Thanks for the crystal clear signaling on what type of people are running the company so I can be sure to never consider buying a VW.
leobg · 13m ago
“I bought this car before Adolf became problematic.”
IAmGraydon · 10m ago
We’ve long known what kind of people run VW. They’ve been involved in emissions scandals since the 1970s, illegal kickbacks in 2005, collaboration with Brazil’s dictator leading to the deaths of Brazilian citizens in the 60s-80s, use of Uyghur forced labor as recently as last year, and the list goes on. On top of all that, they’re awful cars. This is just yet another reason not to buy a VW.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that a company founded by Adolf Hitler behaves in this way.
benji-york · 6m ago
This makes sense to me. (Not that I would personally ever buy a car with that mechanism baked in.)
They could either make two models (incurring the costs associated with having two different SKUs) and let people pay more for the one with more power or make one with intrinsically more power and let the people that don't want it pay less with it nerfed.
I would have thought that people (like me) that have spent our lives making a zero marginal cost product would understand the economics at work here.
_aavaa_ · 37s ago
People do understand the economics: tomorrow the subscription costs 3x more, or they chose to stop supporting it when a new model comes out, or etc.
The analogy to software is great though; nobody paying for software owns it, or even has the option to own it. This is not fully the case for physical things, and people are rightly angry about “owning” things without owning them.
smitty1e · 20m ago
If capitalism were a thing, could someone market a newly made chip-free vehicle?
Zak · 6m ago
It's probably impossible to meet modern emissions, fuel economy, and safety standards without some computer control.
I haven't seen an analysis of whether regulations preclude those controls being open source and giving the car owner full access. Of course the owner could make the car noncompliant in that case, but the owner can do that on current and past cars using a wrench.
joenot443 · 15m ago
It's my understanding that said vehicle would be illegal to sell in most jurisdictions, so it probably wouldn't be a very lucrative endeavor.
mdp2021 · 3m ago
True, manufacturers must face very hard constraints in many territories (all new vechicles must have this and that).
But there is something wrong in the product planning if there are no vehicles outside the wave of "gadgetrification" ("Look, these come with holographic glove compartment. It's for your convenience. Yes, you pay for it").
amelius · 13m ago
Capitalism does not necessarily act in the interest of consumers, if that is what you were thinking.
rvz · 26m ago
Now you are seeing the great electric car scam - Selling you an under-powered electric car and to increase its power you must pay for a subscription to unlock it's full power capabilities.
The best part is, many won't care (when they should). But these days, it is okay to get scammed isn't it?
BMW tried selling a subscription on heated seats, but that failed. [0], So lets see how long this will last.
> The best part is, many won't care (when they should).
This is generally valid for current societies, not just specifically.
Conformism has infiltrated economics, so now the supply-demand mechanism is broken: the demand agents are not "informed and rational", as classical theory wanted, so the supply is degraded - spawning "shrinkflation" and "viliflation".
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that a company founded by Adolf Hitler behaves in this way.
They could either make two models (incurring the costs associated with having two different SKUs) and let people pay more for the one with more power or make one with intrinsically more power and let the people that don't want it pay less with it nerfed.
I would have thought that people (like me) that have spent our lives making a zero marginal cost product would understand the economics at work here.
The analogy to software is great though; nobody paying for software owns it, or even has the option to own it. This is not fully the case for physical things, and people are rightly angry about “owning” things without owning them.
I haven't seen an analysis of whether regulations preclude those controls being open source and giving the car owner full access. Of course the owner could make the car noncompliant in that case, but the owner can do that on current and past cars using a wrench.
But there is something wrong in the product planning if there are no vehicles outside the wave of "gadgetrification" ("Look, these come with holographic glove compartment. It's for your convenience. Yes, you pay for it").
The best part is, many won't care (when they should). But these days, it is okay to get scammed isn't it?
BMW tried selling a subscription on heated seats, but that failed. [0], So lets see how long this will last.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421730
This is generally valid for current societies, not just specifically.
Conformism has infiltrated economics, so now the supply-demand mechanism is broken: the demand agents are not "informed and rational", as classical theory wanted, so the supply is degraded - spawning "shrinkflation" and "viliflation".