- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34825910
You must log in or register to comment.
The German car-maker says its “optional power upgrade” is designed to give customers more choice.
That’s 100% a lie on VW’s part. What they’re doing is slapping a lock on hardware you already own (by virtue of having bought the car) and renting the functionality back to you. It’s literally theft and VW’s executives ought to go to prison for it.
I wanted to come back to your comment after I received some input and slept over it.
Your point is that the customer, even though they bought the car under that impression that it has less horsepower, should now be able to unlock it for free since they own the car. If owning really means owning this should be possible and that is why you describe it as literal theft if the functionality is now being made available only through additional purchase.
I fully agree with your point and was simply misunderstanding your comment.
Thank you for the objective discussion. This helped me broaden my understanding of what ownership should be. I was very hung up on the point that existing customers still get what they payed for that I did not see the bigger picture what ownership should really mean.
I do agree that owning something should mean you own it and can do with it as you like. This does not sit right with me either.
However, the car that you bought had presumably all information available, including the horsepower without the software unlock. If you bought the car because this fulfilled your needs, are you now being robbed because there theoretically is more horsepower available? Honest question: Are car motors not always limited to specific power outputs to reach emission, efficiency, or safety targets?
Again, I agree with the sentiment that owning something should mean really owning it, but I don’t think people are being robbed or lied to in this scenario.
If you bought the car because this fulfilled your needs, are you now being robbed because there theoretically is more horsepower available?
Your premise is flawed. The horsepower didn’t become available now; it was always available from the beginning – the physical machine didn’t magically change. That means even the most charitable interpretation is that VW deliberately made the thing artificially worse when they sold it to you.
Are car motors not always limited to specific power outputs to reach emission, efficiency, or safety targets?
Sure, but the bottom line is that either a tune falls within those targets or it doesn’t, and a tune provided by the manufacturer always will (because they have to conform to emissions laws, honor warranties, etc.). Since the higher-performance tune is safe, using the lower tune is just leaving performance on the table for no reason.
It is not like a tune done by the owner or third-party that could exceed those limits at the owner’s risk.
Thank you for the explanation regarding tune.
Let me preface my response with this: I do not particularly agree with VWs practices here. It seems to be a way to make more money by offering a „service“ instead of having only a one-time purchase. So please don’t understand me as defending VW here.
What I wanted to say with my premise is that the car that was bought is still the same car with the same lower horsepower that was advertised then. The car did not change and can be used in exactly the same way as when it was originally bought. Nothing was lost and no harm to the customer.
If you do not want to support these practices (which I would definitely not!) and you own this car, you can simply chose to not pay them money and continue to use the car under the specs you had originally purchased it.
You spend the money on the hardware capable of the higher spec though. The performance parts aren’t free. They didn’t reduce the price to match the spec.
Imagine getting a big 60’ TV, but the screen is scaled to 48’ if you don’t pay a subscription. You still have a 60’ TV, the manufacturer already paid for all 60’ to be made. If they ask 48’ TV prices, they’re loosing a huge amount in upfront payment. In order to do that, they must expect subscription money to more than make up the difference. Since not everyone will get the subscription, that means the expected subscription money is close to or greater than the price of the entire TV, or the scaled TV isn’t much cheaper than a normal 60’ TV.
Also, because subscriptions are expected to pay for the extra pixels in all TVs, subscribers are paying the manufacturer to put disabled pixels in non-subscriber’s TVs.
I agree. This kind of practice has a lot of potential to make things worse for everyone.
I may not have explained my point well. I was originally answering the comment that claimed theft by the manufacturer for, as I understood it, existing customers of the car. The comment read to me like the manufacturer slapped a lock on the engine after the fact, which is not the case here. Re-reading the comment now I think I simply misunderstood its meaning.
Ah, ok.
Even if the vehicles were hobbled after purchase, I don’t think that would constitute theft, as performance isn’t a tangible good. Apple has got into hot water for hobbling hardware after purchase though, so there’s definitely precedent for an intentional reduction of performance being illegal.
I agree entirely with your point, and the OP sentiment. Having an optional post-purchase power upgrade is one thing, selling it as a subscription is where I personally draw a line and would refuse to consider it.
The only things you own are things which cannot be taken away. A subscription can always disappear or go prohibitively up in price.
Having an optional post-purchase power upgrade is one thing, selling it as a subscription is where I personally draw a line and would refuse to consider it.
Even as a one-time fee it’s still wrong, and I’ll tell you why: because if it’s as simple as a software setting and they want to sell it, they’re going to infect the car with DRM to prevent the owner from unlocking it for free, and that by itself is already a violation of the owner’s property rights.
“Post-purchase upgrades” that don’t require installation of new hardware to enable the new functionality are always inherently evil and wrong, because, by definition, you already owned them!
Exactly. Customers had the choice already: “do I put my foot down harder on the pedal or not?”
Do you own the car or not?
You’ll own nothing, and you’ll like it.
Did you buy the car under the impression that it has more power than it has?
I agree that you should be able/allowed to unlock it yourself but I assume at time of purchase it was advertised with the correct value of horsepower available. So, you still own what you bought. Nobody is forced to buy the „upgrade“, are they?
So, you own most of the car. This would bother me, personally, and I know that this will be normalized thanks to apologists.
You are right. If you really own the car you should be able to use all of it, even if the manufacturer sold it to you under false performance claims.
I was hung up on the fact that in my understanding the existing customer still has the same product they originally purchased that I missed the point of what ownership should really mean. I never agreed with this practice but I was missing the point by arguing the wrong argument in my previous comment (and in another comment chain).
I hope nobody buys these things.
To think I used to respect VW and I even owned a 2002 Jetta.
These types of things aren’t put into products to test if people will buy them. They are put into products to test to see if it brings the company more profits. Less people can buy them but that won’t matter if it can make them more money.
On top of that this company doesn’t exist in a vacuum. There are other car manufacturers that will test the same subscription models as well. They follow each others leads and slowly normalize these new methods of profit extraction in collaboration with one another.
It’s a lie that they are competing for your business. They are all working to make as much profit as possible and do absolutely follow the next method of doing so introduced by their “competitors”.
The only thing they are testing is if it will negatively hurt next quarters earnings. So it needs to be introduced slowly by each manufacturer and promoted as a “feature” first. Then, as time goes on they can push it more and more as it’s normalized in the market.
I had a Jetta in that era. Died after just 135,000 miles. Family was also into other German cars. They all had expensive issues. We switched to Japanese cars and stopped worrying about car repairs. Unfortunately, there is no real reason to buy a German car unless you’re hoping someone notices the car you drive. When I see people driving German cars, I mostly see people too rich to care about car repairs or a sucker.
Hackers will figure a way to make it free
It frustrates me that software is used to artificially limit the potential of technology in order to extract profits like this.
Somehow, instead of having so many quality of life improvements from an amazing technology, that eliminates so much prior scarcity that existed, we get shit like this that enforces artificial scarcity.
And the only thing we can do is laugh at it, until it’s forced on us by every corporate overlord and we have no choice but to except it as the new normal.
everyone here seems to be mad.
i’m happy that there is some barrier of entry to adding more horsepower to an already lethal machine. sure, it doesn’t affect rich assholes. but at least some won’t buy it. ideally, nobody buys the feature.
Yeah, this reminded me of https://lemmy.world/post/34298162
