Comment on Hyundai car requires $2000, app & internet access to fix your brakes - what the actual f
PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 9 hours agoThe best (worst) example I’ve seen in recent memory has been seat warmers. BMW and other manufacturers tried forcing a subscription on people just to use the seat warmers that are (1) already present in the car, (2) already wired up with buttons in place, and (3) cause no additional outlay of effort on the part of the manufacturer once they’re installed. There’s no valid reason to charge a subscription for something like that beyond straight greed.
sqgl@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
It is like having a grandstand at a football stadium which costs extra to use. Do you resent that?
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
You don’t own the stadium, and you don’t own the satellite. So they’re really not the same as a car, which you do (nominally) own.
x00z@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Satellite TV is a service that requires constant upkeep by the companies which costs money.
And your football stadium is a bad analogy.
shiftymccool@piefed.ca 8 hours ago
I resent that the cost to the car company to install seat warmers is the actual installation of the seat warmers. Running them costs ME money in electricity generated by gasoline I bought. It costs them nothing to run them but i have to pay a subscription to use them on top of paying to power them?
The football grandstand continues to cost the owners in maintenance and space that they own. You pay for the privilege of using something that is not yours. I bought my car, I shouldn’t have to continue to pay for the privilege of using something I already own since the equipment is already there and doesn’t require any interaction with a remote service that would make sense to charge for (navigation, satellite radio, etc…)
sqgl@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
OK I accept the analogies are not good equivalents.
It is not necessarily true that everyone has already paid for the seat warmer hardware. The car may cost the same as if it didn’t have the hardware installed.
The manufacturer may find it cheaper to just install it for everyone and wear the cost in the hope that enough people will pay for the warmer to be enabled.
Of course it is possible that everyone pays for the hardware anyhow but it is not necessarily the case.
architect@thelemmy.club 14 minutes ago
I don’t see how you could possibly think it’s okay to sell something to someone while telling them oh but technically you didn’t buy everything inside it, that’s an extra fee.
Come on you can’t be so broken you can’t see a clear scam right in front of you.
It should be illegal and if any of our institutions had teeth it would be.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com 6 hours ago
If you buy an object, you pay for all the components that come with that object. If they didn’t charge for all the components that’s on them. As others have said, heating elements don’t require any continued support from the manufacturer. It’s a button and some wires and a control module. Should they be charging for window defrosters too? There is literally 0 explanation for this that isn’t corporate greed.
pogmommy@lemmy.ml 5 hours ago
This is such a weird hill to die on for someone who claims to be pro-consumer
athairmor@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
It is necessarily the case. No company incurs the cost of making something, delivers it and then just hopes that someone pays for it. You literally can’t do business that way.