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.
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.
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.