It was true. The heating wires in the seats were already installed and the consumer paid for them and owned them.
I remember in the olden days some compiler vendors added a fee to "unlock" floating point code support. That was never popular (I never did such with my compilers.)
1. Those who purchase the heated seats cover the cost of all of these heating wires. So they are paying much more than the raw cost (but presumably less than if their cars needed a separate / modified production line).
2. The manufacturer is paying these costs as a "marketing fee" hoping that they will recoup their investment (and more) when people pay for this feature.
I agree that this model feels wrong but after thinking about it I have convinced myself that this can be a good thing. It allows those who what the feature to pay for it, without removing the option for a cheaper model for those who don't want or can't afford the feature.
I wrote a blog post about this a while back: https://kevincox.ca/2023/05/14/ethics-of-locked-hardware/
If the hardware to perform the capability is in the machine I bought, it belongs to me. I paid for it. I don't care if you discounted the price below your cost to produce, I gave you the money and you gave me the thing, its mine. No amount of legalese will change that, it is a simple fact of life. I'm paying for the gas to lug the hardware around with me everywhere I go. The hardware itself does not require software to function, you need a heating element and a switch, you can't even make the argument that you're paying for a license to the software without which the feature will not work. Even if a device does genuinely need software to work, unless the hardware can be used for other things and someone can purchase or create competing software for the thing, again, the hardware is mine and you don't get to tell me what to do with it. It's less like purchasing Windows for your computer and more like purchasing firmware for the proprietary WiFi card you just bought.
Those who want the feature can pay for the hardware. Make a car without it. If it's in my car and I didn't steal it it's mine, period. Even if they decide to put them in every car and charge me a one time fee to turn it on and even make that transferrable with the car I don't care, you can't gimp my property and sell it back to me, how is that different than ransomware? Make a car without it or charge for it for all cars it's in. It is that simple.
Off topic, we talk about e waste and what not but then we justify this form of waste by saying it reduces cost by streamlining manufacturing. This is bullshit. If it reduces costs then make it a standard feature. Why don't they? Because it doesn't reduce cost. It increases cost for every item manufactured and that cost is recouped by the subscription fee. In other words, they do it because it is profitable. And it's profitable not because it reduces cost, but because people have to pay a recurring fee to use the thing forever, and because it's valueless on the secondary market, you can't even pull one at a junkyard. If they charged a one time transferrable fee to turn it on I doubt they'd be saying it reduces cost, because it doesn't. But some people fall for this hand waving, and as a result thousands, possibly millions of cars are out there with device in them that are going for two hundred thousand mile ride right to a landfill, brand new and out of the box.
The entire point of amortizing the upfront costs is to keep the consumers hooked by charging a smaller recurring amount that stings less but certainly adds up to a bigger amount than the original upfront costs.
Besides, why would a company go through the added hassle of creating and managing a subscription model and risk pissing off customers through this nickeling-and-diming if not for more profits?
I am sure that there is still some silver lining to this scenario (e.g. I live in hot climate and don't need heated seats), but I fail to see any that apply to a broad number of consumers.
When you eliminate that line and recognize that you've been charged for hardware you're not using, it feels wrong to many. I doubt many people realize any feature limiting in something as obscure as a CPU.
BMW and AWS ran a quantum computing challenge two years ago. One of the tasks was to figure out all the combinations of features that need to be tested (sometimes destructively) [1].
I would imagine that having features installed in all vehicles provides a less taxing testing regime than having a physical option.
And in addition, it will be cheaper to just manufacture one version of a thing (and then switch in software).
[1] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/quantum-computing/winners-annou...
Curious to learn the underlying economics, but not sure how software-locking features would make testing any easier. While different configurations would create somewhat unique feature-sets, not having to test some features on a certain percentage of vehicles (I imagine a testing technician looking at the missing buttons and writing down "N/A") seems more efficient than having to test every feature on every vehicle in an attempt to oversimplify.
However, no consumer is actually going to believe that and they're just going to assume they'd paid for something they don't get value from without having to pay more.
Wow. They still don’t get it
That's some serious gaslighting.
Maybe an argument can be made that the contract is deceptive, or so long and detailed that it amounts to a DoS on the potential buyer. I think those are important topics that deserve a lot more scrutiny and weight in the courtroom than they get. But that's a different topic.
Devil's advocate: how would you know if BMW subsidized what would have been an add-on package?
People paid double. They did get it. Even before they tried.
"People realised they were paying double. So that is the reason we stopped"
[0] https://www.thedrive.com/tech/41678/full-rear-wheel-steering...
One such risk is china. German carmakers desperately need new markets and china is one of them. But germany and the eu cant bully china and they will want access to european markets in return. And what i am reading and hearing is that chinese ev carmakers are rather competitive.
There’s “declining quality,” and then there’s “the roof melts.” I wouldn’t consider buying a bmw for a long, long time.
My porsche 981 had the roof peel off, and the door panels gradually ungluing. More worrying they made a recall on my model, whereby the rear axel can crack in certain circumstances, years after issuing the same recall for US customers.
BMW owners of certain models have told me about timing chains snapping, or differentials breaking.
Not buying any of these brands again, ever. Chose an american brand instead, part due to quality, part due to politics. Couldnt be happier. At least i dont need to pay thousands just be able to play music or stream my maps. Even if it breaks down i’s still have saved money so i can fix it.
This i think is relevant to this forum because it underlines a fundamental issue with a country who’s economy is largely reliant on manufacturing quality goods. That quality seems to decline rather fast, and it will have serious impact over european affairs in my view. First warning sign was cheating on emissions. Second warning was desperate attempts at charging owners monthly fees. Now it’s clear there’s something rotten in germany.
-their attempts at lowering fleet emissions is to just drop trucks and make all their cars use a series of efficient engines but not actually adopt EVs seriously until way down the line. This meets the goal(others get to the same number by selling gas guzzlers + compliance EVs) but is really against the grain.
Other times this old school mentality is good.
-insisting on not using touch screens so drivers dont get frustrated and can focus on the road
-sticking with traditional transmission instead of those god awful CVTs
-probably not adopting the infrastructure to make mass surveillance in their cars possible (or so I guess).
It's our job to be whiny assholes about it.
They could’ve just taken a page from Audi’s playbook and made heated seats standard. No subscription bs.
Grandparents often would not believe the headline, and that's understandable. However, they would also sneer at such a sneaky idea as what BMW brought to the table. They're at peak marketing if they actually believed whatever professional advice led to charging for heated seats in a supposedly "luxury" brand vehicle. Wow
Lol. Porsche takes this to a whole other level in my experience.
* $31.6k + 8% tax. Couldn't fit into a used one, so had to order it new deleting the sunroof.
I expect a luxury vehicle (that I can fit into) to have both heated and cooling seats because it's damn hot here.
One problem with too many features is they add complexity and they break. Only add features that are essential because most are a rent-seeking ripoff. Preferably, a low mileage used vehicle that's periodically but barely driven by a retired elderly person is best.
Admittedly they fitted a Blaupunkt (when that was a luxury brand), but still …
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.
To me this isn't nuanced at all. It's my fucking car, get out of here with this rent-seeking DLC shit.
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.
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.
"Nice BMW you got, what's the monthly rent?"
Subaru sells first-party remote start units which operate this way. They also have a subscription service that offers remote start, but make no mistake: if your carmaker ONLY allows remote start with a subscription and won't install a standalone unit, you are being had.
I was surprised, though, that it would "upgrade" my phone to apps that wouldn't work anymore and didn't bother to say it wouldn't work.
Bought a new phone, transferred my setup over, and they started working again.
Step two: Charge subscription fee to get paid to finish developing product
Step three: Add useless features and do confusing redesigns to justify subscriptions
Step four: "Subscriptions are necessary to cover ongoing costs"
What's the principle here? That because it already exists, consumers don't have to pay for it? How far can we stretch this? Suppose there's a streaming service (eg. netflix or spotify) that supports downloads, does that it's "anti-consumer" to deny them access to the audio/video files because it's already on their device, and the cost to produce it has already been paid for?
Moreover, is there anything fundamentally different between paying $2000 (one time) for a heated seat upgrade, and $200/year for 10 years (or whatever the expected life of a car is)?
Compare to a "land grab" or "rent-seeking" behavior. Also compare to "financing". It may be economically efficient to establish bargaining over the value but it matters asymmetrically to the parties to the transaction who is assigned property rights and who is renting.
Yes, it’s extremely different. You own it vs you lease it.
Opinions my own. EDIT: typo.
Chances are nobody would care, but just buy what peer pressure tells them to buy.
Those are, and have been legally required, for several years in Canada because cars have gotten so big, and visibility so bad, people kept hitting (typically their own) toddlers.
This sits in the same realm as adblockers for a browser.
> Is it even possible?
the car maker might be able to make this impossible, but last i heard, people have done it. Unfortunately, due to a lot of cars being software, the manufacturer could detect and cause headaches for you, in an attempt to discourage it.
I reckon there ought to be laws, akin to the right to repair laws, that ensures you truly own your car and the manufacturer cannot lock you out.
Authorities care. Yes it's your property and you can do whatever you want with it. The question is whether you're allowed to operate the vehicle on public roads afterwards. Cars go through thorough certification processes (homologation) and that includes software.
Can you prove that your change does not negatively affect a certification-relevant function?
They still have eg footwell lights that are physically there, but not available for activation in the RWD version (LR and P only). They might just flash on during a software upgrade, never to be seen again!
It makes sense that automakers want to segment features at the lowest possible cost, but the acceptance of something as basic as seat warmers being a subscription service on a premium car is probably lower than for advanced autopilot stuff.
This is beyond stupid.
Is it completely understandable though? Maybe I'm an old man shouting at clouds, but I remember when the concept of a software subscription was itself seen as an unseemly money-grab.
If they were, its an interesting proposition...the heated seats are there but behind a paywall...I would say the long term economics of it probably don't favor the consumer given that BMW is doing this to make more money.
Using MyQ through their own app is free. If anything that seems like a deal to not have to pay subscription.
I'll forgive you if you weren't already aware that Chamberlain traded to a new PE firm shortly before all of this nonsense began to be introduced. IMO The only reason that the product remains subscription-free in any capacity is because that toothpaste had already been squeezed. I assure you, they see a future in subscribing to your garage door, and if you think otherwise, woe to you.
That's not how this works. Everyone who buys the car is paying for the feature equally. All of the cost of the R&D, the materials, the labor to build the feature in your car, that's all in the price you pay to buy the car. The subscription is entirely an additional cost to use the feature you've paid for. Mercedes are not discounting the car for everyone and then making the discount back from subscriptions. They're nerfing the car and then charging people to unnerf it.
BMW has really lost their way.
I don’t know that heated seats is a hill I would personally die on, but I’m just glad that pushback is taking place so manufacturers get the message that there are limits to what they can gate behind a paywall.
That is some real stockholm syndrome mentality there my friend. It is now 100% free, as it always should have been.
The "hack" to enable it is a cable and a switch. No digital rights management can prevent that.
