News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscri... by horsawlarway on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @01:59PM (#32583259)
It's not about too expensive for me - it's about why a manufacturer is able to pick a method of "sale" that has unbounded costs for the "purchaser".

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?

Re:Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscri... by chrisseaton on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @02:13PM (#32583514)
> 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.

Re:Auto giants like BMW, GM and Toyota make drivers ‘subscri... by horsawlarway on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @02:31PM (#32583772)
> they can offer whatever payment model they want

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.