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.
Comment on Elon Musk reveals Tesla software-locked cheapest Model Y, offers 40-60 more miles of range
ch00f@lemmy.world 1 month agoIt’s possible that these vehicles are already built and Tesla needs a way to entice budget conscious buyers to clear out their inventory.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 1 month 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 month 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.
Grippler@feddit.dk 1 month ago
It will already inform the user that charging above 80-90% is not for daily driving unless necessary, because of increased wear on the battery. They have always done that.
Usernameblankface@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If that’s all it is, then simply charge less without making any changes.
surfrock66@lemmy.world 1 month 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 month 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 month ago
They’re pushing the limits of this simulation to see how much bullshit we can tolerate. Turns out it’s a LOT.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If you pay the monthly subscription you can actually upgrade to the premium simulation.
surfrock66@lemmy.world 1 month 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 1 month 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
deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
Pretty sure BMW ditched the subscription seats plan in the US due to pissing off car shoppers.
BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
They may have, Toyota ditched their “subscribe monthly to remote start your car” after outrage
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 month 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 1 month 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.
Wrench@lemmy.world 1 month 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 month 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 month 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 month 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.