Comment on The New Audi A3 Is Amess With In-Car Subscriptions
IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 8 months agoBecause this thread is an echo chamber. I know pointing out the target use case is very problematic and odd.
Comment on The New Audi A3 Is Amess With In-Car Subscriptions
IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 8 months agoBecause this thread is an echo chamber. I know pointing out the target use case is very problematic and odd.
misterdoctor@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I’m not even saying you’re wrong necessarily, but it’s just very weird behavior to take this aggressive of a pro-corporate stance on something I think everyone should agree is a shitty, unnecessary practice. Regardless of the use case, locking features behind a paywall is always a shitty thing for a multibillion dollar company to do.
IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 8 months ago
People like the option. It’s not weird at all to believe that having different options for owning, leading, and renting allows more access to the vehicle and products.
GiveMemes@jlai.lu 8 months ago
People like the option to have already installed equipment just not work if they don’t pay the subscription? Like the car already has the features and the company is saying “we included this equipment in the price of your lease/purchase already but if you’d like to use it you have to keep paying more.”
Even in the case of a lease, this is just anti-consumer bullshit
IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 8 months ago
With BMW and Toyota it was cheaper to sub for 3 years than purchase outright. Yes, that’s an attractive option.
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
A leased car with those options 5 years ago didn’t cost you a subscription, and now they will. You want the option to what? Pay more for something that you didn’t have to before?
IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Again, on both the Toyota and BMW, it was less expensive than purchasing the options. You did pay for them before. They were never free.