> But even amid all the complaining about cars getting stuck in the Internet of Shit, there's still not much discussion of why the car-makers are making their products less attractive, less reliable, less safe, and less resilient by stuffing them full of microchips. Are car execs just the latest generation of rubes who've been suckered by Silicon Valley bullshit and convinced that apps are a magic path to profitability? [...]
Absolutely worth a read https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-de...
What next, fridges? "I see you bought ice cream. The optimal storage temperature is -18C, the cost to enable this mode is $5/week. Enable now?"
I’m ok with an app charging an install fee if it’s worth it. I’m ok with games selling micro transaction cosmetics. I’m not ok with features being behind yet another paywall or subscription.
It’s plain old false advertising. If I buy a car and it has a turbo, I expect it to go turbo. If I buy an app and it’s supposed to make things pretty, it better make things pretty. If I buy a cheeseburger, I don’t want to be charged extra for the condiments put on it or the onions, pickles, lettuce. I expected that comes included as part of Cogs.
I wish we would start getting product innovation and not just Greed Innovation.
Blaming dirt for political failures in providing better accessibility to transit seems like a pretty weird starting point for a discussion.
Car manufacturers already give you the same powerful engine that you can't afford/don't want to buy and "shrink" it with SW. If you jailbreak it, you lose the warranty and bye bye insurance.
You should not think that you're paying more for getting less. You should think that finally you can now enable more in your engine if you want to. Until today, you couldn't.
You just had to know that your car is more powerful than the papers say and live with that.
I assume Europe is way worse and that you can't even change tire/rim size without permission.
You can also choose to ask them for permission in advance but that's (usually, AFAIU) entirely optional.
Similarly, the car I have as a track toy, a 1986 Porsche 944 Turbo, was famously limited by Porsche to avoid competing with their flagship 911 Turbo. Tuners figured this out and came up with all sorts of modifications, from mild to wild, to extract more performance.
Back in the 2000s I didn't have a problem with insurance. Probably not the same today.
No, it is typically for emissions and fuel economy purposes. Engines are pretty consistent in specs when they come off the line.
Consider the BMW G20 3-series petrol cars. Essentially all trims except the M340i have twin-turbo 2-litre inline-4 B48 engines. The engine output is tuned by the engine control unit (ECU, which is a bit of software running on an embedded computer) depending on the trim: 318i gets 115 kW, 320i is 125 kW, 330i is 190 kW. There are occasional hardware differences—typically the intake manifolds, radiators, and maybe belts, but the engine block is exactly the same across these trims—they're all B48. This is public knowledge; there is a detailed table on Wikipedia[1].
Engine 'tuning' is exactly tweaking numbers in the ECU. A stage 1 tune could involve mapping a 318i to a 320i or better without even popping the bonnet; just a laptop plugged into the OBD2 port above the driver's foot rest.
Naturally, as mentioned by others, some of these tunes are less than legal, because the price, road tax, and other legalese surrounding motor vehicles are determined by the performance and fuel economy of the vehicle from the factory. A car is so computerised that nowadays there are plug-in 'chip tuners' that remap the ECU signals on-the-fly and just-in-time, and can be removed before inspections. It's not dissimilar to overclocking computer chips.
This applies across all car makes, not just BMW and not even just European ones.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_3_Series_(G20)#Petrol_engi...
The idea that those engines don't differ is an urban myth that exists at least since the mid 1990s and the first TDIs.
Of course they differ in more than one way and using the higher configuration can easily destroy them.
It works in the market because sellers sellers want to charge as much as buyers are ready to pay. People who want a powerful engine are ready to pay more, so make them pay more. The limited power option is sold at a lower but still profitable margin to those who don't want to pay for the extra.
Market segmentation like this is seen everywhere. It is just that the subscription thing makes it particularly obvious.
I should tell my personal background here: Half of what I'm arguing against is my own personal experience of having people tell me that free market competition rewards those who offer the best product at the lowest price. I'm saying this is a counter-example; and, yeah, I agree with you that similar counter-examples are seen everywhere.
From manufacturer point of view it makes sense, less boost is less stress on engine and less warranty claims.
It's cheaper to design and engineer one common engine block, heads, camshafts, cylinders, etc. and regulate the output in software.
You're paying more for something that you're not allowed to use.
You only pay more if you want the extra capability, otherwise you pay less than what the person paid that did want the extra capability.
What was the point of doing this prior to selling a subscription to unlock it?
There are/were legitimate considerations for this too--I've had a few GTIs that ended up 'tuned.'
Typical failures on tuned cars, past a certain power, level were clutches (both in MT and DSG models) and probably other ancillary components.
I'm sure there's also lifespan calculations for components at the stock power levels too. Probably a shorter lifespan/the projected failure rates only account for the stock output etc etc.
1) Build engine with $market_leading_horsepower.
2) Throttle engine so that base models of a car have $market_leading_horsepower - $throttle_amount.
3) Price discrimination for enthusiasts removes the throttling back to the original $market_leading_horsepower while also saving the effort of having to design a faster engine.
Is there no extra cost associated with machining the faster engine? That is, would manufacturing a slower engine for the base model not be any cheaper than just building the fastest engine they can into all models?
There probably is but it's much less than the cost of having different engines for different performance specs of the same model of car (which is very common).
In reality cramming a little more air through the thing is no big deal because it'll be within the fudge factor of all the other parts.
Nobody is engineering a clutch to within an inch of it's life on a 200hp shitbox, they'll use the same clutch as the 300hp version of the same engine. Yeah the trans shifting tune will be different but that doesn't necessarily mean that the components in it are different.
I can think the way I want to think. I'm not going to pretend that I'm not paying more and getting less when that is what's happening!
> You just had to know that your car is more powerful than the papers say and live with that.
Or I voice my opposition to this sort of bullshit in the hopes that enough like-minded people can gather enough force to make it change for the better.
So it's questionable to me that you believe you're paying more.
You're just getting better hardware, but it doesn't mean it would be cheaper it it was specifically crafted for your needs. (= I buy 100HP and my engine supports only 100HPs).
It's ridiculous and insulting to buy a new car (a big purchase for many) to be presented with options where the manufacturer went through considerable effort to _make the car worse_. Manufacturers should be in fierce competition to offer the best cars at the lowest price point.
Chinese competitors will absolutely crush Volkswagen and Volkswagen will have nobody to blame but themselves.
The thing that is confusing people is it was introduced backwards, I’d imagine intentionally. As stated, it reads as if the engine is being crippled. If you fired up the engine, it would not have the max performance without tweaking the timings, but it would still work. So paying more for the higher model is paying for the software tweaks.
It’s not much different from buying a couple of sticks of RAM and then overclocking them to get extra performance. The RAM works as advertised without any tweaks.
No way. If they were just making the lower model it would not have the same hardware. This was designed as a higher model and then limited, so you're paying for limiter removal.
But even if that was true, it would still be a very obnoxious sales practice. Those tweaks did not take very much effort and would be useful to almost all of their customers. Software tweaks that cost a miniscule percentage of the hardware cost should come with the hardware.
I say that's great, its better than my minimum requirements.
Then they say, 'well actually, we are willfully sabotaging this engine with software so that it will never ever give you more than the minimum, but are still charging you for the full cost of its manufacture plus markup'.
And I say, why would you deliberately make my engine worse. Just let me use it the way I want.
And they say, because by sabotaging your engine we can make other people pay even more markup for the same engine. It's the philosophy that instead of charging more for making something better, we charge more for not making it worse. Like the mafia would charge you money to not bomb your small business.
Car manufacturer thinks of the cost of the engine as something like research + development + testing + sourcing + manufacturing lines + materials for all engines produced + labor for all engines produced. So for the manufacturer profits are total revenue of units sold minus total costs. To maximize profits they need to identify market segments and figure out the best way to sell into them, in some cases by selling one physical model at different price points.
If a manufacturer only targeted your market segment with a model you wouldn't get a cheaper car, you'd most likely get roughly the same car for the same price. (Ignoring design/feature compromises made to try to address one model to multiple market segments)
Not that I agree with VW or holding features behind a subscription. Just that we can understand the unit economics of why. And anyway subscriptions for hardware features are a different matter entirely.
'Do you want to pay extra for the non-cracked windsheild?
'But the cars on the lot all look fine, no cracks'
'Unless you pay us $100, we will smash your windshield with a hammer before giving it to you. You also have to pay that $100 every month from now on, else the TOS says we can come to your house and smash your windshield. This has been shown to maximize our profits.'
The example seems a bit contrived and exaggerated. I don't think many people see things that way. A car with a suboptimally-tuned engine isn't equivalent to a car with a smashed windshield. The latter isn't even legal to drive.
Also, thanks to the internet, you can know exactly the power output of the specific model and trim (perhaps even the specific vehicle) you'll be buying before you even step foot onto a lot.
And yes you can know these things before you buy, though with modern TOS, there's no saying they can't change the terms and further downgrade your performance unless you pay up. My point is they shouldn't be allowed to do any of this in the first place. If its in the car you bought, you should have access to it.
Put another way, they aren't tuning your car for you, and that's okay, because you never knew your 110 power car was even capable of putting out 150 if you tuned it. You looked up the specific car you were buying online, saw it was listed as having 110, and thus expected it to have 110 the whole time. Then, you drove it, felt 110, were happy with 110, and bought it. No surprises there.
> there's no saying they can't change the terms and further downgrade your performance unless you pay up
Sure, just like anybody selling you a car can later come and smash it and beat you up and take your wallet and steal your identity etc etc. None of those things seem to actually be happening though?
> My point is they shouldn't be allowed to do any of this in the first place.
Why not? Your viewpoint is fair and valid, but all you've shared so far in support of it is an analogy that doesn't fit and repeating that you don't think things should be this way.
I'm confused by this statement.
You're only paying more if you want the extra capability. If you don't pay more you get the capability appropriate for the price you paid (based on the market and competition).
I think what the other commenter is getting at, is that if the manufacturer puts a 300hp engine in a car but limits it to 250hp, they still need to charge enough to make a profit. If the manufacturer produced a cheaper 250hp engine for the 250hp car, they could probably charge less for the same profit.
So it’s a double loss for the consumer of the 250hp car. They pay a higher cost and are artificially kept from the full performance of what they bought
1-As you stated, full extra cost is paid by the buyer regardless of opting for extra capability, and that cost is non-trivial
2-Same as #1 but the cost is trivial due to some internal mfg conditions we are unaware of
3-Extra cost is non-trivial and is prorated across all units based on the expected rate of purchasing the extra capability and the overall revenue vs costs. So in this case it's a partial increase.
3-Extra cost is non-trivial but the buyer does not pay more than if they had used the less powerful engine, the buyers of extra capability are expected to fully fund the cost increase to the entire group of vehicles in the program. This could still be competitive with the market for the extra capability because people can pick and choose when they want to spend the money, that flexibility has value.
We don't really know how they handled the situation but I would be surprised if it was #1 because it would make the car less competitive for buyers that don't want the extra capability.
TFA already says the car is registered at the maximum power level regardless of the actual software cap. So you are _quite literally_ paying for it, at least in terms of increased insurance and taxes.
Ps: Just to be clear, it's not 1 engine type installed in all the cars from the same brand. It's more of a family type, to reduce costs.
[0]: a 2016 (!!) article https://www.automotive-iq.com/powertrain/articles/engine-dow...
It doesn't say about manufacturers using the same physical engine, and/or having software interlocks for engine power, which would imply that on paper (and on registration) you have an engine paid for X power that can only do Y (with Y < X). People would riot if they noticed such things, as like on what is claimed on TFA.
> One of the best-selling examples of ‘downsizing’ is Ford’s 1.0-litre EcoBoost petrol engine, which is available with outputs of 99bhp, 123bhp and 138bhp, meaning it effectively replaces 1.4, 1.6 and even some 1.8-litre engines from the past.
> Other advances include the way the fuel is introduced into the engine, with powerful computers and software controlling fuel injection to the millisecond and allowing the engine to shut down in traffic where stop and start is fitted.
They understood that with SW you can provide multiple configurations for the same engine. This I know for sure it's the case of Ford Ecoboost 1.0.
If, like TFA, they register the power output as larger than the actual one in order to give room to these "unlocks", then you basically have a vehicle which can do less than what its registration says, which people tend to notice and riot about (you pay more taxes and insurance).
In which country does the tax rate depend still only on volume?
The issue is not that you can do it, the issue (as stated in the VW article) is how to update your car papers to reflect the changes. You do it illegally with your friends? You can't. VW does it through the subscription? (I guess) allowed.
Don't ask me how, but when you buy such cars (with an engine that can support multiple configuration), you won't register your engine for something it is not. It's what's enabled to do. Simple example: you buy the ford ecoboost 1.0 100HPs. It won't be registered as the 150HPs model, although it's 100% the same hardware.
You know that you CANNOT tune your engine, without going through your state's motor vehicle department, right ??
If the manufacturer tunes the ECU via whatever method and as consequence lowers/raises the power, good for him, but the final maximum power number is what will appear on the registration, and only in case of huge negligence can he change it afterwards on sold cars.
> The issue is not that you can do it, the issue (as stated in the VW article) is how to update your car papers to reflect the changes. You do it illegally with your friends? You can't. VW does it through the subscription? (I guess) allowed.
As I have repeated in literally each one of the 3 messages I have written in this thread: TFA clearly says the register the car for the maximum unlocked power level. Which means you _are literally paying for the maximum power even if you don't unlock it_, in terms of insurance and tax.
> you buy the ford ecoboost 1.0 100HPs. It won't be registered as the 150HPs model, although it's 100% the same hardware.
That's unsourced bullshit. I'm not familiar with Ford US cars, but Wikipedia clearly lists that the different models _are differently sized_.
But, even if it was true, and software was used as in the interlock mechanism, Ford would have to register these engines as with their maximum, unlocked power, and that's something people tend to notice.
This is about trapping people into paying a subscription forever. That's what is abusive. There's no need to make up other things on top of that. Thankfully, there are a lot of choices in this space.
Is it abusive because it is tied to hardware?
No, I see it as the opposite. I see it as Volkswagen simplifying production by limiting variability and giving you the option to get a less capable product at at a cheaper price.
A 6 and a 8 core processor is probably the same die also and produced at the same cost. Maybe 2 cord were turned off because they were faulty or maybe they were turned off because some people don’t have the need and money for 8 cores. Does it matter? Now they can still buy a computer. Is that a bad thing?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Pure software is a bit different than hardware as copies are effectively zero cost. Same would go for e-books, music, etc. Not that they get a full free pass, these media can also engage in abusive practices.
> Is it abusive because it is tied to hardware?
Yes. Another example of the absurdity is if you want to buy half an apple and the store charges you enough to cover the costs of a full apple, then pull out a full apple and destroy half of it before handing it to you. Does that seem ok? Putting in extra effort to make something worse is bad.
> A 6 and a 8 core processor is probably the same die also and produced at the same cost. Maybe 2 cord were turned off because they were faulty or maybe they were turned off because some people don’t have the need and money for 8 cores.
Big difference between these two cases. If the two extra cores were faulty, then charging a lower price makes sense. Like paying less for used tires that have some wear on them. But taking a perfectly good chip and purposefully disabling two cores is like taking a belt sander to a new tire and then charging less.
The turbo example is insane. It's literally unwanted dead weight probably slightly negatively affecting fuel economy.
I don't agree with this. Let's say they make 2 engines, one normal one and one powerful one. Customer pay different price points.
Now it turns out that making 2 different engines is actually pretty wasteful, and it's way more efficient to make 1 engine, and limit the possibilities for the lower price point (this is already happening).
Now you come along and say "Illegal!". Now they have to sell this engine at the same price, which doesn't make sense in the market. So they are back to the inefficient way of producing 2 different engines for 2 different markets.
Calling this "wasteful" is weird in my eyes.
I'm not in the automotive industry, so I don't know all the details, and I might be wrong on the above reasoning, but this is what I got from it.
1 engine production line, serving 2 different price points.
Generally speaking gas/diesel engines are used across several models, mass market manufacturers aren't making bespoke engines for one specific vehicle trim that isn't used elsewhere. The overall direction is further standardization of platforms (esp with electric vehicles) but large companies like Toyota, Ford, etc. are going to have a variety of engines available for engineers to slot into vehicles to handle different use cases. I'm not terribly interested in counting but here's some examples of the variety:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toyota_engines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_engines
> I'm not in the automotive industry, so I don't know all the details, and I might be wrong on the above reasoning, but this is what I got from it.
I'm sorry but your speculation is pretty far off base and isn't based in fact.
So you claim VW is not selling the same engine to different market segments, and limiting it through software?
If they do, why are they doing it?
In a competitive market they wouldn't be able to get away with either of those. Multiple companies that know how to make their lower end models better for free would do it, because they want more market share.
So we need to figure out how to get as close to that state as possible.
Also the proposed law wouldn't make multiple prices illegal.
If you don't understand this, there is no point in discussing this further.
What was unclear about "the proposed law wouldn't make multiple prices illegal"
As for what would happen in a competitive market with everyone acting in their best interest, I'm not sure what exactly would happen. But they're allowed to have multiple prices. It's not the prices causing the problems. And there are other ways to distinguish products that aren't artificial limits.
Do you object to cinemas charging me a higher price than they do a child?
I don't agree with that perspective but, if I did, then I would wonder how the company should recoup sunk costs and fixed costs related to the turbo part.
Should they charge all customers for that, or allow customers who don't want turbo to opt out of both the benefit of that feature, and also opt out of paying for the related R&D, extra capex and extra fixed costs?
Similarly Chinese EVs that advertise 1000 KW charging - unclear what is battery longevity at those c-rates.
In this case, all the cars have turbo and you pay to have it turned on or not. The cost of the turbo is in the cost of the normal car because the company would not sell it at a loss. You already paid for it, but aren't allow to use it. So you are driving around with this perfectly good and usable turbo that you paid for and can't use unless you paid some extra extortion money. This is abusive, wasteful, and should be illegal in my opinion. You should only be charged extra if it is in fact extra. Not something that is already there and withheld.