I mean, why not pay a subscription for a knife? You're getting "extra value" from it every time you use 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.

> But if the company is forcing you to do this

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.

You're moving the goal post here. Obviously you can buy a different brand of car. This subscription stuff smells of anti-consumer intent to keep milking them. I think there should be legislation to prevent such things.

It seems like you're trying to catch this guy out for cognitive dissonance but I'm not seeing it.

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.

But uncertainty about ongoing support is a problem anyway because Apple could change the protocol.

That doesn't justify adding additional uncertainty about what BMW is going to do with their sunscriptions and software and for how long.

And anyway, confidence in Apple is justifiably higher.