that will outlive you"
456afisher t1_ixqedg6 wrote
Toys for the wealthy. :-(
BWWFC t1_ixqsps2 wrote
idk.... but if someone demonstrates that they cannot be trusted with x acceleration or y speed... can be downgraded. think this could be an interesting "feature." or now lets add geolocation to this... automatic school zones... or upper limits on speed for locals/roads
SpareBee3442 t1_ixsnqzx wrote
This is aimed squarely at company car drivers and/or finance buyers who will move on from the vehicle after 4 years. Personally, I like to buy and run a car for up to 10 years. I would not buy any car with any form of subscription. They are simply gouging the customer. Just say no.
[deleted] t1_ixvz9hc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy0qwr8 wrote
[removed]
remiieddit t1_ixq9b2l wrote
What’s the fuzz about. What they actually do is the same thing a tuning company would do with a chip tuning. Now you can do that directly from the manufacturer, with a click.
[deleted] t1_ixowtb7 wrote
[deleted]
gburgwardt t1_ixp3pgv wrote
Dumb, but whatever. Much more reasonable as a one time purchase than a subscription
People can always choose not to buy it.
sjebani t1_ixox72a wrote
when i read cyber punk books as a kid 20 years ago i thought that they were over the top and comically delusional in their predictions of the future!
and here we are now ...