It is way cheaper. two assembly lines to assmebly 2 packs, separate work orders, specific assembly per model ordered ( so customet doesn’t pay for low end amd accidentally get highend or vice versa ), CAD and data management of two variations. It is why ModelT only came in black, is streamlines the whole process. You see much simpler examples in other induatries ie. that use stock material. it is cheaper to stock say 3 foot precut lengths and if product only needs 2 feet you chop it off at assembly and throw away the 1 foot scrap, rather than stocking and inventorying 2 foot and 3 foot stocks. Unless you invest in an expensive atock feeder that cuts the stock to length typed in, but that machine isn’t mobile so neesa to be placed at the exact location of assembly. And if you need it two places you need two stock machines, so then you start weighing the crude method vs precise
Comment on Elon Musk reveals Tesla software-locked cheapest Model Y, offers 40-60 more miles of range
someguy3@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
How the fuck is it cheaper to software lock than to assemble a smaller battery? Like aren’t the batteries expensive? You just put in fewer cells for a smaller battery.
BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 week ago
And don’t forget about the local lots where you’re keeping the manufactured cars. If you’ve ever purchased a new car, you know how annoying it is to get car with the color, engine, drivetrain, and cabin options you want.
If there are lots of variations of a vehicle platform, then dealers and stores will use often their space to stock a little of everything, or maybe a lot of the popular config and next to none of some other configs.
Less variation means dealers and stores are not shipping inventory around as much, and they have more stuff on hand for impulse purchases.
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Making variants of things is expensive. You have to keep more inventory on hand for the manufacturing components and the final manufactured vehicles. You also have to spend time / energy / space in the plant for variants of things.
And for final point of sale, if you don’t have enough final inventory in one area, you’re forced to spend a shitload of money shipping inventory across country to fill gaps.
It’s a pretty common problem in product development. This is why Henry Ford was so revolutionary. Variation of components increases a ton of manufacturing and logistics costs.
That said, Telsa should’ve just sold the car at one fair price and not software locked this. This was shady AF.
SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Multiple variations means multiple factory configurations. Unless you’re selling a lot of cars it may not be worth the cost of having those production line changes.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
If its cheaper to sell the same model, then the more expensive model is overpriced.
ch00f@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It’s possible that these vehicles are already built and Tesla needs a way to entice budget conscious buyers to clear out their inventory.
surfrock66@lemmy.world 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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”.
deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Pretty sure BMW ditched the subscription seats plan in the US due to pissing off car shoppers.
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 week 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.
Wrench@lemmy.world 1 week ago
While I agree, I think that basic business model is pretty much ubiquitous across consumer goods.
Entry level product doesn’t cost much less to produce than their deluxe model, but they crank the profit margin to the roof for the deluxe version.
Yeah, these are software gated, but it’s essentially the same idea, just more infuriating because you already paid for the hardware that’s fully capable either way.
MrVilliam@lemmy.world 1 week 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 1 week ago
People sure have, but then your warranty is void. And with a Tesla, you’re probably going to wish you had that warranty one day.
Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 week 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.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Then decrease the cost. Nerfing the battery benefits nobody. Make maximum charge level a user controlled setting and you’ve gained any benefits you’ve mentioned in this thread (faster charging due to lower capacity, less wear) without fucking the consumer over.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Wouldn’t lowering the total battery capacity mean that there is less wear on the battery because it charges less full? Surely they can’t cut off a physical part of the actual battery in sofware.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
That’s correct, but you could do this just as easily by allowing the user to toggle a “battery endurance” charge that stops at 80-90%. My friends GM EV does this, she uses it during the work week as a full charge isn’t necessary for commuting needs.
Usernameblankface@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If that’s all it is, then simply charge less without making any changes.