Well that's a scam if there ever was one. Who wants a subscription for basic functionality in a car? Might as well buy an iPad and solder it over BMW's control panel.

In Japan, electronics seem to be more evolutionary and software reuse is practiced more, so while the rotating-car-animation-bling-factor might be lower, bugs are also ironed out over time.

Makes no sense and really transparently benefits the company over the actual "owner" of the car. Why would I ever buy something like that.

The same generally applies for Carplay but it makes less sense given carplay is easy to integrate, only needs to be done once, and is then-on maintained by Apple/Google (for Android Auto), and the measly subscription cost for Carplay most certainly wasn't considered when determining MSRP. The same probably applies for the heated seats argument (did BMW really take into account the subscription costs when determining MSRP), with Tesla probably being the only manufacturer actually doing this since they already take into account things like FSD being unavailable on SR+ Model 3's and no EAP on SR Model 3's, even though all models have the same sensors and cameras and HW3 (although non-plus SR models are no longer being produced, so I'm not sure if they ever got hw2.5 or hw3 included).

I don't get this fundamental objection.

It's just a different way to pay. Either you pay up-front or you pay a subscription. Work out the total cost of ownership (you'll need to estimate how long you likely keep the car either way.) Now take that final figure and either it's worth it to you or it isn't. How that final figure gets paid doesn't seem like a big deal?

If you pay £2k up front for CarPlay as an option and then Apple changes the protocol and you can't use it you're stuck with a lemon you already paid for. As a subscription you can stop paying.

Well, you're just left with a 30-50k car with reduced functionality. And, to be honest, CarPlay functionality (or similar) is pretty much fundamental - music, maps - and there's a clear upside of having it integrated with the car (vs. the driver looking down at the phone while driving) and trivial cost (cheaper that developing own software & OS).

The reason I want CarPlay in the first place is because I don't trust carmakers to make good software (borne out of experience!). I'm buying a car to be a car, I want to BYOS (Bring Your Own Software).

So what is the upside to paying up front?

First, it's obviously a scam. I'm not getting extra value in exchange for money, the product is done. It's even worse than various software subscriptions - at least there your code is continuously being improved and updated to the latest version. Therefore, literally the only reason the company is doing that, is to scam me out of more money.

Second is the trust issue - and I'm not just talking about legal scams - e.g. changing terms and conditions in the future - which could in theory be solved via courts / customer protection laws (but in practice, won't be) but more about the fact that the car company has the ability to disable (parts of) my car! So I wouldn't be buying such a car (asterisk) even if they gave me a "special offer" of $0-forever subscription! They can still change the terms at any point in the future, and it would require massive effort on my part to fix that.

Edit: Having said that, paying $2k up front for CarPlay is also a scam - but at least it makes it easier to estimate the total cost/value of the feature, hence reducing the risk (and mental drag) of owning it...

Edit2: Btw, I have this objection with any "subscription" service... e.g. buying leasehold (subscription) house (although even buying freehold (ownership) house isn't without risk in the UK, you never know who has a preexisting claim on the property...)

(asterisk): assuming other options are available... which is the whole reason we must fight against this, sooner or later... in M$ Office and non-smart TVs, this train has already left the station!

Wait, if you're not getting extra value from the product every extra month you use it, then stop paying the subscription! That's the beauty of it!

Just, no. By "extra" value I mean "extra extra" value - in case of software, new features & updates (which, of course, could also bring no extra value to you, but they do at least in theory).

Btw, I'm not objecting to choice. You want to avoid paying up-front cost for your knives, buy subscription instead? Be my guest! But if the company is forcing you to do this, then it's obviously a good (profitable) deal for them, and a bad deal (scam) for you.

I'm really not sure anyone is forced to drive a BMW, are they.

> But if the company is forcing you to do this, then it's obviously a good (profitable) deal for them, and a bad deal (scam) for you.

I think this is unnecessarily cynical.

CarPlay is offered in perfectly functional forms in the market right now for a reasonable upfront price that people will pay for a known feature set.

A subscription arguably can make the product less valuable, because of uncertainty about continuing support, changes to the subscription model or software, and an unknown price that will likely end up being higher than the flat fee offered by competitors.

This isn't cognitive dissonance, it's worry that BMW might pull a bait and switch.

And anyway, confidence in Apple is justifiably higher.

A ceiling on the price? Now granted this is a BMW, so I wouldn’t dare own it outside of the warranty period, but I usually keep a car 10-15 years. So the longer I keep the car, the more this feature with a low, fixed cost, costs? Screw that.

So just factor that into your equation. Some people would prefer a ceiling, some flexibility. The point is it isn't obviously and inherently a 'scam.' It's just a different way to price and pay for things.

For myself, and it seems like pretty much everyone except for yourself, it definitely is. ;)

But, point taken. Only ~95% of people seem to consider it a scam, and an obvious one. ;)

Consumers would be more willing to accept that from a budget brand, not a luxury brand.

It is not like BMW sold the item and only then decided to start charging. When you buy it is up to you to understand all the up front and delayed cost. Most people prefer delayed costs.

I think software, cars, etc, as a service is somewhat liberating and I'm in favour of it.

I don't think Land Rover can get it done. However Apple and/or Tesla might have the fandom to pull something like this off.

Land Rover already do leasing - their subscription is a different product.

This sounds bad until you realise that over the past 20 years manufacturers switched from cast iron to full aluminium blocks, which have over twice the thermal conductivity.

There's no need for 4.0+ displacements anymore, because they were only there because of the low (tolerable) power density of iron block engines.

Sure, turbos etc. sound like a hack and a hack they are, but the era of V8 rumble is gone for good.

All this will be replaced by electric anyway.

People buy cars like that because they like the V8 rumble. I have an older 3.0l N/A I6 BMW (N52), and not because I couldn't have gotten a more feature-loaded Honda for the same price.

tell that to the new c8 corvette.

anyways, the C63 AMG is a $70,000 car. for that price you should be able to get a v8 or at least a v6, even if it makes no sense. lots of cars that are way cheaper still have more than four cylinders.

As a toy, an ICE has value. They shouldn't work at all! it's a ridiculous idea. It's quite cool that they do anyway.

The BMW Ms are actually developed by a different company (the BMW M company, which is different from the BMW company).

For some reason people think of them as being extremely similar, but anybody that has driven a BMW 3xx and a BMW M3 knows that there is a world between them.

what worries me is that app integration may be a fee based service for some cars.

As for BMW, I owned one and enjoyed it very much but the running commentary on BMW is that you own them only while they are under warranty.

Better for driving on snow, if you're at a place where that matters.

If you live somewhere that snow matters, get good tires.

My reality disagrees. I live in a place with a lot of snow, and pretty much see cars that have sliden off the highway every week. All of them are BMWs. And they are all required by law to have winter tires at least.

Winter tires do help, but there is a huge difference between RWD with good tires and 4 wheel drive (notice also that 4WD and AWD is not the same thing, and there are also different qualities).

(it just so happen that here, BMWs are the most popular rear wheel drive cars)

Until you have to go up a hill, or steer and drive in several inches of slush. I guess it's marginally more stupid proof if you floor it at a dumb time but that seems like needless optimization of the worst case while totally tanking the average case. With the weight distribution and electronic controls available in modern vehicles FWD has no meaningful benefit other than cost.

... and lower weight, and no tunnel, and more boot space. If anything, it's RWD which struggles to maintain its significance and show its benefits outside of sports. Modern platforms can make the front wheels turn and spin at the same time without much fuss, with driving characteristics determined by other factors.

>Modern platforms can make the front wheels turn and spin at the same time without much fuss

Yeah they can prevent you from losing traction but you're fundamentally at a disadvantage to RWD because no matter how you cut it you're trying to spread the front traction budget thinner. Everything that makes RWD desirable for the track also makes it desirable for consumer A to B duty.

Don't get me wrong, FWD is great for bringing 0% no money down economy cars to the masses and creating bottom dollar van chassis for employees to abuse but even at its best it's still never going to make varsity in any context where performance actually matters

anyways, most commuters are probably not approaching the limits of grip while accelerating through corners. most people I know have trouble remembering not to brake through turns. the implications of weight transfer during acceleration for a FWD vehicle are much more noticeable during daily driving. it's especially sad to see with all these 200+ hp hot hatches. they have pretty good power to weight ratios on paper but they just can't put it down. a moderately quick start at an intersection in anything other than ideal conditions results in wheel spin every time.

Also I'm pretty sure most of the rwd drivers I see on the side of the road up the local mountain thought they are not poor drivers until the last 2s.

It's exaggerated. At least 90% of car drivers aren't "performance actually matters".