It would be ironic if manufacturers were roasted for offering more options for payment rather than fewer.
I would not feel this way if the one-time cost were higher than before (I think $500 is about standard), or if purchases were locked to the original purchaser. And I recognize that some of these examples are of companies that do not offer one-time options.
That's a good call-out. I don't think there's anything wrong with offering a monthly option (it seems weird and I think there's probably some social commentary in there, but whatever), I just don't want to be forced to pay monthly.
There is - it means someone who bought the car not intending to use the feature, or who bought the car second-hand, can enable it later.
Pretty fun for them. Rent seeking usually is.
Pretty fucking terrible for everyone else. Perfect case of market failure, and an ideal target for regulation.
This kind of thing genuinely triggers disgust for me. Personally - I will NEVER buy from these brands again (and I'm in their target market for luxury cars). I'll also enthusiastically vote for politicians who propose regulation on this. In my opinion - nuke this bullshit from orbit.
Why is it 'pay for them' in the current model but 'waste money on them' in the new model?
This winds me up because it's a raw, shitty deal: $18/m * 12m/y * forever = infinity.
Even assuming a short lifespan for the car (10 years) it's STILL a raw, shitty, dumpster fire of a deal: $2160 vs the $500 for the actual heated seats today.
BMW knows this. They are double dipping - optimize production costs, ream consumers, violate doctrine of first sale.
Happy life for our corporate masters.
Something being too expensive for you doesn't make the seller unethical (unless it's a necessary good maybe - but not a luxury car.)
This is an unbounded cost. That makes sense when the service provided has an unbounded cost associated with it that the manufacturer is paying, but that's utterly untrue in this situation.
This is about a manufacturer taking a cost saving measure - simplified manufacturing lines
Then manipulating a digital device to also take a profit increasing measure - creating a digital on/off switch for heated seats that they refuse to provide a key for.
Do you think it's ethical for the previous owner of your home to keep the keys? "Hey - you own this house now, but if you want access to the basement - I got the keys and you have to pay up! It's only 25 bucks per month!"
That's clearly hostile. What makes you bend over so far backwards to let BMW ream you up the ass here in exactly the same way?
Why are you comfortable giving them digital control of something you (in theory only) own?
I wouldn't want it myself. I don't get why people think it's unethical though. Someone called it a 'crime' elsewhere. That boggles my mind. It's their product - they can offer whatever payment model they want. If it's a crap one then don't buy it. If enough people think it's crap the market will adjust. It's a luxury car, not baby formula.
This is a distinct misunderstanding of acceptable capitalism. To be very blunt, it's simply not true.
We accept the idea that "greed is good" when it comes to capitalism only because we regulate the cases where the market fails to align the interests of the customer and manufacturer.
In cases where interests are aligned: Greed is good. The seller wants to take actions that increase profit, and that usually means either reducing the cost to produce the item, or increasing the real (or perceived) value of the item for consumers. Both of those are good things for all parties.
In cases where interests are not aligned we regulate the ever-loving shit out of the market because we have incredibly detailed historical evidence that shows that it devolves to straight abuse.
Things like
- Cartels
- Monopolies
- Fraud
- Misleading advertising
- Contractual abuse
- Unequal bargaining
- Regulated goods (black markets)
and several hundred other specific laws we have that only exist because without them people end up killing each other due to real (or perceived) injustice without them.
They absolutely won't be paying you any extra money for those heated seats... they're already going to have to go pay BMW for the freaking subscription anyways.
At best you could argue you're slightly increasing the interested market for your car, but even that feels incredibly flimsy. The market for used cars is vibrant, and very rarely is trim level a deciding factor on used car purchases.
Usually you can negotiate price on trim - but this decidedly removes that option. You just get fucked right round as the original buyer.
But there's no connection between adding it to every car and charging a subscription to use it. You could just as easily add the heater to every car and only allow people to use them if they pay a one-time charge, similar to the model today where you pay a one time fee to add the option at build-time.