> People feel that they paid double – which was actually not true, but perception is reality
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.)
Money and prices are fungible so it isn't really possible to prove anything. But there are two very reasonable ways to look at it.
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.
It's not like there's no precedent, almost any significantly complex analog design will include a bunch of hardware that is disabled on the customer chip even if it's there, commonly GPUs and CPUs. There's more gadgets like this where it's cheaper to produce the same thing for everyone but price them differently.
I also wouldn’t pay for this. But the economics are more interesting.
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).
I'm sure BMW could make a case where between 1) not needing to manufacture non-heated seats anymore improves manufacturing efficiencies and costs and 2) the people paying for the subscription brings in enough revenue that BMW can sell the car for the same price as it was without the heated seat hardware.
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.
"We thought that we would provide an extra service to the customer by offering the chance to activate that later, but the user acceptance isn’t that high. People feel that they paid double, which was actually not true, but perception is reality, I always say. So that was the reason we stopped that," Nota told Autocar.
Meanwhile, Mercedes is still charging for full rear wheel steering in Europe after electronically nerfing cars [0] despite shipping the cars with hardware fully capable.
BMW in particular, and german carmakers as a whole are in for a rough decade. Declining quality and increasing competition will pose the kind of risks not even eu protectionism can shield them from.
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.
I am adjacent to a Mini (bmw manufactured) owner who reported a leaky sunroof to the dealer. Dealer examined the roof and concluded that “the frame has melted and warped” and accordingly the sunroof will always leak. Cost to repair: five thousand dollars.
There’s “declining quality,” and then there’s “the roof melts.” I wouldn’t consider buying a bmw for a long, long time.
Oh no, they're absolutely not. The lobbyists stand ready and the government will continue shoveling money in the general direction of the holy cow. I'd find it funny if it wasn't so sad.
After the revelations about carmaker privacy concerns[0], it seems that having options from privacy-conscious Germany is necessary for the market. BMW was one of the better ones (admittedly in a sea of quite-bad), according to Mozilla's read of the legalese.
This is the industry pushing to see what it can get away with. It does this with new things. There's always a drive to increase alienation. It's as natural as the wind.
> Rather, the luxury automaker wanted to streamline production and reduce costs there by physically installing heated seats in every single car, since 90% of all BMWs are bought with seat heaters anyway.
They could’ve just taken a page from Audi’s playbook and made heated seats standard. No subscription bs.
It was actually a little more nuanced — they offered a one-time purchase (at a normal-ish price), or the option to purchase via subscription. I have no problem with this arrangement, which literally offers consumers more choices. The concerns I would have are (1) that the one-time pricing would gradually creep up, so that in a few years it becomes untenable, or (2) that when you sell the car, the heated seats would be deactivated. We'll never know if (1) would have happened, and I wasn't ever able to figure out if (2) was the case.
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.
One wonders why the automaker's can't just charge a reasonable monthly fee for 1. tracking where you left your car parked, and 2. remote-locking your car. I would vastly prefer that to playing games with our data, or trying all these gimmicks like charging for extra acceleration.
What they really need to do is charge by the minute. No one wants to pay for heated seats in the summer. And why should someone pay for the option of heating when the car is parked? Or for the passenger seats when no one is using them. Instead they should have surge pricing for when the outside temperature falls below freezing, and the colder it gets, the higher the rate you pay. Maybe it starts at $0.10/minute but climbs to $1/min when it get down to -40 °C/°F. What could be a better marker of high social status than that?
Probably a good idea, I pretty much eliminated them from the list of possibilities when shopping for a car this year because of this. I’m just one data point but I’m pretty sure im not the only lost sale.
I’m curious about GM and their decision to stop supporting CarPlay. I probably was never going to buy a GM anyway, but CarPlay support is a must-have for me.
But only the people with substantial disposable income to throw around (e.g. BMW buyers) are able to actually effect change in response to their displeasure. Normal people just have to suffer.
The right way to sell subscriptions is for services that actually incur ongoing costs for the company. Charging a subscription for hardware and software already built into the car, and not dependent on any external servers or anything is just plain anti-consumer. There are plenty of services BMW can charge for that people will happily pay, like remote start, remote monitoring etc.
Not remote start. Plenty of remote start units are standalone, install into the vehicle and operate offline using their own dedicated fobs.
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.
Even a case can be made for not charging for software maintenance and upgrades since the customer has already paid for that cost while buying the device (or just include it in the device cost). Take Apple as an example. Software upgrades are free. It actually works in their benefit to give free software since they don't need to be backwards compatible for decade(s). Charging for actual recurring fee services like data makes sense though.
>Charging a subscription for hardware and software already built into the car, and not dependent on any external servers or anything is just plain anti-consumer.
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)?
Imagine a car manufacturer sold a car which was just a normal car. It didn't spy on you, it didn't rely on subscription for built in functionality, if you wanted something non-standard (say parking cameras or fancy paint color whatever) you paid for them upfront for a one off $x fee.
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.
I dont know about whether it is illegal, but it ought not ever be illegal to hack and change your own vehicle, except for changing things like the engine number and the odometer (i.e., legal requirements from the state).
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.
I think Tesla also had heated rear seats in the Model 3 as a software unlock, then they went nah just make it standard?
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.
> "Going forward, BMW says it will continue to offer subscription-based services but only for software options, ... which is completely understandable."
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.
You wouldn't have been obligated, they were also going to offer it as a 1 time payment for the same price they've always charged for heated seats. But, the subscription option is the only thing that ever made the news.
This is assuming that the feature set of the car is free, and then you unlock features as you subscribe to them. I could be wrong, but BMW is probably not selling you the heated seats model at the same price as the base model(again, could be wrong here)!
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.
Is that a thing? They used to be called suicide knobs because people’s clothes would get caught on them and crash the car, I thought they outlawed them in the 60s or 70s.
I don't understand the big deal, I look at the price and features and see if it makes sense for me. Nothing wrong with market segmentation. Some people want a fancy brand car as a checkbox but can only pay so much, for others a little extra is no big deal. The only way to find out who is who is offer different packages for different price, even if the differences are more economically controlled by software. Would anyone really prefer not being able to afford a luxury brand at all, or paying more than they are comfortable with? This way, wealthy consumers effectively subsidize hardware for less wealthy consumers.
This way, wealthy consumers effectively subsidize hardware for less wealthy consumers.
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.
I think it would be different if heated seats had never existed before now. The fact that they are relatively standard in modern cars of a certain price range, and there are many other manufacturers who don’t charge a subscription for them, made this feel like people were having something taken away from them.
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.
WalterBright|2 years ago
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.)
kevincox|2 years ago
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/
vasco|2 years ago
ano-ther|2 years ago
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...
ssharp|2 years ago
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.
hnthrowaway0328|2 years ago
jinushaun|2 years ago
Wow. They still don’t get it
angarg12|2 years ago
That's some serious gaslighting.
starbugs|2 years ago
People paid double. They did get it. Even before they tried.
nottheengineer|2 years ago
ghusto|2 years ago
"People realised they were paying double. So that is the reason we stopped"
ommz|2 years ago
[0] https://www.thedrive.com/tech/41678/full-rear-wheel-steering...
ohyes|2 years ago
gumballindie|2 years ago
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.
singleshot_|2 years ago
There’s “declining quality,” and then there’s “the roof melts.” I wouldn’t consider buying a bmw for a long, long time.
wink|2 years ago
lambdasquirrel|2 years ago
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37404413
kristopolous|2 years ago
It's our job to be whiny assholes about it.
ChoHag|2 years ago
[deleted]
anon373839|2 years ago
They could’ve just taken a page from Audi’s playbook and made heated seats standard. No subscription bs.
raincole|2 years ago
seydor|2 years ago
gnicholas|2 years ago
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.
lambdasquirrel|2 years ago
floxy|2 years ago
TrueGeek|2 years ago
bshep|2 years ago
criddell|2 years ago
bonestamp2|2 years ago
rgrieselhuber|2 years ago
RF_Savage|2 years ago
"Nice BMW you got, what's the monthly rent?"
nerdponx|2 years ago
perryizgr8|2 years ago
branon|2 years ago
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.
thumbsup-_-|2 years ago
Workaccount2|2 years ago
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"
gruez|2 years ago
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)?
ta1243|2 years ago
Chances are nobody would care, but just buy what peer pressure tells them to buy.
29083011397778|2 years ago
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.
injidup|2 years ago
chii|2 years ago
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.
noman-land|2 years ago
bagels|2 years ago
dazc|2 years ago
dirtyid|2 years ago
sundvor|2 years ago
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.
olgeni|2 years ago
This is beyond stupid.
backtoyoujim|2 years ago
neonate|2 years ago
archo|2 years ago
rendall|2 years ago
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.
Etrnl_President|2 years ago
Flatcircle|2 years ago
bonestamp2|2 years ago
mym1990|2 years ago
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.
gorkish|2 years ago
cs0|2 years ago
stronglikedan|2 years ago
Gelob|2 years ago
user3939382|2 years ago
OnionBlender|2 years ago
cat_plus_plus|2 years ago
onion2k|2 years ago
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.
ShrigmaMale|2 years ago
qwerty456127|2 years ago
jdjdjdjdjduuuu|2 years ago
_ea1k|2 years ago
BMW has really lost their way.
dabinat|2 years ago
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.
kinngh|2 years ago
MuffinFlavored|2 years ago
nickthegreek|2 years ago
That is some real stockholm syndrome mentality there my friend. It is now 100% free, as it always should have been.
nlunbeck|2 years ago
bonestamp2|2 years ago
rcarmo|2 years ago
sdfghswe|2 years ago
Etrnl_President|2 years ago
coinbase88|2 years ago
riffic|2 years ago
sonorous_sub|2 years ago
[deleted]