I'm becoming more and more hostile to "we've sold you product that has a little man inside who only obeys us" style approach, and to tackle your software example - I find it just as hostile there (I actually refuse to purchase Apple products because you absolutely do not own any device you've purchased from them).

I'll pay for a subscription service that has a genuine recurring cost for the company (ex: I'm using their networks and servers to process data as part of that subscription). But this new world where companies try to make you pay a subscription to get access to static content (or in this case: literal hardware) that lives nowhere except on devices you own is not something I find morally or ethically acceptable.

Frankly - my strong opinion at this point is: If I own a device, I legally must be provided with a key to EVERY lock the device has: physical or digital. No more "you own the phone, but we kept the keys" or in this exact case: "you own the seat heater, but we kept the on/off switch"

Would you think it's acceptable to have BMW stop providing you the ignition and door keys? "Just call us up and we'll unlock the car! (for a small subscription charge)" fuck that horseshit. That's no ownership, that's servitude.

Open source software is similar. I agree that its better for society, but there are two ways to achieve that. The bottom up approach of making it a better option (sometime with the extra stick/carrot of copyleft) or the top down approach, just mandate that any government bought software or any open standard need to be open source and usable by all since they all paid for it.

You can apply those same solutions to hardware and physical things, e.g. renters of housing often have various legal protections, but it varies by jurisdiction, you also have social housing where its lived in but not owned and the property value rises go back to the government.