Car Manufacturers Monetizing Ownership

[sharpsicle]

The BMW CarPlay subscriptions was a typical example of irrational Internet hysteria.

Would you be upset if BMW charged $300 for car play? I wouldn't.

But they charged $300 for 20 years of car play. Which for all practical purposes is forever since long before then it's going to become useless because of the obsolescence of tech supporting it.

if they wanted to charge $20/month, that's worth being angry over. But the 20 year term makes it essentially a purchase.

If you are leasing the car for an amount equal to or less than 3 years, then $80 for the 3 year subscription is fine. It's a lease. You are paying for use for the entire car.

See this I actually disagree with. If it’s “essentially a purchase” then it should have no limiting terms attached to it. Want to charge for it? Fine. But there’s no justification for limiting my access after any period of time.

The life of the technology is irrelevant. It’s the ownership aspect that is critical. We need to have rights here, and now, to prevent this type of manipulation.

Sponsored

 

[ZoMojave]

If this spreads across U.S. built vehicles, one can certainly imagine that the public push back will be extreme enough that the auto manufacturers will need to take a step back and rethink their corporate greed. Then hopefully lawmakers get involved and end it for good.

 

[sharpsicle]

The good news it it's already on the radar for some politicians. That is, until they receive hefty "donations" from auto makers and then randomly "decide" to drop the proposals.

https://nypost.com/2022/10/25/nj-lawmakers-float-ban-on-car-subscriptions-after-bmw-outrage/

 

[NOTJeepBeerSleep]

This 100% needs to be made illegal.

What's next? Cruise control? Headlights? Power locks?

I bought these things. I own them.

while I agree that it is frustrating, I couldn't disagree more with your solution. why are people so quick to ask for more government? its a car that's available for purchase not mandatory. you can just not buy it, or you can buy it and modify it as you wish.

 

[Not2Late]

I swear if someone could find a way to charge for the air we breathe, they would! Or a newspaper/books/media with words that disappear after you read them so the the next person has to buy their own. I worry when my collection of itunes music will disappear. The new business term is you are buying access and not ownership. Subscription-based everything is the way of the future for business and is more predictable on their spreadsheets

With so much software baked into modern cars these days, I am not surprised this was going to be tried at some point. I suppose it is similar to the Windows operating systems on computers. All the features are installed and then based on what version you pay for, certain things are unlocked.

I used to have a '21 Toyota Tundra SR5 - mid trim level. I did not subscribe to the monthly remote start feature (from my phone), and the key fob did not have a remote start button that I could tell. I figured I just didn't have that capability. One day on the forums, a person posted that if you pushed some of the buttons on the key fob in a certain way, you could start the car. Guess what...it worked! So the capability was there to do it in a more mechanical way, but the manufacturer was wanting me to do it through an app I would pay for.

 

[sharpsicle]

while I agree that it is frustrating, I couldn't disagree more with your solution. why are people so quick to ask for more government? its a car that's available for purchase not mandatory. you can just not buy it, or you can buy it and modify it as you wish.

That's the problem, you're not buying it anymore and no longer can modify it as you wish. They're locking these things down and making it all a privilege to use, rather than owning the features. If I wanted that, I'd lease, but if I buy I own it. Manufacturers like BMW are saying the exact opposite of that with these moves, that they own it and you have to pay them for using it.

And that's exactly where laws need to come in, situations like this where it's our duty to protect our rights for the common interest. Similar arguments are arising on other sectors on the same premise. The John Deere right-to-repair case is a great example of some of the fights we're up against if these things don't get codified.

I feel that to say "just don't buy it" is condoning an underhanded practice that is widely regarded as contrary to the public good, and allowing it to perpetuate and grow into all the products and industries you rely on today due to inaction. You can say you don't care, that's fine, but it's unfair to say it isn't a clear and threatening issue.

 

[NOTJeepBeerSleep]

you say you can no longer modify, i say they made it difficult to modify. the market can solve this better than the government. government would pull a fast one and make it illegal to modify and fine you for changing tire size. see DCMA

 

[sharpsicle]

you say you can no longer modify, i say they made it difficult to modify. the market can solve this better than the government. government would pull a fast one and make it illegal to modify and fine you for changing tire size. see DCMA

DCMA? The Defense Contract Management Agency?

And it's not productive to skip over the entire post to cherry pick. If you read the rest, you'd see the rationalization behind the statement.

 

[Casique]

Acura is guilty as well. My wife's 2022 Acura MDX did not come with remote start. We were surprised a week after we bough it and realized that it had been taken away, and had to pay $12 a month for the app. We did for this winter. However when the lease is up we're going with another brand! We have been buying and leasing Acura MDXs for 22 years, but no more. By the way the next model up 5-10K more comes with the remote start.

Need to hope that the spirit of competition is alive and some company will come along and offer the stuff as purchased, since its really never free.

 

[NOTJeepBeerSleep]

DCMA? The Defense Contract Management Agency?

lol dmca

 

[DirkG]

Acura is guilty as well. My wife's 2022 Acura MDX did not come with remote start. We were surprised a week after we bough it and realized that it had been taken away, and had to pay $12 a month for the app. We did for this winter. However when the lease is up we're going with another brand! We have been buying and leasing Acura MDXs for 22 years, but no more. By the way the next model up 5-10K more comes with the remote start.

Need to hope that the spirit of competition is alive and some company will come along and offer the stuff as purchased, since its really never free.

We've had MDX's constantly in our garage since 2006. Remote start has always been a unique feature available in Advance (and later added to the Technology package in the 3rd gen models). However, for 2022, it reverted back that only the Advance model has the feature. If you bought the Base, Technology, or A-Spec models, you have to use the subscription based app for remote start.

Frustrating yes, but it's basically always been baked into the "pony up for remote start" MDX business model. We're on our 6th MDX (if you count our ZDX as a fast-back MDX) and hope that you can see the merits of the vehicle beyond the remote start frustration.

 

[dajudge]

All this crap does is reinforce my bias towards older cars.
Besides my Gladiator (which may be my last new car) I have a 2013 Impala and a 2001 Cherokee XJ.

I was going to buy a Trailhawk Grand for my wife but they are only available on the 4xe now so not doing that.
I will NEVER pay for heated seats as subscription especially when they aren't going to lower the cost of the cars.

 

[redriderjf87]

That's the problem, you're not buying it anymore and no longer can modify it as you wish. They're locking these things down and making it all a privilege to use, rather than owning the features. If I wanted that, I'd lease, but if I buy I own it. Manufacturers like BMW are saying the exact opposite of that with these moves, that they own it and you have to pay them for using it.

And that's exactly where laws need to come in, situations like this where it's our duty to protect our rights for the common interest. Similar arguments are arising on other sectors on the same premise. The John Deere right-to-repair case is a great example of some of the fights we're up against if these things don't get codified.

I feel that to say "just don't buy it" is condoning an underhanded practice that is widely regarded as contrary to the public good, and allowing it to perpetuate and grow into all the products and industries you rely on today due to inaction. You can say you don't care, that's fine, but it's unfair to say it isn't a clear and threatening issue.

If nobody buys the products linked to the subscriptions, I don't think that's condoning subscriptions.

 

[DirkG]

I've been saying this for years - manufacturers and their tied-in dealer networks are no longer going to have the cash-cow oil changes and maintenance charges that ICE engine vehicles bring. Electric vehicles are far cheaper to maintain. These are the only maintenance items listed for Telsa owners:

• Cabin air filter replacement
• Tire rotation
• Brake fluid test: Tesla owners should have the brake fluid tested every two years and replaced as needed.
  • Brake pads don’t need to be replaced as often as on traditional vehicles because Teslas use regenerative braking to reduce wear.
• Winter care: Tesla recommends lubricating your car’s brake calipers every 12 months or 12,500 miles if you live in a cold-weather region.
• Air conditioning service: Tesla recommends servicing the air conditioning and replacing the desiccant bag every two to six years, depending on the model and year. See the table below for details.

Fluids are where the constant ICE maintenance revenues come from. There are no oil changes, radiator flushes, transmission flushes, etc in electrics. Brake pad and rotor maintenance revenues are greatly reduced as well.

It's an industry that's trying to adapt. Now we're seeing subscription based features as a replacement for long term maintenance, but consumers are really pushing back.

Their error is charging for features that are commonplace. Heated seats? C'mon BMW. Tesla gets away with it because it's been a new experience and it was baked in the ownership model from the beginning. The way industry stalwarts like BMW can add subscription revenue is for new features and experiences. Tesla's premium subscription includes:

An upgraded “premium connectivity” package adds features in-car Wi-Fi, navigation with live traffic updates, and access to the monthly downloads Tesla pushes out with fun in-car entertainment like karaoke and games on the car’s central touchscreen. Premium connectivity costs $9.99 per month or an annual fee of $99.​

I'm not saying Tesla's model is perfect, but it's far from charging for remote start or heated seats. Granted for some models you have to unlock them, but it's a one time fee (at least for now). Ugh.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Imagine having to pay a monthly subscription to have a Key Fob with remote start.

Old news. Been going on for a while.

This 100% needs to be made illegal.

What's next? Cruise control? Headlights? Power locks?

I bought these things. I own them.

Yeah, it's happening and coming. Toyota, BMW and others. Want auto high beam and certain other features, it will cost you a fee.


You will no longer be able to modify a vehicle, add a better radio, add passive entry, add remote start and so on. It will be locked down. If you want it you will pay a monthly fee.

Look at what's happened in software - you don't buy the license and install the software and use THAT software for as long as you wish. It's hosted in the cloud and you basically rent it. When it changes it changes and you are forced to accept the change.
No more sticking with a version of anything - it's akin to virtual desktops used in business. Nothing is installed locally, you boot from the network and launch apps from the network. The computer MUST maintain connection to the network to function.

Sponsored