this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
477 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
70249 readers
4012 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because this thread is an echo chamber. I know pointing out the target use case is very problematic and odd. I'll be quite and you all can continue to ignore that a fifth of buyers rent the entire vehicle for 3 years and haven't been doing it for 50.
I’m not even saying you’re wrong necessarily, but it’s just very weird behavior to take this aggressive of a pro-corporate stance on something I think everyone should agree is a shitty, unnecessary practice. Regardless of the use case, locking features behind a paywall is always a shitty thing for a multibillion dollar company to do.
People like the option. It's not weird at all to believe that having different options for owning, leading, and renting allows more access to the vehicle and products. The original comment is about limiting how I pay for a car. Leasing+ subscription works for many customers.
People like the option to have already installed equipment just not work if they don't pay the subscription? Like the car already has the features and the company is saying "we included this equipment in the price of your lease/purchase already but if you'd like to use it you have to keep paying more."
Even in the case of a lease, this is just anti-consumer bullshit
With BMW and Toyota it was cheaper to sub for 3 years than purchase outright. Yes, that's an attractive option.
That's not what I said. Good strawman/whataboutism combo, but try harder.
A leased car with those options 5 years ago didn’t cost you a subscription, and now they will. You want the option to what? Pay more for something that you didn’t have to before?
Again, on both the Toyota and BMW, it was less expensive than purchasing the options. You did pay for them before. They were never free.
Not true. Just think about what you’re saying for five seconds and you’ll realize how absurd it is. If you buy a BMW or a Toyota that has an available heated seat subscription for example, whether you pay for it or not, they installed the heated seats. it doesn’t cost BMW or Toyota a cent for you to use your heated seats, it costs them to install them. You really think that you haven’t already paid for those heated seats that they’ve already installed in the car? are you seriously suggesting that these companies are going to to sell you these cars with heated seats in them without charging you for them? That if you choose not to pay for the heated seats, they’re just going to eat that cost? Get real.
It is far cheaper to produce a single trim with most of the features. Customization costs money. There is a reason Porsches are expensive.
Multiple seat types is literally buildings and lines they need to construct. It's a similar scales of economy concept like binning chips. Instead of multiple lines.
Even if that were true, that still means that everyone is paying for that one single trim, including all the optional features in it. By paying for the subscription, you’re just paying more money, not less.