(no title)
basfo | 6 months ago
This new approach, however, often means you need to pay to use something that has already been produced, with its functionality fully available, but locked unless you subscribe. In that case, they are not really providing a service, they’re just holding a feature hostage until you pay. That isn’t a service; it’s basically extortion. If the car were free, I could understand having to pay to unlock it. But needing a subscription just to use my own car at full capacity? That’s dystopian.
I can totally see a TV that refuses to turn on until you’ve paid Samsung, a fridge that stays locked until you cough up more money, or a toilet that only lets you flush twice a day.Unless, of course, you upgrade to premium.
wildzzz|6 months ago
Everything has a different price, it's absolutely insane how they decide it. If you want a subscription, it costs about the same for 2 years as it does to just purchase the license. But wait, do you want a permanently locked node license or a transportable license? The node locked one is a bit cheaper. Why? Because then you can't salvage your software from a broken unit and install it on a working one, silly.
They'd prefer you just subscribe to everything because then you'll pay less money than if you fully purchased a unit from a competitor.
f1shy|6 months ago
And you have paid the whole production cost.
allears|6 months ago
ricksunny|6 months ago
• (earliest I'm aware of) integrated circuit companies in the semiconductor industry typically have different versions of an IC using the same silicon but with different resistor fuses burned to lock out premium functionality.
• bikeshares are basically a hardware lockout model
• I've been in the off-grid pay-as-you-go industry (For markets like in India and sub-Saharan Africa) which is functionally dependent on the concept of locking out hardware until someone has paid for it. It would be easy to see premium subscription features slotting into this model. Without the lockout, the industry would be a tiny fraction of its current size, and would not be reaching the most struggling individuals who cannot provide for the up-front cost needed to get a product in hand in the first place.
I think what VW's doing sucks, _relative to my pre-existing norms_ and what _they and the rest of the auto industry_ ordinarily used to to offer. But I can see an industry being enabled by the same behavior too. These opportunities are obviously rife with the potential for abuse & dystopian consequences. It would be really nice if a set of norms was drawn up that many could ratify so that companies & brands could be held accountable to a certain code of behavior. 'this is allowed', 'that is not allowed' type of thing. I don't want the future to be a Cory Doctorow novel.
userbinator|6 months ago
At that point, is it really "your" car?
As the dystopian slogan says: "You will own nothing, and be happy."
basfo|6 months ago