• surfrock66@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    7 months ago

    That is insane. If it costs the same to make, then lower range isn’t a reasonable area to pitch a lower cost vehicle. Wanting to lower the cost is fine. Putting in cheaper/smaller components to get there is fine. If you are using the same components and just software locking them to nickle and dime the users later, that’s anti-consumer and should not be tolerated. I can’t believe how people look at micro-transactions in games and think “wouldn’t this be cool with IRL stuff?”

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 months ago

      No different than BMW having heated seats but if you want to use them you have to unlock with subscription plan. This way BMW makes one model and consumer has a choice with paymwnt. Intel CPUs have this too now. Company running servers can buy low performing chip, if they want to expand capability then intel sells them a license code to unlock more performance

      • Guntrigger@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        7 months ago

        They’re pushing the limits of this simulation to see how much bullshit we can tolerate. Turns out it’s a LOT.

      • surfrock66@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        If people are ok with that then I guess it will stand, but it’s insane and anti-consumer in my book. A product costs what it costs, based on supply and demand, and if you can’t afford it you don’t buy it. This flimsy premise of “It lowers the bar to entry so users can upgrade later without having to replace!” will never come to fruition, and it’s too slippery of a slope to “put in a quarter to turn on your A/C”.

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          Oh I hate it. Like Toyota was offering remote car start but only if you subscribed online, otherwise your remote start button would get blocked by software. They walked it back because of consumer backlash, but not enough consumers complain. Meanwhile Ford pattented a drive home feature so if you miss a car payment it cripples your car, and further non payment the vehicle will drive itself back to the dealership

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Imagine telling this to a time traveler from the 20th Century. “You have self-driving cars?” “Yeah, how else will they get back to the dealership when you miss a payment?” LOL fuck this timeline.

          • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Toyota was offering remote car start but only if you subscribed online

            That’s different - it relies on having an active cellular connection in the car and older cell towers (5G has improved this dramatically) could only handle a hundred or so active connections at once, so Toyota is absolutely paying a monthly fee to access the cell network. It makes sense to pass that on to the customers who wish to use the feature.

            Those fees have gone down, since not only is 5G much cheaper per customer (for the cell network), everyone switching to 5G has taken the pressure off older wireless protocols so they’re almost never crowded anymore - so they can pretty much have as many cars connected as they want for near zero cost.

            • BCsven@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              There is no need for access to a cell signal amd a server though, when you wamt to clicl start.from your living room… You can use the same fob tech as lock umlock your car like cars had prior. Or. you can buy after market remote start kits, Toyota waa juat frying to jump on the SaaS bandwagon

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        Pretty sure BMW ditched the subscription seats plan in the US due to pissing off car shoppers.

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          They may have, Toyota ditched their “subscribe monthly to remote start your car” after outrage

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’re giving more examples of things that aren’t ok. People should have full control over the software on the products they buy, if they did trying to software-lock anything wouldn’t work.

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Oh I know, its absolute shit. My only point was Tesla doing it is not new, it’s how manufacturers have saved costs on making muliple product configurations.

    • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Has anybody jail broken these things yet? It can’t be that hard to do, but I’m not tech savvy enough to know where to begin. There has to be a way to circumvent that lock and still be able to manually grab software updates that the user deems necessary (e.g. recalls). Would it be legal? Idk, if I buy a battery, I think I have the right to use the battery. If I buy a seat warmer, I think I have the right to use the seat warmer. If it’s part of the car I bought, I don’t see why I wouldn’t be allowed to use it. Otherwise, what the fuck does ownership even mean?

      • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        It can be unlocked, and AFAIK doing so is perfectly legal, but then your warranty is void. And with a Tesla, you’re probably going to wish you had that warranty one day.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          and AFAIK doing so is perfectly legal,

          https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf

          cracking the DRM is authorized for consumers and shops for the purposes of “diagnosis, maintenance, or repair.” Not because you don’t like that they locked a feature.

          but then your warranty is void

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act

          They have to prove that what you changed/did to the car directly caused the damage you’re asking for a repair on. If you root the car (while technically illegal) and go in for a warranty repair on the accelerator pedal… They can’t deny the warranty.

          And with a Tesla, you’re probably going to wish you had that warranty one day.

          Only because they seem to make it impossible to get a hold of parts… Even their own shops have issues getting parts (multi-month wait times).

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      These are the guys that programmed their trucks’ front trunk to slam harder each time it detects something is in the way. The Smart left this place ages ago.