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?”
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
I’m already paying a monthly sub! The devs made food and shelter basically mandatory, and then they charged for it! Biggest money grab ever, it’s disgusting.
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”.
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
Imagine telling this to a time traveler from the 20th Century. “You have self-driving cars?” “Yeah, how else will they get back to the dealership when you miss a payment?” LOL fuck this timeline.
Toyota was offering remote car start but only if you subscribed online
That’s different - it relies on having an active cellular connection in the car and older cell towers (5G has improved this dramatically) could only handle a hundred or so active connections at once, so Toyota is absolutely paying a monthly fee to access the cell network. It makes sense to pass that on to the customers who wish to use the feature.
Those fees have gone down, since not only is 5G much cheaper per customer (for the cell network), everyone switching to 5G has taken the pressure off older wireless protocols so they’re almost never crowded anymore - so they can pretty much have as many cars connected as they want for near zero cost.
There is no need for access to a cell signal amd a server though, when you wamt to clicl start.from your living room… You can use the same fob tech as lock umlock your car like cars had prior. Or. you can buy after market remote start kits, Toyota waa juat frying to jump on the SaaS bandwagon
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.
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.
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.
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?
It can be unlocked, and AFAIK doing so is perfectly legal, but then your warranty is void. And with a Tesla, you’re probably going to wish you had that warranty one day.
cracking the DRM is authorized for consumers and shops for the purposes of “diagnosis, maintenance, or repair.” Not because you don’t like that they locked a feature.
They have to prove that what you changed/did to the car directly caused the damage you’re asking for a repair on. If you root the car (while technically illegal) and go in for a warranty repair on the accelerator pedal… They can’t deny the warranty.
And with a Tesla, you’re probably going to wish you had that warranty one day.
Only because they seem to make it impossible to get a hold of parts… Even their own shops have issues getting parts (multi-month wait times).
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.
Then decrease the cost. Nerfing the battery benefits no consumer. Make maximum charge level a user controlled setting (up to 100%) 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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s possible that these vehicles are already built and Tesla needs a way to entice budget conscious buyers to clear out their inventory.
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?”
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
They’re pushing the limits of this simulation to see how much bullshit we can tolerate. Turns out it’s a LOT.
If you pay the monthly subscription you can actually upgrade to the premium simulation.
I’m already paying a monthly sub! The devs made food and shelter basically mandatory, and then they charged for it! Biggest money grab ever, it’s disgusting.
That’s the basic subscription, the premium one is extra.
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”.
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
Imagine telling this to a time traveler from the 20th Century. “You have self-driving cars?” “Yeah, how else will they get back to the dealership when you miss a payment?” LOL fuck this timeline.
Collapsing dystopia into reality everyday
That’s different - it relies on having an active cellular connection in the car and older cell towers (5G has improved this dramatically) could only handle a hundred or so active connections at once, so Toyota is absolutely paying a monthly fee to access the cell network. It makes sense to pass that on to the customers who wish to use the feature.
Those fees have gone down, since not only is 5G much cheaper per customer (for the cell network), everyone switching to 5G has taken the pressure off older wireless protocols so they’re almost never crowded anymore - so they can pretty much have as many cars connected as they want for near zero cost.
There is no need for access to a cell signal amd a server though, when you wamt to clicl start.from your living room… You can use the same fob tech as lock umlock your car like cars had prior. Or. you can buy after market remote start kits, Toyota waa juat frying to jump on the SaaS bandwagon
Pretty sure BMW ditched the subscription seats plan in the US due to pissing off car shoppers.
They may have, Toyota ditched their “subscribe monthly to remote start your car” after outrage
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.
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.
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.
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?
It can be unlocked, and AFAIK doing so is perfectly legal, but then your warranty is void. And with a Tesla, you’re probably going to wish you had that warranty one day.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf
cracking the DRM is authorized for consumers and shops for the purposes of “diagnosis, maintenance, or repair.” Not because you don’t like that they locked a feature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act
They have to prove that what you changed/did to the car directly caused the damage you’re asking for a repair on. If you root the car (while technically illegal) and go in for a warranty repair on the accelerator pedal… They can’t deny the warranty.
Only because they seem to make it impossible to get a hold of parts… Even their own shops have issues getting parts (multi-month wait times).
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.
Then decrease the cost. Nerfing the battery benefits no consumer. Make maximum charge level a user controlled setting (up to 100%) 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.
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.
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.
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.
If that’s all it is, then simply charge less without making any changes.