The definition of rip off may vary. Still, that would be a saner marketing approach, in my view.
As I understand, all the businesses are trying to replicate the IT-born business model of subscription for features. It should not be a thing in the real world, and I hope these managers come to sense, the sooner the better.
The way I see it, if I have to pay extra for a feature I’ve paid for, then it’s a rip-off. Like if I booked a hotel and then got told that I need to pay extra to have a bed, I’d be pretty miffed.
Say you have options to have regular seats or heated seats, as well as leather or fabric seats, that’s essentially four options. By making all seats heated and locking the usage via software, you’ve cut the amount of options in half. That reduces complexity during assembly and ends up cutting costs. You’re still going to charge the customer at least the full price of the seat, though. It’s not like you’re charging for seat - heating hoping that the difference would be covered by those that actually choose to subscribe.
There’s also the question of; what happens 10-15 years from now? Nintendo closed the store on the 3DS in March 2023. The console was released in February 2011. At what point will you no longer be able to use your heated seats because the manufacturer has stopped updating the API for your car, and you’re no longer able to pay for it? How will that affect resell value?
I hate this sort of practise in smartphones and software. A car is order of magnitudes more expensive than a mobile game. If they want to apply mobile game tactics to vehicles, then the cost of the car should be comparable to a mobile game as well.
The definition of rip off may vary. Still, that would be a saner marketing approach, in my view.
As I understand, all the businesses are trying to replicate the IT-born business model of subscription for features. It should not be a thing in the real world, and I hope these managers come to sense, the sooner the better.
The way I see it, if I have to pay extra for a feature I’ve paid for, then it’s a rip-off. Like if I booked a hotel and then got told that I need to pay extra to have a bed, I’d be pretty miffed.
Say you have options to have regular seats or heated seats, as well as leather or fabric seats, that’s essentially four options. By making all seats heated and locking the usage via software, you’ve cut the amount of options in half. That reduces complexity during assembly and ends up cutting costs. You’re still going to charge the customer at least the full price of the seat, though. It’s not like you’re charging for
seat - heatinghoping that the difference would be covered by those that actually choose to subscribe.There’s also the question of; what happens 10-15 years from now? Nintendo closed the store on the 3DS in March 2023. The console was released in February 2011. At what point will you no longer be able to use your heated seats because the manufacturer has stopped updating the API for your car, and you’re no longer able to pay for it? How will that affect resell value?
I hate this sort of practise in smartphones and software. A car is order of magnitudes more expensive than a mobile game. If they want to apply mobile game tactics to vehicles, then the cost of the car should be comparable to a mobile game as well.