The really offensive part of this kind of thing is that you already paid for it. Like if you wanted to buy a regular car and you could get the engine with turbo then those are two different cars. The latter costing more because it has more/better stuff in it. This is all fine and good.
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.
dpkirchner · 6h ago
The turbo example would be especially egregious because it adds complexity to the engine. You're paying for the hardware and paying more for all engine related repairs in the future. The same goes for BMW's infamous heated seat subscription.
reactordev · 5h ago
I wish the smartcar didn’t suck so bad. We need alternatives to this “turn them upside down and shake the coins from them” approach to cars. We kind of screwed ourselves here in US because you have to drive places, you can’t walk. Even big cities aren’t that walkable (with the exception of a dozen neighborhoods sprinkled about a half dozen cities).
Voultapher · 4h ago
> Forget F1: the only car race that matters now is the race to turn your car into a digital extraction machine, a high-speed inkjet printer on wheels, stealing your private data as it picks your pocket. Your car's digital infrastructure is a costly, dangerous nightmare – but for automakers in pursuit of postcapitalist utopia, it's a dream they can't give up on. [...]
> 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? [...]
As I said in other comments, this is already happening since years (and I mentioned Ford, but literally everyone else does it).
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.
Buttons840 · 6h ago
How can companies get away with doing extra work to make their products worse in a market with healthy competition? What does it mean when things that happen in a competitive market aren't happening?
GuB-42 · 6h ago
They are doing less work. Designing a lower performance engine is harder and more expensive than producing more of the higher performance engine and limiting it.
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.
SoftTalker · 5h ago
They have to sell most of the cars in the lower performance configuration to meet fleet average emissions requirements.
It's cheaper to design and engineer one common engine block, heads, camshafts, crank, pistons, etc. and regulate the output in software.
Buttons840 · 5h ago
Artificially limiting the engine is the extra work. In a competitive market artificial limitations would mean that you lose to a competitor.
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.
altairprime · 5h ago
Insurance does not necessarily stop insuring modified cars. They do, however, require you to detail in depth your modifications and request a revised estimate of them. If your modification is “downloaded an Internet program and ran it to break the ECU lock”, they may be uncomfortable and either raise your premium or ask you to find another insurer. If instead it is “applied the attached two-byte change to the manufacturer-issued software after tracing all associated uses and determining that it exclusively activates a manufacturer-offered feature for the vehicle that is legal in my insured region(s)”, they’re probably not going to change your premium at all. Their job is to charge you a fee for the risk you pose to them, and the more effort you show in documenting and mitigating the risks of your mods, the more likely they are to be cool about it.
snypher · 6h ago
I'd like to know specific examples of what you are referencing. I don't believe you have the correct interpretation of this.
Melatonic · 6h ago
What cars is this true for and does it include all insurances ?
dare944 · 5h ago
Manufacturers have been shipping cars with detuned engines forever, and tuners have been tweaking them to unlock the hidden power for just as long. Back in the beginning of the century I owned a 2000 Audi S4 twin-turbo. The torque curve on it looked like a perfect plateau between 2,500 and 5,300 rpm. I replaced the entire ECU with a chipped duplicate (a five minute swap) and instantly gained 50 horsepower. Of course, Audi limited the torque for a variety of reasons, including reliability and the fact that otherwise the car would have encroached on their higher-end RS4 line.
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.
tux1968 · 4h ago
This is an honest question, because I have no knowledge about cars at all. Could the "detuning" rather be interpreted as akin to the "binning" that CPU manufacturers do? So, if you buy a higher model car, you get qualified and tested parts for that performance rating. And if you buy a lower model, and "overclock" it, you're on your own?
dfxm12 · 4h ago
I don't know if I exactly follow the analogy, but engines are not binned like CPU's. If you have questions about if you're "on your own" with mods, check with whoever has your warranty and insurance. It might be different car to car or even state to state. Likely, you can get some work done at a dealership that won't void your warranty and tune to a level that doesn't affect your insurance.
olyjohn · 2h ago
I hesitate to call turbo cars detuned just because you can turn up the boost or add timing. A lot of the "hidden power" in turbo cars is for emissions and reliability. Just because you can run 30psi doesn't mean the car is gonna last 200k miles like that.
delta_p_delta_x · 6h ago
It's true of all 'sub-models' of a given make and model.
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.
Intake and exhaust manifold shapes affect the power and torque characteristics of the engine. Also, these are not cheap parts. Also a quick glance at the parts catalogue suggests that the example engine, BMW B48, has different pistons and connecting rods for different tune levels, suggesting that the cast engine block is one of the few components which are actually interchangeable between the versions. Didn't check, but I'd guess the turbocharger compressor and turbine wheels might be different, too.
Grimeton · 4h ago
THIS.
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.
antonkochubey · 4h ago
Different variants of B48 have different turbos and injectors (and the HPFP until the year 2020)
dfxm12 · 6h ago
I was into sports cars more in the 90s, so my knowledge of this stuff today isn't great, but I mean it was at least true of most sports cars. Most famously the Nissan Skyline R34. The RB26DETT engine is known to have been under-tuned from the factory. You can get so much more horsepower out of it.
tmerc · 5h ago
That's different. Look up the gentleman's agreement for why, but every Japanese car from that era had 276hp on paper. The supra had close to 320 as sold. The skyline had a marked boost controller hose that you could remove part of and turn up boost for more power. None of this was to sell a higher power variant using the same parts but software locked. It was all to secretly continue the horsepower war while publicly sticking to the agreed limits.
dylan604 · 5h ago
This was the whole point of the grease monkey scene starting back in the 50s. You take the car from the dealer, and then start adding, tweaking to get every last bit of power from it. Take a set of twin single barrel carbs off to be replaced with a single four barrel. Add a better set of manifolds. Add better __________. Once computers were introduced for air/fuel mixing, fuel injection, and any of the other things it can do, there have been shops that specialize in tuning them to max out performance. Just watch any show on your favorite streaming platform about building/enhancing cars.
tarsinge · 3h ago
If you’re talking about limiting the power through ECU it can be interesting for engine longevity. If I’m buying used I’d avoid the typical downsized turbo engine pushed to its limit and prefer the artificially limited one as it’ll have prevented the previous owners to have wear it out too much.
lurk2 · 6h ago
> 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.
What was the point of doing this prior to selling a subscription to unlock it?
nyarlathotep_ · 5h ago
> 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.
tgaj · 6h ago
To match the offer to the market - if the base engine is more powerful than the market standard at a given price then you can lower the power because the customer will not choose another car on that basis anyway. And you can take more money from enthusiasts.
lurk2 · 6h ago
So if I’m understanding you correctly, the play here is:
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?
sbarre · 6h ago
> Is there no extra cost associated with machining the faster engine?
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).
barrkel · 4h ago
Done right, a more powerful engine needs uprating of a bunch of other components - clutch, brakes, suspension, tyre profile, cooling, exhaust, air intake and so on. Almost certainly not a big deal with a 10% bump, but if it was a big bump, costs could be saved elsewhere in a less powerful vehicle.
lurk2 · 2h ago
But then why offer the ability to unlock the engine’s full power on a model that isn’t engineered to accommodate it?
Eddy_Viscosity2 · 6h ago
> 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.
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.
mk89 · 6h ago
From a manufacturer perspective it costs less to produce and test 1 engine type than 5.
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).
gizmo · 5h ago
If the manufacturer doesn't want to go through the trouble of creating a less powerful engine because it's not economically advantageous then the consumer should just get the better engine by default.
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.
dylan604 · 5h ago
They are getting the better engine. It’s right there in the car.
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.
kelipso · 2h ago
You pay a subscription to overclock your RAM?
Eddy_Viscosity2 · 6h ago
In this sort of case my needs would be something like 'at least 100HP'. Then someone says we have this 150HP engine here that costs $X and we are going to charge you $X+markup for it (if they sold less than $X they would go out of business so for sure I will be paying for the full cost of the engine plus a mark-up).
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.
pythonaut_16 · 6h ago
It seems you're thinking of the "full cost of the engine" as like material + labor to produce 1 engine. So profit vs loss is equivalent to whether you pay more or less than the unit cost of 1 engine.
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.
Eddy_Viscosity2 · 5h ago
Although I didn't say it, I was treating the 'full cost' as being all of the development etc also. It doesn't change the situation, the car company still needs to set the price to recover everything else they go under. In very special cases, companies do sometimes sell at a loss but even in this situation, purposefully making any part of the car worse is still wrong and bad. I see limiting HP with software as no different than charging extra to NOT take a hammer to windshield.
'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.'
DennisP · 5h ago
Generally you don't have to lose your insurance just because you modify your car. You just have to let them know you're doing it, and probably pay a little more.
monooso · 5h ago
> You should not think that you're paying more for getting less.
You're paying more for something that you're not allowed to use.
AshamedCaptain · 6h ago
That is not true, and even TFA points at why that can't be true: to your insurance, to vehicle taxes, etc. you declare the power _of the installed engine_, not of whatever software interlocks you, your tax advisor, or the manufacturer have decided to install on it.
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.
mk89 · 6h ago
It is unfortunately true and pretty much everyone does it. You should look it up [0] or talk to car mechanics.
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.
That article says the opposite you're trying to say (it clearly says Ford uses physically different engines for different variations, just that the volume is no longer the comparable or even advertised metric). That engine volume, size (and other like metrics) no longer correlates with power has been a thing since the 1950s ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_horsepower ). Which is why since then the tax is not computed by size alone.
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.
mk89 · 6h ago
I got downsizing mixed up, you're right. We're talking about something I didn't look up for a while now, so in mind the downsizing was connected to the ability to resize the engine with software. While the downsizing was done for different reasons, the engine configuration can and is often provided through software.
> 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.
tgaj · 6h ago
It is true, the performance of the engine depends on the version of the software - manufacturer declares that this engine with this software can achieve this maximum performance and the software can't be legally nad officially tuned or changed. Btw in my country tax depends on engine displacement so it doesn't really change anything.
AshamedCaptain · 6h ago
In most countries I know of (almost all of western EU), for electrical vehicles, you have to register the real maximum power output by the engine. If a software update allows you to increase that over the registered power, then you are in violation of motor vehicle codes and would need to a) pay a fine b) then update the registration, which is usually a $$$ process.
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?
mk89 · 6h ago
You know that you can tune your engine right? And this is done with software that does ECU tuning. So in theory all cars are illegal?
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.
AshamedCaptain · 5h ago
> You know that you can tune your engine right? And this is done with software that does ECU tuning. So in theory all cars are illegal?
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.
mttch · 6h ago
Is this the same with EV though? The power of the installed engine is more nuanced, for example the full power is limited by software already to prevent wheel spin and improve range. Also, in the UK EVs are listed as a 0cc engine on the vehicle ownership records so effectively have no engine.
argiopetech · 5h ago
Effectively and technically. A motor is not an engine.
dfxm12 · 6h ago
Price of a car is not a fixed thing. All prices are made up, including markups, so you can't say what you're specifically paying for or not. Also, companies commonly price things at a loss, often to entice you to buy some subscription along side it.
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.
No comments yet
tomasGiden · 6h ago
How about in-app purchases and subscriptions? The code is already there. Is it abusive?
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?
Eddy_Viscosity2 · 6h ago
> How about in-app purchases and subscriptions? The code is already there. Is it abusive?
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.
k4rli · 6h ago
It's not the same comparison at all. Part of the problem why IT people developing electric shitboxes has ruined the car industry.
azalemeth · 6h ago
I personally think the answer to this is "yes” and have never bought any product that did this. I don't even do subscriptions.
The turbo example is insane. It's literally unwanted dead weight probably slightly negatively affecting fuel economy.
koonsolo · 4h ago
> This is abusive, wasteful, and should be illegal in my opinion.
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.
jqpabc123 · 8h ago
Forget Netflix
Better idea --- forget Volkswagen.
This is just one example of anti-consumer antics bordering on extortion that have been building for a very long time.
The overall idea is simple --- reduce the sticker price to a competitive level and try to increase profits with prepaid maintenance, insurance, data collection and other "subscription" services. In VW's case, this appears to be an act of desperation.
Consumers don't have to "subscribe" to this sort of gamesmanship. There are alternatives --- as evidenced by VW earnings --- down almost 40% over the past year.
mk89 · 7h ago
To be honest, I prefer this to what other car makers do.
Example: Ford.
In many cases they ship 1 engine type and restrict it by software. This way they reduce manufacturing costs, I understand, it's just unfair that you have the same engine of someone with officially more horsepower and all you can do is cheat (with software that enables the feature) and hence say goodbye to your insurance.
whartung · 7h ago
I have one of these, but it’s not a Ford. It’s a BMW motorcycle.
At the time, the F-series came in the F-750 and F-850 models.
The motors are identical, the computers restrict the top end horsepower.
But, those aren’t the only differences. The 850 is more designed for off road than the 750. The bike is taller, large front wheel, spoked wheels.
I’m have the 750, the more street oriented version. But here’s the thing.
As they say in motorsports, there’s no replacement for displacement. My peak HP may be down to the 850, but I get all of the torque, which is one aspect that makes a motorcycle better to ride. Torque really helps with acceleration, and my bike will get to ludicrous speed quite handily.
Also in some jurisdictions, riders are limited by HP as to what bikes they’re allowed to ride due to tiered licensing. The 750 falls under one of those lines.
So I can’t speak to Ford, but I think the way BMW uses this in the F-series is quite reasonable on several levels.
i_am_proteus · 6h ago
Same thing on the current F-800 and F-900: identical engine blocks, different power outputs, F-900 comes with taller suspension, spoked wheels, and so forth.
I believe part of the rationale is that Euro A2 licenses permit a "restrictor kit" to reduce motor power below 47 hp, but only if maximum horsepower is less than 94 hp (double the limit). One can buy an F-800 with a restrictor, and then remove the restrictor once one has obtained the upgraded license.
Now, looking at the motor torque and power curves, most of that extra power comes in the high RPMs. In practical riding of BMW twins, I find that I rarely place the motor into the high RPMs, because the torque curve is nice and flat and there's plenty of pull in the low range :)
mk89 · 7h ago
This is a very specific case, to be honest, and I am happy you can enjoy your motorbike like the model with more HPs, etc.
The thing is - for mass production, it has become cheaper for a manufacturer to produce 1 engine type and block it with software rather then 2,3...N types and to allow people to choose.
The subscription model in my opinion makes sense, because you can also decide to unlock the feature entirely and it stays. If not, you can try and decide. It sounds reasonable to me - they didn't sell you 4 wheels and a steering wheel with "entry level" model that can be upgraded to "all in the entry model + car seats, radio" etc. We're talking about some very specific upgrades that make the car cost less by default and yet still good.
Who the hell needs 230HPs on a daily basis? So shrink that, make the entry model more reasonable, and let them upgrade if they want to.
jalgos_eminator · 4h ago
How does the computer restrict power? Is it just a lower rev limiter?
jillesvangurp · 7h ago
> down almost 40% over the past year.
That has more to do with their legacy ICE business than with their EVs. Their EV business is apparently growing quite nicely. And they have issues with tariffs in the US of course. But so do all their competitors.
> Consumers don't have to "subscribe" to this sort of gamesmanship.
But some happily do. Modern cars have a lot of software that defines their behavior and characteristics. Getting access to some of the feature flags is a natural control point. There's no need to introduce a lot of variation at the hardware level.
In the end you get what you pay for. If you can get a better deal for the same money, you should take it of course. Nobody stops you. Or if on the other hand horsepower doesn't really matter to you and you would mostly drive the car in economy mode, you might pay a bit less for a decent car. EVs offer a ridiculous amount of horsepower and torque. Limiting that a bit via software isn't that strange and actually necessary to prevent them from shredding their own tires. Conservative settings are better for the tires and limit the amount of wear and tear (and resulting warranty and insurance claims).
VW actually uses the same base platform for a lot of different cars and sub brands. At the hardware level there is far less difference than the amount of models would suggest. Any differences in driving experience are mostly software. And the cool thing with software is that you can change things. So, why not try to charge for that?
I personally wouldn't care about paying a subscription for stuff like this. But I appreciate some people might care enough to hand over some cash that don't necessarily have a lot of cash on hand to outright buy a more expensive model. And technically any car that has the option, is unmonetized potential. So, a subscription isn't the weirdest thing to tap into that potential. Many people lease their car anyway. So, they are already paying per month. Pay a little extra for some redundant fun on the daily commute. Or don't and pay a little less.
I don't think that's consumer hostile. Of course the FOMO for pointless features that this creates causes some people to get irrationally angry about the perceived injustice of somebody not giving them something on the cheap.
Eddy_Viscosity2 · 7h ago
'happily'?
I think not. Sure there are features that people want and would pay for, but I'd bet given the option that a lot of people would prefer to pay a bit more up front then have a monthly subscription. Personally, I want that choice back. Every subscription like this is a shift of power from the consumer to a corporation with all those TOS that can be unilaterally changed at will and features that can be remotely disabled by some half-assed AI.
jqpabc123 · 7h ago
Of course the FOMO for pointless features
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not limited to "pointless features".
The motor for the windshield wipers on some VW models cost $600 plus installation which is likely to be at least as much as the part itself.
So just buy an aftermarket part and install it yourself? Sorry, no can do. The wiper motor is computer controlled using a proprietary protocol protected by DMCA.
Maintenance is not just a "pointless feature".
simonh · 7h ago
We broke the charging port cover on our car a few weeks after we got it. Someone clipped it with their leg walking past while it was open. Small piece of plastic to replace. £60.
hulitu · 7h ago
> Their EV business is apparently growing quite nicely
Their EV business is a disaster. Expensive cars plagued by ugly software bugs (reset of instrument cluster during driving). The whole VW holdind is competing with themselves (Skoda, VW, Audi, Porsche, Cupra)
lurk2 · 6h ago
> The overall idea is simple --- reduce the sticker price to a competitive level and try to increase profits with prepaid maintenance, insurance, data collection and other "subscription" services.
Passenger airline carriers and printer manufacturers have a similar model of using their flagship products (flights and printers) as loss leaders for their actual products (credit cards and ink).
jqpabc123 · 2h ago
For Euro cars, the "actual" product is parts, service/maintenance and subscriptions.
Now I trust them even less, if that's even possible .
mk89 · 7h ago
The emission scandal is something that VW paid while literally everyone else didn't - they got caught because they installed cheating software and deinstalled it after the test lab, while the others did pretty much the same in the same software which was more sophisticated, as it could somehow recognize the car wasn't being driven in real use cases, which reduced the emissions, to drastically increase once it was driven outside.
So yeah, Ford, Nissan, etc., also did their cheating, but due to some loopholes they are all good :)
jqpabc123 · 6h ago
So yeah, Ford, Nissan, etc., also did their cheating, but due to some loopholes they are all good :)
Just provide your proof of this to one of the millions of greedy lawyers out there and you can easily become rich.
toast0 · 5h ago
IIRC, VWs in the wild would pass emissions tests, as long as only the drive wheels moved and the steering wasn't touched.
Of course, most people drive on roads, so the non-drive wheels move, and most trips involve turns.
Since the emissions tests were conducted on a dynamometer, the average affected car would likely pass. Researchers did tests in real world conditions and found the emissions varied significantly.
Incipient · 7h ago
They're reducing manufacturing costs by producing the same car, and just selling it at different prices based on performance.
I think this is quite common with EVs especially, where the same motors are used in the base and performance models - they do normally add other stuff like bigger batteries etc too, but also cost a lot more than just 600 quid extra.
DennisP · 6h ago
What I mostly see from EVs is varying the number of motors. You get the manufacturing cost reduction on your motors without having to actually over-spec your base model.
Even this isn't the whole story though, at least at the high end. The Model S Plaid has an extra motor but also uses different rear motors, designed to be more efficient at high RPM. And Tesla puts a lot of emphasis on parts commonality in general.
hnlmorg · 7h ago
You’re going to struggle to find any car manufacturer that you can trust then because they all cheat.
And this subscription trend is exactly that, a common trend these days. It’s far from unique to VW.
Public transport (in the UK at least) cheats the system whenever they can too. So you’re probably best sticking to push bikes.
jqpabc123 · 6h ago
It’s far from unique to VW.
I have found that there are very few absolutes in life --- so use your best judgment.
In my judgment, European manufacturers have jumped on this bandwagon more than most. Probably out of desperation and necessity --- they can't compete solely on price.
As another example, Mercedes vehicles seem to be good for about 3 years before the planned maintenance (aka gouging) really starts kicking in. I've known people with $10K bills for the scheduled maintenance from a dealership --- for a 3-4 year old car that seems to be running just fine.
"Mercedes-Benz is one of the fastest depreciating car brands in the world!"
For used car buyers this is a boon. You can pick up a nice older E class for a few thousand dollars if you know a bit about what to look for and what to avoid.
jqpabc123 · 4h ago
Yes, this might make sense if you could do the maintenance yourself --- but this is not at all easy or even possible in some cases without expensive/specialized electronic tools --- and this is all by design.
Something that should be simple like changing the battery is actually an intricate process on some models involving all sorts of resets and nonsense. A mistake can "brick" your car. I know someone who did this and had to have the car towed to the dealership where they were subjected to a good ole fashioned ($$$) reaming --- all for a dead battery.
For me, a 5 year old Mercedes is just not worth the headache --- and again, this is by design IMO. If you choose to buy one for basic transportation, my advice is make sure you have a backup vehicle.
SoftTalker · 3h ago
Yes this is more and more true of any car. And yes I'm assuming you can handle at least routine maintenance and repairs yourself. My newest is a W211 which is about 20 years old now. Reliable drivetrain, pretty easy to work on overall, most electronic systems can be at least read if not managed by a generic scan tool such as a YouCanic.
You can find them cheap enough so that if they have a major failure you just scrap it and find another one. If they last a few years, you have a comfortable solid car for way less than making payments and depreciation on a new one.
jqpabc123 · 3h ago
With all due respect, your experience is kinda out of date.
A lot has changed over 20 years. Just as an example, a lot of new Mercedes are now being equipped with Renault engines.
I'd never consider any of the cheap classes. Most of those are not available in the USA where I am anyway.
E or S class only for what I'm talking about. And S are generally too complicated unless you can find one that's been really well kept up.
dv_dt · 8h ago
"As the car is registered at 228bhp from the factory, owners won’t need to inform their insurance company, either way."
So does this imply that if insurance companies charge higher rates for higher hp, that non subscribers incur higher costs for a feature that they don't get the benefit of?
pmontra · 5h ago
Worse than that. My country's car ownership tax is based on the kW of the engine.
raphinou · 6h ago
This is how I understand it. Which might be the reason why consumers could react against this.
giarc · 6h ago
The base is 201 and with the subscription it goes to 228. I doubt an insurance company would change premium for that increase, but I'm also not an insurance rep.
dv_dt · 3h ago
The last thing I want from a car purchase is subscription nonsense that also brings extra worry or work to make sure the car doesn't cross some annoyance policy threshold in insurance or operating registration etc. I think I'd turn around and walk away from a purchase if I discover the car has subscriptions built into the fundamental car operation.
reorder9695 · 7h ago
Seriously people selling a product at a fair price and that being that is a centuries old thing, why does everything need to be a subscription now just because it's possible?
goobert · 7h ago
Because a project manager somewhere can make a metric go up and get a promotion by doing it
gloomyday · 1h ago
Because some assholes manage to convince everybody that being only motivated by money benefits everyone.
creddit · 7h ago
There is a lifetime “subscription” option which is a lump sum payment and stays with the car even after being sold.
Still something distasteful about it but not quite as vampiric
octo888 · 7h ago
"lifetime"
creddit · 6h ago
What do you want to imply with this pithy reply? It's for the life of the car and is not bound to an owner.
tmerc · 5h ago
There’s no single universal legal definition of “lifetime” for products — it’s vague and often depends on the warranty’s own wording. It can mean the buyer’s lifetime, the product’s “useful life,” or as long as the manufacturer supports it. Courts usually interpret it based on context and disclosures.
voakbasda · 6h ago
If they can enable it remotely, then they can disable it remotely at any time. The actual lifetime is up to them, and I guarantee the terms of service give them latitude to disable it under certain circumstances. Legally, “lifetime” is never as black and white as the layman might expect.
masfuerte · 6h ago
That's what the article says, and it might be true. But it is very strange to describe a one-off purchase as a subscription, lifetime or otherwise. You can't be certain of exactly what the deal is without seeing the actual contract.
pavel_lishin · 5h ago
This isn't exactly centuries ago, but my dad started a company selling a widget in the 90s; their business plan was to charge not just for the widget, but a yearly cost for having the widget installed at all. I remember thinking this was weird even back then, but apparently that was the only way the company could have been profitable - if they sold the widgets for a flat fee, eventually everyplace the widget could be used would be used, and they'd run out of money, except occasionally replacing broken widgets.
The company ended up folding either way.
mk89 · 7h ago
I wouldn't mind boosting my car when we need to go for a road trip and bring it back to a cheaper/smaller engine for everyday drive.
Of course, if you have a car 2.0+cc and 150HPs why would you care. But the opposite can be useful.
t0bia_s · 7h ago
Because consumers willing to pay anyway.
fullshark · 7h ago
Cause there is consumer surplus out there to be eaten and return more profits to shareholders.
CoastalCoder · 8h ago
I recently bought a Honda, and yesterday they emailed me a survey focused on what subscription services I'd find useful at various price points.
Unfortunately the survey gave me no opportunity to explain how much the basic concept of them continuing to be up my business post-purchase pisses me off.
stego-tech · 8h ago
Cars already have a recurring “subscription” in the form of fuel, maintenance, repairs, insurance, and cleaning. Unless more companies are pulling a Volvo and offering a comprehensive maintenance subscription that covers all the above via a monthly fee, then they can collectively FOAD.
EDIT: I am keenly aware how cars work and don’t need eSplaining on them. I articulate my point better in a comment deeper in the thread. Apologies for my snark and vitriol over unnecessary and exploitative subscriptions coming off as somehow condoning VW-formulated petrol or Tesla-approved electricity.
afarah1 · 8h ago
Poor comparison, none of these are attached to the manufacturer, you can and usually do get these services from other companies of your choice. You don't need VW-Gas(TM) from VW-Station(TM) in your tank for the car to run.
stego-tech · 6h ago
That’s…that’s literally what my point was. I didn’t think my snark and vitriol was papering over my opinion of subscriptions in vehicles as being awful things or of maintenance items being cheaper outside of dealerships, but instead merely highlighting that the only really acceptable subscription model was something like Volvo offered - a single monthly or yearly price for handling most maintenance and repair items.
I’m never - let me be clear - never going to condone proprietary bullshit like specialized gas or electricity or what-have-you. But if car dealers and makers really want recurring revenue, just take the pain out of maintenance and repairs via subscription. Most people I know of (across multiple income strata) would gladly pay for that peace of mind instead of fretting over a repair bill.
ndriscoll · 7h ago
Also you can do maintenance/repairs yourself for the cost of parts, self-insure, and, obviously, clean it yourself. For EVs and hybrids, you can provide the fuel yourself (solar). The manufacturer intentionally making things like repairs difficult would be the only reason you "need" to pay for regular services, though that also doesn't really fit into a subscription model either since it's going to depend on how much you've driven.
hdgvhicv · 5h ago
Fundamentally I don’t care about cars. I want reliable transport available 24/7, ideally for a given price per mile.
The costs of a true per-mile option which I can guarentee is available at 3am is not available where I live (taxis don’t fill this niche), so until then it’s
Capital (for the car amortised over say 3 years - I buy second hand and don’t worry about deprecation)
Time based price (insurance, tax, some maintenence)
Mile price (petrol, some maintenence)
Location price (top road, parking)
This encourages me to use the car more once I have it though, there should be a better way to smooth occasional use (which all travel is - 95% of the time my car sits idle even if I drive an hour a day)
Zigurd · 8h ago
That's part of the motivation for them to come up with cockamamie subscription ideas: the car companies and the dealers rely on maintenance revenue, which is significantly reduced in EVs. Tire shops are the only ones happy about EVs.
walls · 4h ago
You're a bootlicking piece of shit. I honestly cant believe how pathetic this site has become.
stego-tech · 8h ago
There’s already a growing market for companies that just sell you a quality good without ongoing service fees or data harvesting/surveillance; cars only recently really joined that list, which frustrates me.
On the one hand, I appreciate the potential such data collection allows: proactive maintenance reminders, repair scheduling, TCO reductions, and even factory-line improvements by identifying flaws before they turn into class actions.
On the other hand, none of that is what they’re actually doing. It’s all about juicing revenue instead of reducing costs, and treating paying customers like loot pinatas to be clubbed repeatedly for dosh.
I’d like to believe there’s a market for smaller, simpler, EV-based “retro-inspired” cars that aren’t jam-packed with modems and sensors to phone home. Maybe someday I’ll be proven right.
JSR_FDED · 7h ago
I was in Thailand recently and drove in an EV taxi. It was as plain as possible, just a simple sedan, analog speedometer, regular buttons, no screen of any kind. That’s the car I want - the simplicity of an EV without all the other BS that drives the price up and locks you into a manufacturer’s “value add” junk.
SoftTalker · 5h ago
It would be nice, but unfortunately such a stripped-down car cannot be sold in the US because it doesn't have a lot of the safety features now required (screen and backup camera, lane change alerts, air bags, auto-tensioning seatbelts, etc.)
Zigurd · 8h ago
Adobe might be an example of how optimizing revenue can eventually bite you in the ass. Adobe is a profit machine. They have the best (in terms of making money) subscription model in the technology business. But the stock price indicates that investors don't think they can keep it up. VW is still in the FA stage of this revenue experiment.
FredPret · 5h ago
Adobe stock has been heading up and down but there can be many reasons for that.
Revenue and profit has gone absolutely nuts since subscriptions started and is clearly the way forward for them.
This model makes a lot of sense for software but none for hardware.
Adobe customers are indeed pissed off but they should fix that with lower prices and better terms, not going back to the old model that had them losing money.
Zigurd · 3h ago
After I wrote that, I almost immediately regretted that I hadn't used price earnings ratio rather than stock price as the indication that investors don't have confidence that Adobe can continue to extract rent, even though I wouldn't bet against Adobe, I wouldn't short them.
Kind of remarkable how low the price earnings ratio is compared to magnificent seven stocks. Only Google gets stuck with a similarly pedestrian price earnings ratio.
FredPret · 3h ago
If you think that's remarkable, look at major non-tech companies.
Banks, mines, energy, rail, telecoms - companies that are making big profits right now and will be with us for decades to come, all priced like they're going to evaporate in a matter of years.
nelblu · 7h ago
> I’d like to believe there’s a market for smaller, simpler, EV-based “retro-inspired” cars that aren’t jam-packed with modems and sensors to phone home. Maybe someday I’ll be proven right.
Whilst I hate subscriptions, I am not imediatly offended by a £650 reduction in the cost of a car to lock out the last 10% of power that I would expect to have a disproportionate cost to the warrenty.
Grimeton · 4h ago
Because everybody is fighting over legal/illegal tuning:
When you just change your software and you gain 50bhp that DOES NOT make your car faster. The gears still have the same ratio and the maximum speed doesn't change because the engine went up to max rpm at 200bhp and now goes up to max rpm at 250bhp.
Even raising the max rpm won't get you anywhere because to go from let's say 6500rpm to 8000rpm requires so much power and modifications that you won't achieve that with software alone.
So as long as only the software is changed the maximum operating parameters of the car are NOT changed.
uyzstvqs · 5h ago
Yeah, I think I'm just going to buy some old Lada from some local Russian or Ukrainian guy. I know that they're not the most reliable cars, but at least anyone can make aftermarket parts for them — and they're easy to repair as well.
I might buy an EV someday if someone makes one which: Does not connect to the internet, is user-serviceable, it's possible to create aftermarket parts for without reverse engineering firmware, uses Na-ion batteries, is not ridiculously overpriced, is preferably made in Europe/North America/Japan, and is not extremely ugly like 9/10 cars released in 2025 (VW ID Buzz... eww). I'm not getting anywhere close to this DRM-ridden driving IoT-device crap. Clippy says no.
sigmoid10 · 5h ago
I don't think any western car manufacturer will ever want to deal with the potential liability issues when it comes to having users screw around in a high voltage electric drive system. This is not like a normal 12V car battery that will not even hurt you if you directly touch the poles with your hands. These EV batteries contain more than enough juice to zap you out of existence if you don't have relevant training.
billfor · 6h ago
No different than Tesla track/performance mode which is also a software switch.
josephcsible · 6h ago
Tesla performance trims are physically different, and the Track Mode switch they have can be freely turned on and off at will, so that's not equivalent to what Volkswagen is doing here.
No comments yet
pmontra · 5h ago
> Volkswagen says that while selecting the performance upgrade increases net power by 27bhp and the maximum torque from 265Nm to 310Nm, it does not affect range.
Energy from thin air or "you won't push that pedal hard enough to use those extra HPs," except maybe a couple of demo runs, "so you're paying a subscription to please your ego but not to go any faster"?
lurk2 · 6h ago
BMW tried doing the same thing two years ago with heated seats.
mizzao · 5h ago
I think Volvo already does this with their "Polestar" engine upgrade which is entirely software based and increases horsepower by 15 or so (and torque by a bit more). That costs $1200 retail as a one time fee. Is the main uproar here then just the subscription?
yonatan8070 · 5h ago
I'm curious how this car would react to being offline? Like what if I pay for a month, then disconnect the cellular antenna. Will it just drop its max power after a certain date? What if I'm driving during that cutoff time?
The solution this issue is - of course - to not buy a car with a power subscription.
sowbug · 5h ago
People have been buying subscription cars for years. Buy a car on credit. Stop paying the installments, and the car goes away, just like a subscription.
The analogy isn't perfect. But the way the money moves, and the effect of not paying, are identical.
jmpman · 7h ago
I already have the option to pay for more HP on my Tesla model 3. Yes it’s not a subscription, but the capability already exists. It’s a software unlock. I’d prefer if I had the option to pay my the month. My wife already thinks the Model 3 accelerates too fast, but I’d want to try it for a month. No way is she going to support $2k, but she won’t notice $100 for a month.
jmclnx · 8h ago
Well VW just made my list of cars to avoid. Boy, that list is getting huge. I will probably be in my 2007 toyota for a long time to come.
DougN7 · 8h ago
Yeah, it breaks my heart because I love my 2012 Passat, but no way will I buy a car with a subscription like this, or for heated seats. Idiots.
jillesvangurp · 7h ago
So, you are not the type that buys new cars. Nothing wrong with that of course. I don't own a car at all. And I don't see the logic of spending non trivial amounts of my income on a new one. But why should VW concern themselves with what you or I want considering that we are apparently not in the market anyway? Especially not for a high performance/high status type car. Because, no offense, your choice of car marks you as "definitely does not care about that sort of thing". And good for you.
I might at some point buy a second hand one. And VW has a lot of pretty decent EVs in the market that are trickling down to the second hand market at increasingly more attractive prices. Probably not my dream second hand car (I think they are kind of ugly) but they aren't horrible vehicles. I don't think I'll ever want to hand over cash to the oil industry voluntarily. I have driven rental petrol and diesel cars in the past. But it just feels a bit stupid to fill up a car for 50+ euros. A few years worth of money saved on not buying fuel easily adds up to a pretty nice budget for a modest second hand EV these days.
mathiaspoint · 4h ago
If Toyota made an EV version of my 2007 highlander I'd buy it.
t_tsonev · 7h ago
This seems to be an UK thing, possibly to keep the sticker price below the 40k GBP tax limit. The option for a lifetime purchase supports this.
So it's an extra that you can try with a subscription and buy once, if desired. Seems fair to me.
jasonsb · 5h ago
Coming soon: Get more trunk space for just $10 a month. Unlock more trunk space with our innovative retractable metal bar!
Volkswagen, das arschloch.
higeorge13 · 5h ago
I don’t trust vag for anything after the diesel scandal. I prefer any other brand than this.
simmerup · 9h ago
Guess I won't be getting a 2all when it comes out after all.
lentil_soup · 6h ago
What's going on with so many people defending this as if it's actually better for the consumer? It's not, it's enshittification of the car industry, it's wanting to extract more money from you even after you already bought the car. Doesn't matter that other companies do similar, it sucks and it's worse for everyone because you lose control over the damn car. The argument that you'd save money because you'd get a discount by not unlocking the extra power makes no sense, just buy a cheaper less powerful car
rich_sasha · 4h ago
The suggestion of your post is that it's a heinous ripoff. I don't like it, and would find it annoying as a car owner, but I don't think it's quite that bad. It does make it, to me, a bad product.
Maybe an analogy is thus: I find often sports kit that is black or otherwise drab coloured is cheaper. I find this annoying, as I like my kit to be colorful - and I feel like I'm being made to pay extra for color pigment, which surely cost at most pennies more per item. On the flip side, if I go for the black item, it's kind of subsidised by the color-buyers (the comparator is one where black and colorful items cost the same average amount).
The fact that the hardware here is identical but software isn't is IMO an implementation detail.
buyucu · 6h ago
I have one rule I follow very strictly: I don't subscribe. If you have something to sell, I can buy it. But I won't pay for subscriptions.
more_corn · 7h ago
Don’t ever buy a car from a company that locks features behind a subscription. That’s how they turn us all into techno future peasants.
voytec · 6h ago
With Netflix you pay for licenses and ongoing costs like bandwidth and maintenance.
A better analogy here is having to pay Microsoft for unlocking Windows NT/Server's ability to use more CPUs. Paid-for OS is already capable of it but this ability is "paywalled" due to greed.
charliebwrites · 6h ago
If it’s behind a software lock, then a resourceful cracker can find a way to get around it
Welcome to the era of jailbreaking cars
aemoron · 6h ago
After which VW will deny any warranty claims or won't do any repairs. Or even worse, brick the car remotely. It will be akin to unlocking bootloaders on phones or Nintendo bricking consoles.
FollowingTheDao · 6h ago
This all makes me so glad I still own a 2001 Dodge Grand Caravan that I have been sinking money into for years and just grabbing cheap parts from junk yards.
But it is not only automobile DRM locks that keep me away from new cars, the costs of replacing the "modules", like for a headlight, are ridiculous.
All this is just pure profit seeking but people keep buying the cars and other devices so it will never stop.
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.
> 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...
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.
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.
It's cheaper to design and engineer one common engine block, heads, camshafts, crank, pistons, etc. and regulate the output in software.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.'
You're paying more for something that you're not allowed to use.
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.
No comments yet
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.
Better idea --- forget Volkswagen.
This is just one example of anti-consumer antics bordering on extortion that have been building for a very long time.
The overall idea is simple --- reduce the sticker price to a competitive level and try to increase profits with prepaid maintenance, insurance, data collection and other "subscription" services. In VW's case, this appears to be an act of desperation.
Consumers don't have to "subscribe" to this sort of gamesmanship. There are alternatives --- as evidenced by VW earnings --- down almost 40% over the past year.
Example: Ford.
In many cases they ship 1 engine type and restrict it by software. This way they reduce manufacturing costs, I understand, it's just unfair that you have the same engine of someone with officially more horsepower and all you can do is cheat (with software that enables the feature) and hence say goodbye to your insurance.
At the time, the F-series came in the F-750 and F-850 models.
The motors are identical, the computers restrict the top end horsepower.
But, those aren’t the only differences. The 850 is more designed for off road than the 750. The bike is taller, large front wheel, spoked wheels.
I’m have the 750, the more street oriented version. But here’s the thing.
As they say in motorsports, there’s no replacement for displacement. My peak HP may be down to the 850, but I get all of the torque, which is one aspect that makes a motorcycle better to ride. Torque really helps with acceleration, and my bike will get to ludicrous speed quite handily.
Also in some jurisdictions, riders are limited by HP as to what bikes they’re allowed to ride due to tiered licensing. The 750 falls under one of those lines.
So I can’t speak to Ford, but I think the way BMW uses this in the F-series is quite reasonable on several levels.
I believe part of the rationale is that Euro A2 licenses permit a "restrictor kit" to reduce motor power below 47 hp, but only if maximum horsepower is less than 94 hp (double the limit). One can buy an F-800 with a restrictor, and then remove the restrictor once one has obtained the upgraded license.
Now, looking at the motor torque and power curves, most of that extra power comes in the high RPMs. In practical riding of BMW twins, I find that I rarely place the motor into the high RPMs, because the torque curve is nice and flat and there's plenty of pull in the low range :)
The thing is - for mass production, it has become cheaper for a manufacturer to produce 1 engine type and block it with software rather then 2,3...N types and to allow people to choose.
The subscription model in my opinion makes sense, because you can also decide to unlock the feature entirely and it stays. If not, you can try and decide. It sounds reasonable to me - they didn't sell you 4 wheels and a steering wheel with "entry level" model that can be upgraded to "all in the entry model + car seats, radio" etc. We're talking about some very specific upgrades that make the car cost less by default and yet still good.
Who the hell needs 230HPs on a daily basis? So shrink that, make the entry model more reasonable, and let them upgrade if they want to.
That has more to do with their legacy ICE business than with their EVs. Their EV business is apparently growing quite nicely. And they have issues with tariffs in the US of course. But so do all their competitors.
> Consumers don't have to "subscribe" to this sort of gamesmanship.
But some happily do. Modern cars have a lot of software that defines their behavior and characteristics. Getting access to some of the feature flags is a natural control point. There's no need to introduce a lot of variation at the hardware level.
In the end you get what you pay for. If you can get a better deal for the same money, you should take it of course. Nobody stops you. Or if on the other hand horsepower doesn't really matter to you and you would mostly drive the car in economy mode, you might pay a bit less for a decent car. EVs offer a ridiculous amount of horsepower and torque. Limiting that a bit via software isn't that strange and actually necessary to prevent them from shredding their own tires. Conservative settings are better for the tires and limit the amount of wear and tear (and resulting warranty and insurance claims).
VW actually uses the same base platform for a lot of different cars and sub brands. At the hardware level there is far less difference than the amount of models would suggest. Any differences in driving experience are mostly software. And the cool thing with software is that you can change things. So, why not try to charge for that?
I personally wouldn't care about paying a subscription for stuff like this. But I appreciate some people might care enough to hand over some cash that don't necessarily have a lot of cash on hand to outright buy a more expensive model. And technically any car that has the option, is unmonetized potential. So, a subscription isn't the weirdest thing to tap into that potential. Many people lease their car anyway. So, they are already paying per month. Pay a little extra for some redundant fun on the daily commute. Or don't and pay a little less.
I don't think that's consumer hostile. Of course the FOMO for pointless features that this creates causes some people to get irrationally angry about the perceived injustice of somebody not giving them something on the cheap.
I think not. Sure there are features that people want and would pay for, but I'd bet given the option that a lot of people would prefer to pay a bit more up front then have a monthly subscription. Personally, I want that choice back. Every subscription like this is a shift of power from the consumer to a corporation with all those TOS that can be unilaterally changed at will and features that can be remotely disabled by some half-assed AI.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not limited to "pointless features".
The motor for the windshield wipers on some VW models cost $600 plus installation which is likely to be at least as much as the part itself.
So just buy an aftermarket part and install it yourself? Sorry, no can do. The wiper motor is computer controlled using a proprietary protocol protected by DMCA.
Maintenance is not just a "pointless feature".
Their EV business is a disaster. Expensive cars plagued by ugly software bugs (reset of instrument cluster during driving). The whole VW holdind is competing with themselves (Skoda, VW, Audi, Porsche, Cupra)
Passenger airline carriers and printer manufacturers have a similar model of using their flagship products (flights and printers) as loss leaders for their actual products (credit cards and ink).
Now I trust them even less, if that's even possible .
So yeah, Ford, Nissan, etc., also did their cheating, but due to some loopholes they are all good :)
Just provide your proof of this to one of the millions of greedy lawyers out there and you can easily become rich.
Of course, most people drive on roads, so the non-drive wheels move, and most trips involve turns.
Since the emissions tests were conducted on a dynamometer, the average affected car would likely pass. Researchers did tests in real world conditions and found the emissions varied significantly.
I think this is quite common with EVs especially, where the same motors are used in the base and performance models - they do normally add other stuff like bigger batteries etc too, but also cost a lot more than just 600 quid extra.
Even this isn't the whole story though, at least at the high end. The Model S Plaid has an extra motor but also uses different rear motors, designed to be more efficient at high RPM. And Tesla puts a lot of emphasis on parts commonality in general.
And this subscription trend is exactly that, a common trend these days. It’s far from unique to VW.
Public transport (in the UK at least) cheats the system whenever they can too. So you’re probably best sticking to push bikes.
I have found that there are very few absolutes in life --- so use your best judgment.
In my judgment, European manufacturers have jumped on this bandwagon more than most. Probably out of desperation and necessity --- they can't compete solely on price.
As another example, Mercedes vehicles seem to be good for about 3 years before the planned maintenance (aka gouging) really starts kicking in. I've known people with $10K bills for the scheduled maintenance from a dealership --- for a 3-4 year old car that seems to be running just fine.
"Mercedes-Benz is one of the fastest depreciating car brands in the world!"
https://yourgreatcar.com/do-mercedes-hold-their-value/
Something that should be simple like changing the battery is actually an intricate process on some models involving all sorts of resets and nonsense. A mistake can "brick" your car. I know someone who did this and had to have the car towed to the dealership where they were subjected to a good ole fashioned ($$$) reaming --- all for a dead battery.
https://www.mercedesmedic.com/mercedes-battery-replacement-d...
For me, a 5 year old Mercedes is just not worth the headache --- and again, this is by design IMO. If you choose to buy one for basic transportation, my advice is make sure you have a backup vehicle.
You can find them cheap enough so that if they have a major failure you just scrap it and find another one. If they last a few years, you have a comfortable solid car for way less than making payments and depreciation on a new one.
A lot has changed over 20 years. Just as an example, a lot of new Mercedes are now being equipped with Renault engines.
https://cartriple.com/mercedes-models-with-a-renault-engine/
E or S class only for what I'm talking about. And S are generally too complicated unless you can find one that's been really well kept up.
So does this imply that if insurance companies charge higher rates for higher hp, that non subscribers incur higher costs for a feature that they don't get the benefit of?
Still something distasteful about it but not quite as vampiric
The company ended up folding either way.
Of course, if you have a car 2.0+cc and 150HPs why would you care. But the opposite can be useful.
Unfortunately the survey gave me no opportunity to explain how much the basic concept of them continuing to be up my business post-purchase pisses me off.
EDIT: I am keenly aware how cars work and don’t need eSplaining on them. I articulate my point better in a comment deeper in the thread. Apologies for my snark and vitriol over unnecessary and exploitative subscriptions coming off as somehow condoning VW-formulated petrol or Tesla-approved electricity.
I’m never - let me be clear - never going to condone proprietary bullshit like specialized gas or electricity or what-have-you. But if car dealers and makers really want recurring revenue, just take the pain out of maintenance and repairs via subscription. Most people I know of (across multiple income strata) would gladly pay for that peace of mind instead of fretting over a repair bill.
The costs of a true per-mile option which I can guarentee is available at 3am is not available where I live (taxis don’t fill this niche), so until then it’s
Capital (for the car amortised over say 3 years - I buy second hand and don’t worry about deprecation)
Time based price (insurance, tax, some maintenence)
Mile price (petrol, some maintenence)
Location price (top road, parking)
This encourages me to use the car more once I have it though, there should be a better way to smooth occasional use (which all travel is - 95% of the time my car sits idle even if I drive an hour a day)
On the one hand, I appreciate the potential such data collection allows: proactive maintenance reminders, repair scheduling, TCO reductions, and even factory-line improvements by identifying flaws before they turn into class actions.
On the other hand, none of that is what they’re actually doing. It’s all about juicing revenue instead of reducing costs, and treating paying customers like loot pinatas to be clubbed repeatedly for dosh.
I’d like to believe there’s a market for smaller, simpler, EV-based “retro-inspired” cars that aren’t jam-packed with modems and sensors to phone home. Maybe someday I’ll be proven right.
Revenue and profit has gone absolutely nuts since subscriptions started and is clearly the way forward for them.
This model makes a lot of sense for software but none for hardware.
Adobe customers are indeed pissed off but they should fix that with lower prices and better terms, not going back to the old model that had them losing money.
Kind of remarkable how low the price earnings ratio is compared to magnificent seven stocks. Only Google gets stuck with a similarly pedestrian price earnings ratio.
Banks, mines, energy, rail, telecoms - companies that are making big profits right now and will be with us for decades to come, all priced like they're going to evaporate in a matter of years.
This might come close: https://www.slate.auto/en
When you just change your software and you gain 50bhp that DOES NOT make your car faster. The gears still have the same ratio and the maximum speed doesn't change because the engine went up to max rpm at 200bhp and now goes up to max rpm at 250bhp.
Even raising the max rpm won't get you anywhere because to go from let's say 6500rpm to 8000rpm requires so much power and modifications that you won't achieve that with software alone.
So as long as only the software is changed the maximum operating parameters of the car are NOT changed.
I might buy an EV someday if someone makes one which: Does not connect to the internet, is user-serviceable, it's possible to create aftermarket parts for without reverse engineering firmware, uses Na-ion batteries, is not ridiculously overpriced, is preferably made in Europe/North America/Japan, and is not extremely ugly like 9/10 cars released in 2025 (VW ID Buzz... eww). I'm not getting anywhere close to this DRM-ridden driving IoT-device crap. Clippy says no.
No comments yet
Energy from thin air or "you won't push that pedal hard enough to use those extra HPs," except maybe a couple of demo runs, "so you're paying a subscription to please your ego but not to go any faster"?
The solution this issue is - of course - to not buy a car with a power subscription.
The analogy isn't perfect. But the way the money moves, and the effect of not paying, are identical.
I might at some point buy a second hand one. And VW has a lot of pretty decent EVs in the market that are trickling down to the second hand market at increasingly more attractive prices. Probably not my dream second hand car (I think they are kind of ugly) but they aren't horrible vehicles. I don't think I'll ever want to hand over cash to the oil industry voluntarily. I have driven rental petrol and diesel cars in the past. But it just feels a bit stupid to fill up a car for 50+ euros. A few years worth of money saved on not buying fuel easily adds up to a pretty nice budget for a modest second hand EV these days.
So it's an extra that you can try with a subscription and buy once, if desired. Seems fair to me.
Volkswagen, das arschloch.
Maybe an analogy is thus: I find often sports kit that is black or otherwise drab coloured is cheaper. I find this annoying, as I like my kit to be colorful - and I feel like I'm being made to pay extra for color pigment, which surely cost at most pennies more per item. On the flip side, if I go for the black item, it's kind of subsidised by the color-buyers (the comparator is one where black and colorful items cost the same average amount).
The fact that the hardware here is identical but software isn't is IMO an implementation detail.
A better analogy here is having to pay Microsoft for unlocking Windows NT/Server's ability to use more CPUs. Paid-for OS is already capable of it but this ability is "paywalled" due to greed.
Welcome to the era of jailbreaking cars
But it is not only automobile DRM locks that keep me away from new cars, the costs of replacing the "modules", like for a headlight, are ridiculous.
All this is just pure profit seeking but people keep buying the cars and other devices so it will never stop.