Car companies stand to make billions by charging you monthly fees...

[Sheldon]

I read that in some years we could have "free" transportation in cities, like we have a "free" version of music streaming services. The more limited the service is, and the more advertisements you are willing to here/see during transportation, the cheaper it will be.

Sponsored

 

[Hootbro]

I think you are confusing things a bit there. I do not see anyone in their 30's embracing subscriptions on things like heated seats or the like. Unless they can't afford the purchase, and this "subscription" allows them to get in at a lower price. But that is true of anyone regardless of age. Those who can't afford, subscribe. It's more about the financial stability of the person rather than what generation they're in.

Given average new car prices are over $40K now, any vehicle having these services are going to be that price or higher. So people buying them will be of means to own them and the subscriptions that come with them.

 

[ilovebikes99]

I am with you but I think it is point less in the long run. The current GEN Y (Millennials) aged 26-41 and early GEN Z that is aging in, have pretty much only know a subscription based model for a lot of what they already consume. Most cannot remember a time before the internet and social media. They will embrace this.

Only chance is us in the mid 40's and up who usually buy into more luxury brand and/or heavily option vehicle have a chance to push back on this but that will be maybe a 10-15 reprieve at best.

Nope... Not all. I'm in the middle of that age group, I'll never buy into it.
This is for people who have no idea how technology/hardware works. The average user/consumer. Consumer is getting to be a very demeaning word.

On a side note, it seems the latest tactic in the corporate world is the nickel and diming.
5 bucks for this 3 bucks for that, 8 bucks for this and people say "hey it's only 5/15/25 bucks a month", "I can afford that no problem" and you got a 100 of these charges you can't even keep up with aand then you're living paycheck to paycheck.

 

[futzin']

Our society has begun thinking conveniences = necessities.
We no longer have the gumption to vote no by witholding dollars.

"Oh, I don't have enough money to buy all the conveniences and niceties that I want? Obviously, I don't make the money I deserve!"

 

[hjdca]

I smell Tazer-like modules being even more popular to unlock these "features". To try and lock out something so simple and so basic is such a waste of engineering. Thus the perpetual war between the mfg and aftermarket bypasses will continue forever.

What's so hard about building a product, selling it, and then moving on to the next product?

Yes, good point, this sure makes the tazer look like the best deal going. Since I bought it, at least 4 features have been added for free... Go Tazer !

 

[Hootbro]

Nope... Not all. I'm in the middle of that age group, I'll never buy into it.
This is for people who have no idea how technology/hardware works. The average user/consumer. Consumer is getting to be a very demeaning word.

On a side note, it seems the latest tactic in the corporate world is the nickel and diming.
5 bucks for this 3 bucks for that, 8 bucks for this and people say "hey it's only 5/15/25 bucks a month", "I can afford that no problem" and you got a 100 of these charges you can't even keep up with aand then you're living paycheck to paycheck.

I am talking on the balance of probability, not the minority outliers. It is all speculative at best where it will go anyways.

 

[Deadeye]

carplay and android auto are soon to be pay for use on bmws. (rumor from a buddy at bmw starts later this year and i hope he is wrong)

Im sure every manufacturer will get there.

we already have guests who dont renew their enform and wonder why their remote start does not work.

its annoying they do this and i hate it the business model.

BMW already tried. Apple went ballistic over it and threatened to drop support for BMW, so they backed off.

 

[j.o.y.ride]

Unfortunately it's the "subscription" model everybody seems to love these days.

Who owns music anymore, just subscribe to spotify.
Who owns movies anymore, just subscribe to netflix/disney+/etc/etc
Who buys games/apps anymore, just plaster them with ads and in-app purchases.
Can't afford $1,000 for the latest & greatest iPhone? Just pay $30/mo forever and you'll always have the latest.
Don't want to walk 5 blocks in town? Rent a scooter.
Don't want to drive anymore, use an uber.

If you're sick of this then nothing is stopping you from buying CDs or DVDs or your own scooter or never using Uber.

I'm sick and tired of this new economy.

None of these are anything close to parallel.

Spotify and Netflix are extremely different situations as a monthly fee the equivalent to less then a single album or DVD gets you access to millions of songs and thousands of movies.

Uber's a very different issue as most people don't forgo ownership for Uber. A few will but it's usually a specific situational need like from airport to hotel or home from a bar. Scooters are rented so you don't need to deal with lugging them around or have a sudden need like running late in a city.

Cell phones have been sold as monthly plans for decades. It's actually only fairly recently that unlocked phones or phones bought for MSRP became common.

This is fake rage for the sake of rage.

 

[Jeep-A-Kneez]

Think I'm already paying enough every year in property tax, just to have the a subscription of owning what I already have.

 

[j.o.y.ride]

Think I'm already paying enough every year in property tax, just to have the a subscription of owning what I already have.

Sigh. That's not what property tax is and you (I hope) are smart enough to know that.

 

[Kevin_D]

The way I see it, if it were economically feasible in my situation, I'd consider the subscription route.
As an example, the Cold Weather Group is currently $695. I use the heated features about 6 months each year. IF could subscribe to the heated features for only the 6 months/yr. that I wanted to use them, and the monthly fee were under $10, then I could drive the Jeep for over 10 years and come out ahead. If I plan on keeping the vehicle for more than 11 years, then I'd be losing money on the deal.
This looks like an ideal situation for a leased vehicle. I mean, you're already renting the car, why not rent all the bells & whistles?

Will this catch on? I hope not, but then, I'm not an average consumer, either.

Kevin

 

[sharpsicle]

There seems to be little to no economic sense behind building a car with the feature, but then pricing it lower, just to try and recoup the difference through subscription. That would mean they start in a hole with the hope the consumer will subscribe to come out ahead. The manufacturer would rather price the car to the max, or sell you the feature, knowing the consumer can get a loan to cover it and they get all their money up front. Economies of scale aside, you get what you pay for, and the manufacturer doesn't hedge.

The only way they make any real additional money on this scheme is to charge you full-price, then even more via subscription. That's a crap model that I don't think would survive multiple legal challenges long-term.

If it's a live service, like SiriusXM or Uconnect, you aren't really paying a subscription to access the hardware. You're paying to access the service via the hardware. The hardware itself doesn't stop working, it just stops receiving data. This makes sense and is a different type of ecosystem.

To subscribe to use hardware that already exists makes zero sense from a functional perspective. It only makes sense for a cash grab. It requires no data transmission or infrastructure outside the car to use heated seats or auto-headlights. It really doesn't add up.

 

[Kevin_D]

To subscribe to use hardware that already exists makes zero sense from a functional perspective. It only makes sense for a cash grab. It requires no data transmission or infrastructure outside the car to use heated seats or auto-headlights. It really doesn't add up.

The highlighted sentence says it all: an attempt to maximize income.

Kevin

 

[sharpsicle]

The highlighted sentence says it all: an attempt to maximize income.

I agree, but you said this, which contradicts it:

The way I see it, if it were economically feasible in my situation, I'd consider the subscription route.
As an example, the Cold Weather Group is currently $695. I use the heated features about 6 months each year. IF could subscribe to the heated features for only the 6 months/yr. that I wanted to use them, and the monthly fee were under $10, then I could drive the Jeep for over 10 years and come out ahead. If I plan on keeping the vehicle for more than 11 years, then I'd be losing money on the deal.

Just wanted to add clarity to what would or would not make economic sense from the manufacturer. I do not see this situation you described being how this works.

 

[redrider]

We cancelled the satellite service and went with Roku. I/we just became tired of Home Alone re-runs every other month and daily in July. We save over 100 clams a month and have access to an innumerable amount of programming. Some without but most with commercials. Some one has to pay for everything we watch for free. The providers of content have lives. We have no need for most of the aforementioned "social services", but others do or think so.

Sponsored