Is This For Real? BMW Charging to use heated seats?

[Tonyshepp]

Subscription is the future. If I get a new job and can only afford a base model then it sounds like a good idea that 3 years later when I have more money I can unlock more features instead of buying a new car.

I personally don't care for this but I understand it. The interesting part is HP. I am almost certain I read somewhere about companies planning to be able to unlock more HP with subscriptions.

Tesla do this already as do Polestar.

 

[eriegz]

Subscription is the future. If I get a new job and can only afford a base model then it sounds like a good idea that 3 years later when I have more money I can unlock more features instead of buying a new car.

Man, I just never know what I'm gonna read next in this crazy thread! 😂

There's already a solution to buying things you can't afford today: it's called financing.

Jesus Christ, people. I swear we're about 30 minutes from somebody suggesting that we just simply move all car subscriptions onto ✨the blockchain✨!

 

[Porter]

Been doing as a service for years in IT, subscription licensing enabling new features. Clever idea for cars.

See my post above... this only works when there is well articulated/expected end-of-support for a product, and there's a finite utility due to technical obsolescence.

A car is a durable good, it has no finite utility and expected end-of-life. Certainly not on licensing-supportable timescales.

 

[NicolasB]

My wife had a brand new Hyundai Santa Fe sport that was the Platinum model with every option. The remote start feature required you to pay over $200 a year to be able to use the service and before we traded at for her Tesla, we got the notification that the service was no longer going to work because it used a 2G network that was inevitably being shut down and they would no longer be able to do the remote start function. It was a total scam and I was mad every year when we would have to pay the subscription. I also have to pay $32 per month now to use QuickBooks because it is only offered online as a subscription, whereas back in the day you could just purchase the software for $50 and use it for 10 years. It is an absolute rip off. I would never purchase a car where I had to have a subscription for the seat heaters.

 

[gpsdesigns]

bought a base LR3.
$25 for a switch to activate the heated seats…. Now, had it been $25 Per month……
I’d probably still do it.

 

[Eagle7]

I can't believe some people are willing to let themselves be hooked up to a milking machine like this for some vague notion of convenience. My Alfa Romeo Ti Lusso has heated seats and steering wheel, which I use every winter. When I want to use them, I just push the buttons. I don't have to sit there and "request" that some service somewhere decides I'm "authorized" for them to work.

If the hardware is in your car, then you paid for it. Don't be fooled by some phony double-talk that you only pay for it when you use it. There's nothing exotic or IP protected about the software to turn on a heating unit. The less control you have over your life, the more subject you are to 'system error' or malice due to 'mistaken opinions' or a social score system.

A subscription system could make sense for a business that's regularly rotating out equipment assets on a planned schedule, but for regular consumers it's a terrible idea. Too many things can go wrong. Look at what Lotus is going through just trying to build and deliver our cars. Can you imagine that experience if you were relying on a subscription service?

 

[xen]

Not a good comparison.

1. A better analogy would be, de-tuning an engine, then charging you $18 / mo to unlock its full horsepower
2. There's no benefit to the consumer in having to subscribe to unlock this feature. A heated seat is either on or off. It's not like teams of software engineers are continually pushing out new heated seat features over the air to justify having to pay a subscription for it, like you would with, say, Adobe Photoshop, where next month you now suddenly have a new AI image recognition tool and 3 bug fixes.

This is a 100% pure cash grab.

What isn’t a good example exactly? Detuning was already given as an example anyway.

This always happens. People stuck in their ways can’t be open minded enough to think things through, old dogs and new tricks. When Lotus does it for thousands of dollars (i4 360bhp) it’s not a cash grab and ‘you’re’ sympathetic to the business model. But BMW does it $18 and they are greedy capitalists.

 

[eriegz]

What isn’t a good example exactly? Detuning was already given as an example anyway.

This always happens. People stuck in their ways can’t be open minded enough to think things through, old dogs and new tricks. When Lotus does it for thousands of dollars (i4 360bhp) it’s not a cash grab and ‘you’re’ sympathetic to the business model. But BMW does it $18 and they are greedy capitalists.

I already explained why it's not a good example in my previous reply: because with the detuning example (and I'm not endorsing the business practice of engine detuning either), the buyer pays once and then the car (and the engine) is theirs, forever. There is no monthly fee. The transaction is done.

Also, regarding your assumptions about me, I'm actually a millennial, and probably more open-minded than most. But if me wanting to actually own the physical objects that I purchase and not have some company add on a completely unnecessary, internet-connected padlock around them to prevent me from using them unless I pay them a monthly "unlocking" fee makes me an "old dog", well... then get off my lawn!

 

[xen]

I already explained why it's not a good example in my previous reply: because with the detuning example (and I'm not endorsing the business practice of engine detuning either), the buyer pays once and then the car (and the engine) is theirs, forever. There is no monthly fee. The transaction is done.

Also, regarding your assumptions about me, I'm actually a millennial, and probably more open-minded than most. But if me wanting to actually own the physical objects that I purchase and not have some company add on a completely unnecessary, internet-connected padlock around them to prevent me from using them unless I pay them a monthly "unlocking" fee makes me an "old dog", well... then get off my lawn!

‘Old dog new tricks’ Is not in reference to age but experience.

But if me wanting to actually own the physical objects that I purchase and not have some company add on a completely unnecessary, internet-connected padlock around them to prevent me from using them unless I pay them a monthly "unlocking" fee makes me an "old dog",

The point is this boat sailed a long time ago and isn’t on any way new. Not in cars, not in modern hardware devices. Features have for years been gated behind software.

 

[eriegz]

Features have for years been gated behind software.

Not in this way it hasn't, no.

The above scheme by BMW amounts to picking one particular piece of a vehicle — a piece which hitherto, buyers used to pay for, and own — and wrapping it inside of an internet-connected padlock, and charging customers a monthly fee for the "privilege" of unlocking it for them to use.

If you still don't see a problem with that, then maybe I could put it this way: Have you paid your refrigerator subscription fee this month? How about your dishwasher subscription fee?

 

[xen]

Not in this way it hasn't, no.

The above scheme by BMW amounts to picking one particular piece of a vehicle — a piece which hitherto, buyers used to pay for, and own — and wrapping it inside of an internet-connected padlock, and charging customers a monthly fee for the "privilege" of unlocking it for them to use.

If you still don't see a problem with that, then maybe I could put it this way: Have you paid your refrigerator subscription fee this month? How about your dishwasher subscription fee?

This isn’t paying for an asset - like a refrigerator or dishwasher, it’s paying to enable features already built into the refrigerator I already own. There already exist business that lease fridges and microwaves.

I get it though. It’s the change of model you take exception to. It really depends on your use-case; If I plan to run the car a year and it’s a $20 a month option for a feature that usually costs $500 then it’s the objectively better option. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the model.

 

[kratedisease]

Next will be subscription service for BMW air conditioning......during the summer season ( as opposed to heated seats)

BMW = B-ig M-oney W-aste

 

[Mangoose]

Next will be subscription service for BMW air conditioning......during the summer season ( as opposed to heated seats)

BMW = B-ig M-oney W-aste

"You are subscribed to the 25 degrees 'Exotic Temperature' package. To drop the temperature further, please update your credit card on file and subscribe to our 'Room Temperature' package now on discount for $2/month."

It's coming, folks!

 

[R1272]

This is all such a load of BS. Total cash grab. Lot's of manufacturers are doing it.

I'm fine with subscription services to apps that provide the driver with desirable information, etc. But for any kind of hardware based 'normal car' feature, it's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[wallstbear]

Well, whether this is a good move depends on an important assumption:

• Is it indeed cheaper and more efficient for the specs to all come standard? So that guys who choose not to subscribe are enjoying the cost benefits rather than paying for the unused specs in the initial purchase price.

I don't know the answer to that question as I do not know enough about the cost structures of BMW.

That said, I could see why Lotus is selling the Emira FE w/ limited options and only 6 colors rather than offering a Porsche like options program. The last thing a British boutique automaker coming back from bankruptcy wants is a gazillion specs combinations that increases the potential for errors and delays exponentially.

 

[Leonard]

I think everyone not agreeing with this is over thinking it a little, but hey each to their own.
Seems like a win win to me. Buy it outright new, buy a car second hand with that feature, or enable it as and when you want it 🤷 Not a rip off is it, just more choice, convenience and possibly a saving
"BMW introduces new heated seat subscription in UK - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62142208.amp

 

[xen]

I think everyone not agreeing with this is over thinking it a little, but hey each to their own.
Seems like a win win to me. Buy it outright new, buy a car second hand with that feature, or enable it as and when you want it 🤷 Not a rip off is it, just more choice, convenience and possibly a saving
"BMW introduces new heated seat subscription in UK - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62142208.amp

What is surprising to me is people acting like this is a travesty and hasn't been done in many other industries for hardware as well. Car manufacturers have been limiting hardware functions with software for years. Another key point that's being missed for the sake of being sensationalist is that you still have the option to purchase the feature outright if you want to. It's crazy that it's fine to charge $20,000 and above for a software update to change an engines state of tune but the option to pay $18 for heated seats instead of a larger flat fee is problematic.

There's also a misunderstanding as to what 'ownership' actually means as it pertains to complicated devices run by licensed software. I'll leave it to a lawyer to explain the nuances around ownership and title but you don't for example own the ECU or the software in a car because you own the car, what you 'own' is the right to use said software with the car (and still subject to all the restrictions / covenants imposed by the original licensor). There are many instances of manufactures changing cars post sale to accommodate incoming regulations and restrictions via software - service campaigns to reduce exhaust pops and generally quieten cars are an example.

 

[Leonard]

What is surprising to me is people acting like this is a travesty and hasn't been done in many other industries for hardware as well. Car manufacturers have been limiting hardware functions with software for years. Another key point that's being missed for the sake of being sensationalist is that you still have the option to purchase the feature outright if you want to. It's crazy that it's fine to charge $20,000 and above for a software update to change an engines state of tune but the option to pay $18 for heated seats instead of a larger flat fee is problematic.

There's also a misunderstanding as to what 'ownership' actually means as it pertains to complicated devices run by licensed software. I'll leave it to a lawyer to explain the nuances around ownership and title but you don't for example own the ECU or the software in a car because you own the car, what you 'own' is the right to use said software with the car (and still subject to all the restrictions / covenants imposed by the original licensor). There are many instances of manufactures changing cars post sale to accommodate incoming regulations and restrictions via software - service campaigns to reduce exhaust pops and generally quieten cars are an example.

Indeed. I'm sure everyone would be immediately on-board if they start offering manufacturer approved ECU power upgrades rather than you having to go to Revo/Superchips and the like.

 

[frazzer]

We are moving into a future in which we will own nothing. Already if you live in the UK technically you don't ultimately own your house or land or even company. It belongs to the crown.

A person who owns nothing and lives on subscriptions via a now purely digital currency can be switched off by the state. This makes you generally much more compliant, this is how China operates, effectively on a points system for 'good citizenship'.

btw. not an anarchist, just what I see happening.

So if you're a naughty boy, the police can switch off your heated seats in winter and switch them on in Summer

 

[Porter]

There's also a misunderstanding as to what 'ownership' actually means as it pertains to complicated devices run by licensed software. I'll leave it to a lawyer to explain the nuances around ownership and title but you don't for example own the ECU or the software in a car because you own the car, what you 'own' is the right to use said software with the car (and still subject to all the restrictions / covenants imposed by the original licensor). There are many instances of manufactures changing cars post sale to accommodate incoming regulations and restrictions via software - service campaigns to reduce exhaust pops and generally quieten cars are an example.

This is not true in the US. First Sale Doctrine is long established, essentially bedrock law here. Once you own a physical asset like a car, you can do absolutely anything to it that you want and the IP inherent in it doesn't matter at all. That includes software, as long as you aren't copying and reselling it.

The restrictions on modification to ECU code etc are 100% related to emissions controls and enforced by the EPA, nothing to do with IP protection. And it remains to be seen whether emissions enforcement of that type will stand now that the US Supreme Court ruled against the EPA regarding their rulemaking authority in the WV vs EPA case last month.

There's a long tradition of extreme vehicle modification being legal in the US. You can chop the roof off, change the number of seats, exit the exhaust to the side, double or triple the horsepower, and convert it to a three wheeler if you want. The only meaningful restrictions are applied at the state level based on their safety inspection policies.