[TomVDB]

My Model Y has a $2000 in-app purchase option to increase acceleration by something like 0.5s.

It’s not a subscription, but the idea is the same.

It doesn’t bother me one bit: I bought the car knowing full well that it wasn’t included, I don’t need it (the standard acceleration is already more than I ever had before), end of story.

Car engines have been under the control of software for decades now, with different products differing by the program. The only difference here is that there’s now the option to change the program over the air.

Nobody would have complained if Mercedes had offered 2 versions without the option to upgrade.

[kadoban]

My biggest issue with this kind of thing is resale. This kills resale value, because the company is going to be leeching a lot of that value with every transfer. They're not going to make the unlocks transferrable.

[dahart]

> This kills resale value

Are you sure? I personally don’t like the subscription model for car features, but look at it this way: it means there will be more cars in the second-hand market that are capable of faster acceleration or seat-heating or whatever else is pay-walled. It means that people can pay for a lower model car, and then someone else can buy it and “upgrade” to the higher model. I don’t know or have evidence that this will help resale value, but it seems at least logically plausible that it could help resale by giving downstream purchasers more options than they might have otherwise. You’re right, it’s still true that the auto-maker is leeching some of the value with every transfer, and that unlocks won’t transfer, but I’m not sure that will hurt resale.

[zhdc1]

I’m not that worried. Monthly subscriptions work mainly because they’re impulse buys.

The mental impact of paying three-four figures a year for a subscription is different from a 3.99 app store payment.

This will benefit some folks. I imagine that most people will simply pass, the same way they’ve been passing on all of the other non-Tesla car subscription/remote upgrade offers.

[thisiscorrect]

> The only difference here is that there’s now the option to change the program over the air.

The mutability is the part that bothers me. Remotely disabling features and the option to hike prices for monthly subscriptions to have functionality in the car serve to erode the concept of ownership. I'm not a Tesla owner but I believe they also allow paid upgrades that neither stick with the owner nor with the car during a sale. How is that not exploitative?

[TomVDB]

It’s exploitative if it is not sticky and isn’t clearly communicated. But it’s not relevant for the Mercedes case where it’s very clear that it’s a subscription.

For my personal case, it still doesn’t matter, of course.

[natch]

My understanding is that Tesla upgrades do stick with the car. Not that they help the resale price much but at least the value does pass on.

[SirSourdough]

I wouldn’t complain if it was a one-time purchase. Different spec levels have always cost different amounts for basically every product.

But what ongoing value do I get for my subscription? Will I get free acceleration upgrades over time because they keep improving the software? Free brake light DLCs that show how hard I’m accelerating? It’s great I can upgrade OTA but what about that means I need to pay over and over?

Acceleration is not a service- there’s no ongoing cost to deliver it to owners and there’s no increase in value to the owner over time to compensate for the ever increasing cost. That’s why I think the subscription model is much more exploitative.

[TomVDB]

A subscription model where you know the exact terms is less exploitative than a fixed cost where it’s not even clear if the upgrade is sticky or not (as is currently the case for Tesla.)

I don’t get the “it’s not a service” argument. It’s not relevant. There’s no ongoing cost with many software licenses either. It’s just a business model.

[josephcsible]

> Nobody would have complained if Mercedes had offered 2 versions without the option to upgrade.

If I found out the cheaper car were the same as the more expensive one except for a software anti-feature locking something out, I'd still be upset.