Slashdot Mirror
You Might Rent Features & Options On Cars In the Future
cartechboy writes "These days, you go to a car dealership and you buy a car. If you want seat heaters, you might need to option for the cold weather package from the factory. Want the high-end stereo? You'll be likely be opting for some technology package which bundles in navigation. While some options are a la carte, most are bundled, and even when they are a la carte, they aren't cheap. What if in the future you could buy a car and unlock options later? Say the car came from the factory with heated seats, but you didn't pay for them. But later on, say in the middle of the freezing winter, you suddenly want them. What if you could simply pay a monthly fee during the winter months to have those heated seats work? Whether this model would benefit the consumer, the automakers, or both is yet to be seen. But automakers such as MINI are already talking about this type of a future. Is this the right road to be headed down, or are consumers going to just get screwed in the long run?"
FUCK, THAT, SHIT!
It could be a way for the automakers to get something from the millions of people who, like me, will never buy a new car.
The big winners will be the people who sell crack codes on the black market for just under MSRP. Because automakers' coders are no smarter than any other industries' engineers.
.nosig
Please type in your PIN to activate anti-lock brakes.
Consumers will buy another brand without these annoyances
If this happens I will be hacking the shit out of my car.
I'm sorry. Not interested. I don't want to waste fuel carrying around equipment I don't need, much of it will be reporting back on my driving habits, listening habits, and shopping habits. I deliberately picked my car to have as little cruft in it as possible with only the features I wanted. Even that was a huge pain nowadays.
If you buy the car, you OWN the car and everything in it right? if you own those heated seats, its not exactly piracy if you enable them. How would they stop that?
And you should feel bad.
Of course this is just a way of screwing people over.
...always prove to be more expensive than an outright purchase. In addition, why include something you don't use and then have to pay the gas to lug it around? No thanks.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
ugh...I hate this
everywhere you look today, people want to make you pay a monthly fee for something that used to be free...or make you pay separately for something that used to be included in the main price but not lower the main price & call it 'al la carte'
it's marketing idiots who spend their work days trying to make products with **LESS** features
Thank you Dave Raggett
> or are consumers going to just get screwed in the long run?" Yes is my first thought on that one.
As long as the hardware isn't too expensive it's often already in the car. Cruise control and steering wheel controls are in the car -- they just need to pop the plate or put on a deluxe stalk. These "heater elements put into all seats" would simply be another cost savings measure vs. manufacturing efficiency.
I can't imagine renting, so to speak, butt heaters only during winter could possibly be cheaper. It soulds more like a mathematical cover story for a quasi-loan where they simply charge poorer people a lot more over the long run because they can't afford the option up front.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
This could, in theory, work out if producing a single model with all the features saves money over manufacturing every permutation of radio/seats/trim/etc. The high-end would cost less, while still allowing more spartan options for those who want to save money.
In practice, I suspect it's a way to jack up the cost of new vehicles and turn every "sale" into a rental. Not sure if this will help or hurt dealerships--if all the options are already in the car, how will the middlemen get their cut of the value-adds?
DATABASE WOW WOW
With the Tesla model S the supercharger feature is optional with the 60KWh battery and can be enabled at any time by an over-the-air update but is a $2,000 feature, presumably to help offset the cost of electricity and building out the Supercharger network. The hardware is installed in every car.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
. . . to the YouTube videos showing how to hack these features.
What I want to know is why there are no heated steering wheels? My hands get damn cold.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
For software, the marginal cost of distributing the extra features disabled is pretty close to zero. It's all just bits being copied.
For a car, the car maker is still paying for the seat heaters, still paying factory workers to install those heaters, but not always being paid back by the end-user. Makes no sense.
And as a consumer, I want a simple and reliable car. I don't want my seat heaters to have a "DRM AUTHORIZATION FAILURE" error message and refuse to work when I need them.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
...will I be charged with circumventing security & have my car towed away?
If it's hardware, it's mine to do with as I please, up to and including enabling any functions that are disabled by the computer. The seat heaters are a good example. There are wires and connectors _somewhere_. I can't see that business model working for anything mechanical.
Software, such as the navigation system, is a different story. Need navigation? There's an app for that!
In Soviet Russia a beowulf cluster of these things imagines you welcoming your new, neural-network overlords.
anyone with any mind at all would be able to turn the features on. there is no reason for a manufacturer to pay for the parts and put them in if people are not going to pay for them.
I can understand the concept of having unlockable/upgradable software. whether that is engine mapping programs or entertainment features. How can they possibly justify the additional cost of actual hardware for a car that may never activate it? Presumably with this business model, every car would have every single hardware feature on it which would add considerable cost to the base vehicle.
IBM used to do this: you could pay different prices for different clock speeds; if you paid for an upgrade the technician would arrive and remove the "slow down" jumper.
Oddly enough people felt ripped off by this. Who'da thunk it?
If something like this happens, there will be workarounds, but due to 'safety concerns' promoted by the automakers, cars using such firmware will be illegal.
In a healthy market (read, when pink unicorns are present) sales price is driven to the marginal cost of production. The upshot is that this scheme can only work if the market is unhealthy. Otherwise they would be forced to enable the features permanently or leave the hardware for them out to cut costs.
Absolutely not. Why? For the same reason I'll never upgrade to Adobe Creative Cloud from CS 6. I don't want to be held ransom.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Want to use your over-the-air antenna? Enter special code from the internet. Why wouldn't they do it with cars too?
Well they do it with cars, when the feature is a service. Think Sirius Radio and GPS Maps and traffic updates.
But physical parts of the car are a different thing. You take title to the car. You own it.
I don't think you can sell seat warmers as a service, unless it can't exist without an outside source.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The link about MINI is suggesting they might make available DIY trim upgrades. Not trim level of the car, but the physical trim in the cabin. Think cell phones with replacable colored backplates. Absolutely nothing like TFS suggests.
Suckers will still be born everyday and fools will still be parted with their money. The more things change the more they will stay the same.
I think most people will find the idea of owning a car that has features they can't use without paying monthly for completely asinine; to say nothing of the big brother implications. Ideas like this are thought up by people with big dollar signs in their eyes, rather than the consumer in mind; despite what they may claim.
That is my main concern. As far as I'm concerned, if I have purchased a product, I am free to modify it as I see fit. Will they try to push for legislation to make it illegal for me to modify my car to enable those seat warmers they gave me but didn't collect from me? Will we no longer own our cars but only be licensed to use our cars?
Heated seats (or steering wheels for that matter) are a pretty terrible example, too. Locking out features of software works because you're trying to get the software to do something you couldn't figure out on your own. Turning on a heated seat just involves shorting around the box locking you out.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Of course the consumer will get screwed. Car companies aren't in it to lose money.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
By finally securing the CANbus so that you can't
Seems to me then the whole car vanishes in a contradiction.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They could have a deal with the city/county. So the passengers see a pop up that says 'Would you like to pay 99 cents to travel 10 MPH of the speed limit?"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"...or are consumers going to just get screwed in the long run?"
I can see it now:
Me: It is cold and those heated seats would be nice now. Maybe I can just pay a monthly rate during the winter.
Car Company: I'm sorry but that option requires a 1 year contract.
I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
Do NOT give them ideas. It is bad enough that you need to pick your car carefully as to ensure aftermarket parts, because any "car maker only" part is exorbitantly priced. Rent options ? A car is an appliance...
Cars are sold for a profit (regardless of how thin it is). If they want to use this business model, they would have to sell a loaded vehicle at a loss, and hope that customers would then pay for the features at a cost point to make the sale eventually profitable for the manufacturers.
Then there is the used vehicle, sure I might sign an agreement that says I will pay for whatever features I want on a rental basis, but I still bought the car, I can sell the car to anyone I want, and there is no way that the manufacturer can enforce any contract on the second owner, which means he could in theory use alternate methods of reactivating all the disabled options...
Hell, in theory, once I own the car I could just make the features work, this is not a lease, (unless they restrict the rental options to leases only), at most they could void the warranty.. who knows.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
For the heating elements, you just need to cut into the seat and run a current across it. If its present, it cannot be securely disabled.
we had this thing called "Regulation" that we used to stop companies from doing bad things. Those were good times, good times...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If you include extra costs into each car, then charge some subset of the total number of customers for those extra materials. Then that cost is going to be relatively high, and in nearly every case higher than simply customizing each car and paying the cost up front. So yes, consumers who want features get screwed or automakers stand to lose a substantial amount of money. Since we assume automakers aren't going to tolerate losing money, we can bet on us paying for it in the end.
Capitalism is all about finding ways to pass your costs on to the end user.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If the heating elements are already in the car, then any moderately-skilled mechanic would be able to wire them up. It's just two wires and a switch (and a fuse, if you're one of those pantywaists who doesn't want his car catching fire).
Sure, I doubt there will be any way for the automobile industry to stop freewheeling hackers from getting free stuff. It's not like we're dealing with an industry with government lobbies powerful enough to force tax payers to back one of the largest loans in history.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
With features that are cheap enough to add, this sometimes happens already. My 2010 Honda Fit base model, for instance, did not come with a remote lock/unlock feature from the factory. You can buy the "keyless entry system" from the dealer for about $150. What does it consist of? A key with the remote control features in it. That's all. The solenoids for locking and unlocking the doors are already there, they just aren't used. I was able to get it working for much less by buying a blank key from an online shop, following the directions to sync up the remote, and having it cut to fit at the local shop.
But, as others have noted, there are limits on the extent of this kind of practice. Shipping extra bits with a software package costs basically nothing, Shipping extra hardware in a car can get expensive quickly. They have to balance whether it costs less to ship all vehicles the same (economy of scale) or whether it would save money to leave a feature physically omitted from base trims. Then they have to decide whether they will get more money by including it for everyone (and thus using it as a selling point to drum up volume) or by charging it as an add-on.
If they get too greedy, then yes, buyers will just hack the car (or have someone else do it) to enable the missing features. As noted, this already happens sometimes. I wouldn't exactly call buying a key and following the official factory sync process a "hack", but it worked and it saved me some money.
I think, sooner rather than later, we're going to need some sort of regulation that prohibits this predatory type of rent seeking for small and inconsequential things.
Obviously, renting has its place (apartments, homes, whole cars, etc.), but when we start offsetting the cost of manufacturing variances, we are going to pay for it in more ways than we can imagine. Think "automotive DMCA"⦠*shudder*
The way cars are going these days, I'm only going to buy old cars from now on. In fact, I just bought a 1988 Jeep Wrangler and I love it. I searched for a long time to find something: A) Cheap, B) Not computerized, C) Easy to work on, D) Good condition for its age. Is it sexy? Nope. And I'm ok with that. I waited about 7 months to find it. It popped up on Craigslist one day and I bought it that same day.
I'll grant you that it's not very fuel efficient, but I don't drive that much anyway. And I feel good about being able to yank things apart and customize it where I see fit. Parts will be available for it for as long as I live. I even put a high-beam switch on the floor just because I can. I don't feel bad about scratching it or modifying it. Can you say the same for your current car?
I need to replace the dash. I'm going to replace it a DIY BeagleBone data capture and display system. It'll probably cost about $500 total for all the pieces. That puts my Jeep at $4500 total cost.
"or are consumers going to just get screwed in the long run" That depends. Do the built-in dildos have a monthly fee?
Since I'm in San Francisco, I'd like to lease the seat heater function. I'll pay for it from November through end of January and then I want to stop paying for it for the next 9 months.
Likewise, people in New England would probably only want A/C for a few weeks in July/August.
No chance on earth I want to pay $1k to enable seat heaters for something I'll only use a few times a year.
However, for someone in Florida, they should be able to pay a one time fee and get it forever.
...a used car that is governed to 25 MPH and can only make left turns because basic functionality has to be enabled via $50,000 DLC that was only included with the initial purchase.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
This is fine in specialty expert markets where use cases might be more narrow and such. As much as I hate Apple they have until recently shown how the doctrine of choice is flawed for consumer products.
As this article illustrates, protecting our automotive software freedom is more important now than ever. As our cars grow more dependent on computers, the software they run is of critical importance to securing the future of a free society. Free automobile software is about having control over the technology we use while travelling to our homes, schools and businesses, where automotive computers work for our individual and communal benefit, not for proprietary automobile companies or governments who might seek to restrict and monitor us.
Although the Free Software Foundation has been a leader in protecting our freedoms in many areas of computing, I have not heard of them doing much in the automotive software area. So, perhaps we have to do it ourselves. To that end, I propose the foundation of a Free AuTomobile Software Organization (FATSO) which would be a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote automotive computer user freedom and to defend the rights of all free automotive software users.
With the efforts of FATSO--and you--we all can regain fundamental automotive freedoms, including the freedom to drive and ride in heated seats.
(Note to the humor-impaired: the preceding was satire, not trolling or flamebaiting. Most of the text was adapted from the FSF website. As satire, adaptation of FSF's copyrighted text is believed by the author to be fair use, even in the likely event that the FSF doesn't get the joke.)
in 2005 toyota sienna water pump was 4.5 hours and you got a new timing belt for your trouble in2006 you need to pay for about 19 hours because the motor has to be removed ,the model for cars no longer includes serviceability so sure rent me those heated seats for 4 months a year
Once upon a time we bought software. Now we can only license it. (Unless it's Adobe. In their case we can only rent it.) I'm sure the car manufacturers will figure out a way to screw everyone over the same way.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
Of money for automakers doubt it'll happen
Reminds me of an old joke. A used-car salesman tells the buyer a nice car is "only $400, if you take it as-is". The customer says, "Wow, what a deal! Sure, I'll take it!"
After the payment is made, the customer gets in the car and tries to drive a way. "Wait", he says, "There's no gear shift in this car. How can I put it into 'drive' without a gear shift?"
"Oh" replies the salesman, "I forgot to tell you the gear shift is 3 grand extra."
Table-ized A.I.
The part about temporarily enabling the features is new, but not the ability to simply turn them on or off there. I actually tested the software that ran various car subsystems for a major auto manufacturer which was bought by the federal government about 15 years ago, and there were maybe a dozen convenience features -- automatic driver side windows instead of having to hold the button, etc -- that were merely a bit in firmware settings on or off. They were turned on if the car had premium feature packages or was a deluxe model.
It's just the ability to turn them on or off for a period of time by subscription that is new. I blame OnStar.
If only the thermodynamic expenditure of implementing such a feature could be redirected into car seats...heated seats for everyone!
Of course they will be hacked. Then they will add DRM, use the DMCA, and finally, in order to monitor the users and make sure they do not hack their cars, mandatory internet connection? Nonsense
"My car decided to stop in the middle of highway because I exhausted my Internet package, officer"
That is also a sign of an unhealthy market. Imagine you go to a new and used car lot. You want a used car but they are sold out. They offer to sell you a new car at the used price but only if you agree that they will key the paint, kick a few dents in it and put some grit in the air intake to degrade the engine a bit.
In a healthy market, if Intel can profitably sell the high end chip at the low end price, the market would force them to do so.
This really isn't any different from the common practice of including satellite radio, usually bundled with other car options, and charging a monthly fee to keep it enabled.
It also makes sense in cases where the vast majority of consumers would opt to include a feature and it's cheaper to include it on all cars than manufacture different parts and add options to your assembly line just for a couple cars. Case in point: Tesla included 60KWh batteries on its 40KWh models and software limited them to 40KWh. (reference: http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla...). At a later time, consumers can pay to unlock the extra capacity.
It actually could be useful to enable features at a later time - you might move to a cold state and really wish your car had heated seats. If it really does increase costs so much, there will certainly be some car manufacturers who opt to save costs and we can buy from them instead.
E.U.L.A
It's right there in the 200 page document you signed to take possession of the car. This is software, which is only licensed - not sold. Sure, it's your car. Good luck getting it to run without using the ECM.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This is an entry-level 50MHz dual channel DSO, that can be upgraded to 100 MHz bandwidth with a simple, widely available firmware hack.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
My car already has options such as this. I have a remote car starter that only works if you pay the annual fee. Mind you, this fee covers remote monitoring, gps and emergency services as well. So, what would it take to make the seat heater or the mirror defroster or the driving lights an after purchase option, not much. Just a few more things attached to the internal computer.
Now if someone can figure out how to permanently configure my starter to run without paying the fee and installing another unit, I'd be excited!
Now, for the devils advocate. What happens if the company goes out of business? Who maintains the database that states that you bought that option? What happens when they decide that they don't like an option or it gives them problems they just shut it off without notice? I'm sure a class action would resolve that, but something to think about.
Want to use your over-the-air antenna? Enter special code from the internet. Why wouldn't they do it with cars too?
Because a car is a car, not a multimedia device. As such, any extra dead weight that I don't need contributes with an extra fuel consumption.
If I don't need seat warmers, then I'll buy a car without them, not with them, wired... and dead to carry around wherever I go.
Fuck, I swear God, tomcar sounds more and more the option for me.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
place stand by for auto reboot
warring steering control may be lost.
and driving in Mexico / Canada or just fringe roaming will cost you a lot of data fees.
System Z is like that - you have hardware on-site but you pay ongoing fees for resources you use. You can also get paid rent for allowing IBM to farm out batch processing jobs to your hardware using capacity that you aren't using.
The belt chime is there for a reason, now we just have to tell the local cops and the insurance company that you tampered with a safety feature.
And the thing done on cars today is to prevent DIY installs of features unless the function is enabled in an ECU. That way you tie customers to the service department - and that's where the car manufacturers today make their money, not on the car sales.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
they may do that with HD but they are selling the HD channels (other then the local limited basic ones in some systems) as add on and are slowly getting rid of the Very old SD boxes. So don't want HD we may give an HD box just so we don't have to deal with the old boxes with very limited ram.
Whether this model would benefit the consumer, the automakers, or both is yet to be seen.
First of all.... it's going to destroy the resale value of these features.
Second of all..... i'm sure you'll lose all these features, as soon as the title to the car changes ownership ("Non-transferrible license key activations")
Third..... all the options are probably going to be rented via a cloud-based licensing scheme. No option to purchase features outright; that would destroy manufacturer's long-term revenue stream.
Fourth.... buying an option for a short period of time is going to be expensive.
Fifth..... as soon as the car is no longer within the warranty period, and they want to buy you a new one ---- they will eventually decide you have to pay more and more every year to renew the subscription, until you don't, and eventually all the options will turn off; including the "Start engine" feature.
Of course they are. When you need to install extra hardware that is not used, it costs money. Even when you do not use it. Not only money to manufacture and install it, also to drive it around (weight costs fuel). The money for manufacture and fitting will have to be paid by the customer, regardless of whether they will use it or not. The extra fuel consumption... well of course the customer has to pay for it.
Screw, screw, screw. Roll over and get f*cked in the *ss, you stupid consumer. Consume some more so we can screw you some more.
Yet, this is a great revenue model, so expect every carmaker to adopt it. Screw, screw, screw some more.
i dont use my air conditioning in the winter either, and it needs less servicing as a result.
You probably do, actually. The windshield defroster usually engages the air conditioner to lower the humidity and minimize condensation (fogging).
Everywhere you turn nowadays, there's always someone trying to nickel and dime you for every fucking thing under the sun.
It passed "ridiculous" decades ago.
At this point, people trying to turn things like automobile feature packages into rental items?
How many automotive execs do I have to, repeatedly, shoot to convince them this is a STUPID FUCKING IDEA?
Also, if I buy a car with all these features, and then hack the car to get all the features for nothing...then what? They gonna sue me for what I do with my own car?
What part of "Tongue-clean the darkest, nastiest, unwiped portion of my ass" would NOT come through in this message?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Service and used car sales is where DEALERS make their money. Modern option bundling reduces buildable combinations of the vehicle, directly reducing manufacturing cost due to economy of scale. It also drives up average selling price, as people take the entire "technology package" (or move to a higher trim line) just to get the one feature in that package that they actually cared about. The modularization and electrification of modern automobiles makes physical installation of high value optional features trivial in many cases. This opens the possibility that a savvy buyer could skip the high value option packages, secure in the knowledge that the desired features can be added after-the-fact at minimal cost.
Example: I bought a Ford Focus ZX3 hatchback the first year they came out. At the time, the "variable intermittent" wiper function was reserved for the the wagon. The hatchback had one fixed delay intermittent setting. Aside from the fact that it was a couple grand more expense for comparable equipment, I was a 22 year old male, so rest assured I was not about to be caught dead in a station wagon. I did, however, promptly purchase the wagon's wiper switch from the parts counter, for $42. I installed it into my car myself, in about 10 minutes. Viola. The car now had variable wipers. I pulled a similar trick to add a second cigarette lighter socket to my wife's Caravan.
It's a bullshit idea, and I hope it never catches on, though I fear it will.
It comes from DLC, obviously, where it made some sense back when that actually meant downloadable content, i.e. new content not included in the original. These days, it often means unlocking content that is already included, but locked away.
What it really is, is a scam. The manufacturer obviously found a way to lower costs for feature A so that it is cheaper to install it into every car, even for those who don't want it, than it is to selectively produce cars with or without.
Yes, economically, that can make sense because it allows you to reduce the complexity of the manufacturing process.
However, the scam part is selling you product A when it actually is product B. You get something different from what you paid for. Sure, it has more features (locked away) instead of less, so you'll probably not complain, but to me, that's still too close to scam tactics (bait-and-switch) to be comfortable with.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
They're counting on it being cheaper to put butt warmers, GPS nav, etc. in all the cars, even though some of the customers ultimately won't pay for them. Couple of inter-related problems:
1. Any such system will obviously be hacked/cracked by owners. First-sale doctrine, as well as various state-level "right to repair" laws mean their recourse to legally prevent such shenanigans will be very limited. Don't be surprised if independent shops specializing in luxury makes (who already own said scan tools) offer such services at low cost.
2. Ignoring #1, the business case only closes if the take rate on the option is high (say >80%) and/or the incremental manufacturing cost is low. Otherwise it's cheaper to eat the manufacturing complexity and leave out un-ordered options.
3. #1 will erode the take rate of affected options, exacerbating #2.
2003-2005 models that didn't come with fog lights also didn't 'come with' heated mirrors although the hardware is in place. With the right software and cable (or pay a dealership into doing it) you can enable fog lights and that will enable the heated mirrors. It's the only instance that I personally know of where the hardware is already there but disabled in software, but I'm sure there's others.
And of course you can enable/disable/customize all sorts of other features of your car that are just outright software based. A few which were country specific or were never factory options (and can't even be enabled by your dealership) like digital speedometer. Kind of like how setting the power window function when ignition off to ec (European) instead of us enables use of the power windows when the car is off.
I've enabled 'features' on friends BMW's such as passing lights, exterior light flash when lock/unlock, interior lights on when trunk opened, power windows with car off, closing of car with key fob (top, or windows and sunroof), fog lights as cornering lights, daytime running lights, the little red clown nose under the rear view mirror to flash after the car has been locked for 10 seconds even though the car doesn't even have an alarm, instant mpg, etc. And of course the heated mirrors by enabling fog lights...
In the neat DIY hackable way?
Signed in just to post. Needless to say, I would avoid cars and entire brands that tried to pull this crap.
Upon further reflection, maybe I WOULD purchase a car like this, then hack it to pieces (not literally). Once the unlock codes are out there, who is to say? :) It still sounds like a bad idea for the consumer, however.
-Miser
In the 80s and 90s, GM sold the tilt steering wheel as an option. The vehicles that didn't have the option had all of the components for it except the handle. A wise "hacker" could install the handle himself instead of buying the option. The economics are simple. The components are cheaper than the cost of building two different modules. You have to re-tool the factory, keep track of which vehicles have it, deliver the correct one to the dealer, and maintain two different components for the life of the vehicle (i.e. stock replacement parts for both, separate instructions in the service manuals for each, higher learning curve for the mechanic, etc.). And it should be obvious that you're charged what you'll pay, not what it costs.
I like the idea. I love it when I can buy the cheaper model of a product, and with a little soldering over some jumper points or something, upgrade my device into the higher priced version. If I could get all those expensive features like heated seats for free I would be jumping all over that. And don't think for a second that people would not figure out how to activate these features on the cars once you got them home. They would and the instructions on how to do it would be on the internet real quick.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
"What if in the future you could buy a car and unlock options later? "
You mean like the XM Radio that's installed in most new cars?
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
My neighbor bought a Ford truck in 1997. It came with an alarm system. He haggled the price down and said he didn't want to pay for an alarm system. They took the truck around to the service bay and disabled it with a code reader device. Talk about someone being upset.... the idea that it was there installed in the truck and Ford had rather install the parts by default and then disable it infuriated him.
If the 'feature' is already manufactured and installed in the automobile, how would they justify charging for it later? Is the car going to come with a EULA that says you don't own it? Will the car purchase will become a car license? I hate all this sh1t. It all started with stupid iTunes.
I don't want to live in that kind of world. If I buy a cheaper car it's because those features ARE NOT IN THE CAR. Having "options" is not the same as having unlockable features. This is like "DLC on the disc" for video games. If I buy something, I expect to own the entire contents of the thing I have purchased.
If this "feature renting" thing becomes the norm in my life time, you can BET I will be a pioneer in the field of "hacking" these features to life in my car, and gladly sharing walkthroughs on the internet with other people looking to do the same. Lock me up if you want. If I bought a car with heated seats, I'm going to use them, not pay extra to have someone else turn them on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
This is why I love science fiction. Written in 1969, it describes this sort of "business model" being the most ubiquitous one. Sure it misses on a lot of stuff, and much of it is fantastical, but it is those grains of truth that are interesting.
In the book, the protagonist is in debt, and has to pay for everything by coin slot basically. Everything. Including his front door and toaster.
For several years now, VAG has been building cars where some of the options can be added by tweaking settings in the car's computer system, or by adding a few inexpensive components. I can add an alarm to mine just by plugging a horn and a couple of sensors into the car's network. Similarly, the wiring for heated mirrors is installed by default even if the option is not checked by the initial customer, I replaced the standard mirror glasses with heated ones and was good to go. $50 and 10 minutes to enable a $200 option. Lists of available options circulate on the internet.
Only our corporate lords are allowed to own things (in certain cases political overseers as well, and our usury masters).
It seems the logical (yet highly cynical) conclusion to the wealthy lord, poor peasant relationship. Back in the day, lords owned everything, and peasants payed a rent for the privilege of working a lords lands to eek out an existence and then pay taxes to the same lord. However the bad part about this relationship is that every now and again the peons would get so angry about the situation that some lords would get burned (literally).
Fast forward to our modern society which have a government that peons feel empowered about because they elect them, who they pay taxes to, who enable corporations with taxes and ownership rights, who the peons all work for and pay for. However in this situation the government is elected, and the corporation is more less a nebulous entity, with no one really left to take responsibility for anything (the whole reason to incorporate). Add in government backed corporate lenders etc... Wonderful situation progress has made. At least back in the day the mob knew who to go after when they yoke became too much to take anymore.
I can tell you right now what would happen, because it already exists, and has for some time.
This would be no different than if you modify your car. Your insurance will go up. Why? Because they will justify your car becoming more high risk. If you fail to notify them, and they deem your modification significant enough to modify the risk, guess what, you won't be covered should you require it.
You can get anywhere you want to go using only left turns. Right turns are a luxury option!
And if you buy the car, and have a title to it, then I can't see how they could enforce you enabling "features" by yourself. I can see them going after someone making a business of enabling tools... and even that, if they get you to sign something saying that the vehicle was out of warranty, or if you've bought it used.
True story: many years ago, we had a washer. It was what we could afford, but it only had one water level, no small/medium/large. One day, looking at a repair your own appliances book, I read something amazing: they said that it was cheaper for manufacturers to put the level control in all of them than to make some without.
I pulled off the faceplate of the controls... and there it was. I drilled a hole in the faceplate, and we had screwdriver water control.
There's such a thing as being too cheap for your own... oh, right, that's clearly a marketdroid idea for increasing ROI.....
mark
---
Libertarians believe everything any marketdroid says....
Wrong. The only way your example and statement makes sense is if you believe that the bulk of the price you pay for a chip is the actual manufacturing cost. And if you beleive that, you are sadly mistaken. The bulk of the cost is the sunk and fixed costs involved in development, tooling, fabs, etc. Those costs are amortized over each CORE sold, not each CHIP. Intel can NOT be profitable selling chips at only the low end price, they can be profitable selling chips at the AVERAGE price they get.
So why not just sell chips at the average price? Because not everyone NEEDS or is willing to pay for a high-end chip. Could they make different versions of the chip with different numbers of core in them? Sure, but that would drive costs UP not down.
If you only want/need one core, why should you have to pay for 2.5 (average number) cores? And if you need four cores, why shouldn't you pay for them?
The only thing 'unhealthy' here is your understanding of manufacturing, business, and economics. Don't beleive everything you thought you learned in high school economics. They real world is much more complicated.
Conversely, if the core is already there and functional, why go to extra effort to destroy it (that is, destroy economic value)? It is exactly the same as destroying some of the new car's value through vandalism.
Note, this is entirely separate from the practice of disabling cores that are *NOT* functional and recovering cost by selling the remainder as a lesser CPU.
Seriously? If I only make 4-core chips (good economic sense), but you are only willing to pay for 1 of them, destroying the other three has not in any way destroyed economic value. They have no value because you are not going to pay for them (unless you somehow think the remaining good cores could be sold to someone else). On the other hand, not destroying them is giving away economic value for free, which in fact IS destroying the economic value to me.
Your car example is horribly flawed. The cost of the car is already set. The dealer owes the manufacturer for that car. Scratching the paint in no way reduces the cost of the car, so there is no reason it should reduce the price of the car. On the other hand, if the dealer receives the car with a scratch in it he can tell the manufacturer about it and get the cost reduced. In that case, he could sell the car to you for less if you are willing to take the scratch.
BMW make the MINI range of cars having bought the brand off Rover. Nor are all MINI's 'Coopers' since they have MINI One, Countryman and so on. So it should be BMW MINI followed by the model.
I personally don't equate these new BMW cars with the actual BMC/BL/Rover Mini released in 1959 as the last actual Mini was made in 2000 to be replaced by this much larger car which apes the appearance of the original (like the modern Beatle does, or the Fiat 500.) I'm sure this new car is a great car, but it isn't a Mini and Alec Issigonis wouldn't recognise it as being a true member of the Mini family. I've owned three Minis, and they were all plenty big enough for me (6'2" tall) but I found the BMW car to be much too cramped inside for me to reasonably drive. Then they made that 4x4 one......
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
They have a value, just one that I am not willing to pay for.
The cost of the chip is set. It costs what it costs to make it. You either can or cannot afford to sell it for a price I am willing to pay. Blowing a core on the chip in no way reduces the cost to make the chip (how could it, the chip is already made).
You may not like what my car analogy says, but it is in no way flawed. It and the chip are a case of taking something that was already made and damaging it.
Your counter of a car that arrives with a scratch already in it is a match for the case I already called out as an exception where one of the cores is defective.
For a strictly financial transaction, such as purchasing something, 'not willing to pay for' equates to a value (to you) of $0.
Any 'manufacturing value' that is 'destroyed' by blowing a core pales in comparison to the loss in revenue by giving cores away for free. This is not (or should not be) a difficult concept to grasp.
Your car analogy is still awful, and bears no resemblance to the chip situation. As I said above, blowing a core has very little cost to the manufacturer, but a potentially huge payoff in revenue. Scratching a car after it has been made provides zero revenue benefit (is someone going to buy 2 cars because the first one was scratched) but at a large sunk cost (the painting that has already been done), and hence just a net loss, to a car manufacturer. The two situations are polar opposites.
Keying paint isn't all that expensive either.
Yes, revenue is lost if they can't use that destroy the core plan. A healthy market doesn't care and it's not supposed to. It is supposed to drive the price towards the marginal cost of production. They lose a lot of revenue by not implementing a mandatory annual purchase for every living person too, but neither the market, the law, or society care.
I am not claiming that the action is irrational for the manufacturer under current market conditions, I am claiming that if the current market condition was healthy, they would be unable to take that action without losing money.
I don't agree - stupid consumers will get screwed, and unlocking features that were not licensed off the factory will be a new hack-athon...
Like with DRM, it will be a felony to bypass the feature locking mechanism in the USA (and most of the rest of the world, thanks to lobbyists and policy laundering. All consumers will get "screwed".
Hope you DIY enthusiasts aren't living in a state with mandatory life sentences for your third "felony"!
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"