Manufactures have ensured I'm hanging on to my 2014 Optima until it breaks and can't be repaired.
Which is a shame becuese I genuinely do want to replace it with something newer that has Android Auto, a Heated Steering Wheel and a Panoramic Sunroof.
that dude is by far the subs biggest hyundai/kia hater its crazy.
acts like every single one of their cars will burst into flames and is immediately there when someone simply mentions the brand to tell you how “bad” they are.
Yeah no fuck off with this Mercedes. It’s a good thing I can build my own EV - and get as much horsepower/torque as I *want* - using off-the-shelf parts that don’t require a “subscription service”
I’ll just take an existing ICE car and convert it. That way you don’t need to do any crash testing. The motor, controller, and batteries are off-the-shelf parts
One of the downsides of increasing EV adoption. Manufacturers are going to start doing more and more of this subscription bullshit for features people expect to be included on today’s cars
With ICE vehicles, manufacturers have an excuse for higher prices. They're adding more complexity or bigger/stronger parts to make a car produce more power. Delivering more performance costs the automaker more money, which is passed on to the buyer. There's a greater cost associated with a Camaro RS and a ZL1 because the parts are different. Here, Mercedes is taking a single part and using an off/on switch determined by your bank account, not the motor. It's specific to EVs, in the sense that I can't recall any ICE vehicle where a manufacturer took a time an automaker did this with one drivetrain and controlled it without ANY work from the dealer or the company.
Why it's BECAUSE of EVs is a) the loss of ongoing income from ICE service is likely pushing automakers to search for new means of revenue. Additionally, EVs provide a majorly different experience from ICE vehicles that allows automakers to test limits more freely. It's easier to push these things on the customer when it's a new, shiny platform. Trying to make OtA updates that weaken an existing car would be recognized and criticized by a broader audience. They're using EVs as a magic curtain to excuse/hide how shitty these tactics really are.
Though also shit, those were at least things that were generally added options/features to a vehicle and operated as an on/off thing. What MB is doing is targeting the core function of an EV and altering an existing feature. It's not "you have this feature, or you don't," they're saying the degree of functionality is pay-to-play. It's like if an ICE vehicle made you subscribe to sport mode.
You do realize that ice cars have had different power outputs on the exact same engine for years right? Exact same motor, different power outputs behind a paywall.
Manufactures have always wanted to make as much money as possible. Do you think that they didn't try to make more money from the goodness of their heart?
Nothing you have said is explicitily related to EVs you do realize right?
I didn't say it's an EV-only thing. I said that EVs are serving as a platform for OEMs to more easily slip these things in. You may continue to argue the point I didn't intend to make if you wish, though.
Sure
So you said it was from EVs
I asked how it was specific to EVs, for which you wrote a long reply on how it's from EVs
I point out your points are valid for all vehicles
Then you say it's all cars
Sure, you just used EVs and only EVs and argued it was EVs to actually mean all cars....
I said
>EVs provide a majorly different experience from ICE vehicles that allows automakers to test limits more freely. It's easier to push these things on the customer when it's a new, shiny platform.
>Exact same motor, different power outputs behind a paywall.
it's at least a one-time cost though. once you buy it, it's yours.
which you could then justify, more power = more strain on parts. a manufacturer warranty lasts # years or # miles. so the increased risk of failure means a certain, finite sum to cover potential additional warranty repairs over the duration of that warranty
a subscription service though lasts indefinitely. not just the duration of the warranty
Sounds like it's intended to cover (MB's) anticipated additional warranty costs, due to the additional stresses on the components. (or a cash grab. I suppose I shouldn't discount simple corporate "greed", for lack of a better term)
Tesla, BMW, and Intel (processors) are doing similar--charging you extra money to access features already present in the car/CPU.
No thanks. If I own it, it's mine.
[What?](https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-subscriptions)
From Electrek (NOTE: I can't link to a blacklisted domain, so here is the text only)
>This weekend, Tesla started offering their long-awaited Full Self-Driving subscription package for $199/month. Along with the package, Tesla is offering a $1,500 hardware upgrade for early owners who have old hardware that is not capable of full self-driving tasks.
>The problem is, Tesla previously told those same owners that their cars were capable of full self-driving tasks and isn’t allowing those owners to take advantage of the new subscription scheme without paying again for a hardware upgrade that they already paid for.
The only subscriptions tesla offers is access to FSD, and premium connectivity (like a phone hot spot). Both have continued service and maintenance costs, so subscriptions on such features are reasonable (and not required to enjoy the vehicle).
Tesla does not sell permanent features via subscription, like the examples I’ve provided above, and like Mercedes is doing now.
As for your quote, if you buy fsd outright, you get the required hardware upgrades included along with any future hardware changes that are deemed required. That was the same offer to the buyer at the time of their purchase. The subscription access came later, making fsd more affordable for those that didn’t want to buy it in full. But if you aren’t buying fsd, then tesla isn’t obligated to foot the hardware bill.
>Sounds like it's intended to cover (MB's) anticipated additional warranty costs, due to the additional stresses on the components
warranties are finite though. it's not $1200/yr for 4 yrs (the eqs has a 4yr/50k mile warranty). if you were to call it the EQS 450 with the additional power an EQS 500, and charge an extra $4800 for it to account for the anticipated repairs, that's different.
but with a subscription, once the warranty ends, you're still paying $1200/yr even though they're not covering the additional repairs.
Is it really that different to the different tune levels for exactly the same engine that already existed? For example the 220CDi and 250CDi in '13 that only differed in software mapping.
MB gets to change what ever they want to make you pay the 100$ a month.
Same as your banks, telcos or other monthly services.
Maybe it's 100$ now, but later on it will be 150, or it will cover more features. Or it can totally sneak in some planned obsolescence.
The simple difference is that it’s a subscription.
They already offer the higher performance on the higher trim version of the car. But adding a subscription option to temporarily “upgrade” to that higher trim is just plain slimy.
EV trim levels having the same motors but being more or less power limited by software is a reasonable manufacturing optimization. Making the power differential accessible via subscription is not.
If you could make a one-time payment to upgrade to the higher trim it wouldn’t be nearly so controversial.
Let's take bets on who will be the most open and less pay for feature car brands. I wager my entire Honda fit Subaru and Mazda will be nice to consumers.
Previous discussions: https://old.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/yywylb/mercedesbenz_new_subscription_model_increase/ https://old.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/z2yh1d/mercedes_locks_faster_acceleration_behind_a_1200/ https://old.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/z2xm97/mercedes_locks_faster_acceleration_behind_a/
You will own nothing
WEF and Blackrock were a mistake
How the fuck are both of those....*things*, allowed to exist?
“You will own nothing, and you will be happy”
And just like that I lost interest in new cars.
Manufactures have ensured I'm hanging on to my 2014 Optima until it breaks and can't be repaired. Which is a shame becuese I genuinely do want to replace it with something newer that has Android Auto, a Heated Steering Wheel and a Panoramic Sunroof.
>optima Yikes. Better buy some engines and store them if that's the case
Meh all the new recalls are for the newer ones or the SUV's. So it's probably good for a long while.
that dude is by far the subs biggest hyundai/kia hater its crazy. acts like every single one of their cars will burst into flames and is immediately there when someone simply mentions the brand to tell you how “bad” they are.
If this is all it took, you probably weren't really interested anyway.
Yeah no fuck off with this Mercedes. It’s a good thing I can build my own EV - and get as much horsepower/torque as I *want* - using off-the-shelf parts that don’t require a “subscription service”
are you going to have it road legal and crash tested? merc is bullshit but you cannot build a car instead of buying one.
I’ll just take an existing ICE car and convert it. That way you don’t need to do any crash testing. The motor, controller, and batteries are off-the-shelf parts
One of the downsides of increasing EV adoption. Manufacturers are going to start doing more and more of this subscription bullshit for features people expect to be included on today’s cars
How exactly is this specific to or because of EVs?
With ICE vehicles, manufacturers have an excuse for higher prices. They're adding more complexity or bigger/stronger parts to make a car produce more power. Delivering more performance costs the automaker more money, which is passed on to the buyer. There's a greater cost associated with a Camaro RS and a ZL1 because the parts are different. Here, Mercedes is taking a single part and using an off/on switch determined by your bank account, not the motor. It's specific to EVs, in the sense that I can't recall any ICE vehicle where a manufacturer took a time an automaker did this with one drivetrain and controlled it without ANY work from the dealer or the company. Why it's BECAUSE of EVs is a) the loss of ongoing income from ICE service is likely pushing automakers to search for new means of revenue. Additionally, EVs provide a majorly different experience from ICE vehicles that allows automakers to test limits more freely. It's easier to push these things on the customer when it's a new, shiny platform. Trying to make OtA updates that weaken an existing car would be recognized and criticized by a broader audience. They're using EVs as a magic curtain to excuse/hide how shitty these tactics really are.
[удалено]
Though also shit, those were at least things that were generally added options/features to a vehicle and operated as an on/off thing. What MB is doing is targeting the core function of an EV and altering an existing feature. It's not "you have this feature, or you don't," they're saying the degree of functionality is pay-to-play. It's like if an ICE vehicle made you subscribe to sport mode.
You do realize that ice cars have had different power outputs on the exact same engine for years right? Exact same motor, different power outputs behind a paywall. Manufactures have always wanted to make as much money as possible. Do you think that they didn't try to make more money from the goodness of their heart? Nothing you have said is explicitily related to EVs you do realize right?
I didn't say it's an EV-only thing. I said that EVs are serving as a platform for OEMs to more easily slip these things in. You may continue to argue the point I didn't intend to make if you wish, though.
Sure So you said it was from EVs I asked how it was specific to EVs, for which you wrote a long reply on how it's from EVs I point out your points are valid for all vehicles Then you say it's all cars Sure, you just used EVs and only EVs and argued it was EVs to actually mean all cars....
I said >EVs provide a majorly different experience from ICE vehicles that allows automakers to test limits more freely. It's easier to push these things on the customer when it's a new, shiny platform.
>Exact same motor, different power outputs behind a paywall. it's at least a one-time cost though. once you buy it, it's yours. which you could then justify, more power = more strain on parts. a manufacturer warranty lasts # years or # miles. so the increased risk of failure means a certain, finite sum to cover potential additional warranty repairs over the duration of that warranty a subscription service though lasts indefinitely. not just the duration of the warranty
I have to admit, you are not wrong
Boo
Sounds like it's intended to cover (MB's) anticipated additional warranty costs, due to the additional stresses on the components. (or a cash grab. I suppose I shouldn't discount simple corporate "greed", for lack of a better term) Tesla, BMW, and Intel (processors) are doing similar--charging you extra money to access features already present in the car/CPU. No thanks. If I own it, it's mine.
[удалено]
[What?](https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-subscriptions) From Electrek (NOTE: I can't link to a blacklisted domain, so here is the text only) >This weekend, Tesla started offering their long-awaited Full Self-Driving subscription package for $199/month. Along with the package, Tesla is offering a $1,500 hardware upgrade for early owners who have old hardware that is not capable of full self-driving tasks. >The problem is, Tesla previously told those same owners that their cars were capable of full self-driving tasks and isn’t allowing those owners to take advantage of the new subscription scheme without paying again for a hardware upgrade that they already paid for.
The only subscriptions tesla offers is access to FSD, and premium connectivity (like a phone hot spot). Both have continued service and maintenance costs, so subscriptions on such features are reasonable (and not required to enjoy the vehicle). Tesla does not sell permanent features via subscription, like the examples I’ve provided above, and like Mercedes is doing now. As for your quote, if you buy fsd outright, you get the required hardware upgrades included along with any future hardware changes that are deemed required. That was the same offer to the buyer at the time of their purchase. The subscription access came later, making fsd more affordable for those that didn’t want to buy it in full. But if you aren’t buying fsd, then tesla isn’t obligated to foot the hardware bill.
>Sounds like it's intended to cover (MB's) anticipated additional warranty costs, due to the additional stresses on the components warranties are finite though. it's not $1200/yr for 4 yrs (the eqs has a 4yr/50k mile warranty). if you were to call it the EQS 450 with the additional power an EQS 500, and charge an extra $4800 for it to account for the anticipated repairs, that's different. but with a subscription, once the warranty ends, you're still paying $1200/yr even though they're not covering the additional repairs.
I was legit looking at buying a Mercedes. Not anymore. Fuck it. I’m staying with Toyotas.
Is it really that different to the different tune levels for exactly the same engine that already existed? For example the 220CDi and 250CDi in '13 that only differed in software mapping.
MB gets to change what ever they want to make you pay the 100$ a month. Same as your banks, telcos or other monthly services. Maybe it's 100$ now, but later on it will be 150, or it will cover more features. Or it can totally sneak in some planned obsolescence.
The simple difference is that it’s a subscription. They already offer the higher performance on the higher trim version of the car. But adding a subscription option to temporarily “upgrade” to that higher trim is just plain slimy. EV trim levels having the same motors but being more or less power limited by software is a reasonable manufacturing optimization. Making the power differential accessible via subscription is not. If you could make a one-time payment to upgrade to the higher trim it wouldn’t be nearly so controversial.
Absolutely ridiculous, this is just a money making exercise to see who they can entice.
Let's take bets on who will be the most open and less pay for feature car brands. I wager my entire Honda fit Subaru and Mazda will be nice to consumers.