Mercedes-Benz To Charge $1200/yr for EQ Performance Upgrade

[Ghost Ryder]

If you replace your carburator or add a supercharger, it voids the warranty. So if that is the only consequence, I could probably accept the approach. But I think MB and others are trying to implement a license model that may prevent you from modifying your own private property. And that is totally unacceptable.

Do you even know the answer to the questions I am raising, or just hypothesizing?

auto manufactures always lock out their cpu. And tuners always try to hack it. It’s big in the bwm world where you can increase hp by 100hp with a simple “tune.” it voids the warranty because your Car out of spec.
same thing with trying to hack the cpu to activate an Option that you didn’t pay for. You paid bought the car with the heated seats, but you didn’t pay for the program to run it. If you want to hack the cpu and turn on the heated seats by all means do it. But don’t expect the manufacture to help you hack their systems or warranTy the car if something goes wrong.

Sponsored

 

[Ghost Ryder]

You'd need to ask MB that question - but my point is you paid for them. Even if it was "cost" you paid money.

Take it to the extreme - there is only one trim level. Regardless of whether you'd be happy with the base model, too bad, you're paying for everything. In this case you would clearly have paid more for your "locked" base model than you would have if the stuff you didn't want was left off.

Take the MME for example - everyone gets AWD, everyone get the ER battery. But you can only use it if you pay. That model would logically cost more than a car w/o AWD or the ER battery.

a real live example of this is tesla‘s FSD. Every car sold by them is cable of FSD. The all have the hardware to run it. but To run FSD you need to buy the software package of for 15k or 200$/month now.

would it be better if they raise the price of all their cars by 8k and include FSD as standard equipment or keep the price as is and let people that want FSD pay for it.
I like option #2

 

[MellowJohnny]

a real live example of this is tesla‘s FSD. Every car sold by them is cable of FSD. The all have the hardware to run it. but To run FSD you need to buy the software package of for 15k or 200$/month now.

would it be better if they raise the price of all their cars by 8k and include FSD as standard equipment or keep the price as is and let people that want FSD pay for it.
I like option #2

You made my point for me.

FSD is software...the hardware it needs is just being reused - ultrasonic sensors, radar (though not anymore), cameras...all already there for hands-free driving. What's missing is the software.

In this case what you *are* paying for is the cost of developing FSD. That I'm OK with. The fact that it's a bit overpromising notwithstanding of course.

 

[MellowJohnny]

that model does cost more to build but did they charge you as much as they could or did they avg the cost out over all the different models?

because there will always be profit. Question is how much and where they get it from.

theres also some cost savings to having less variations of builds for a manufacturer.

i can imagine that heated Seats are really low cost from a material standpoint. It may cost the manufacturer more money to have to build two different version of the same car. One with heated seats and one without the. To add heated seats to all cars.

you Say you paid for the seated seats so you should have them. But in reality you didn’t. You paid for the raw material for the heated seat but you didn’t pay for the program to activated it. Just because its software doesnt mean it doesn’t have value.

Heated seats don't need software to run though...it's wiring and a switch. I've had them added in as an aftermarket -heat pad + wiring + switch. That's it.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Heated seats don't need software to run though...it's wiring and a switch. I've had them added in as an aftermarket -heat pad + wiring + switch. That's it.

heated seats used to only need a switch. but now everything is intergrated which need software. maybe not super difficult like fsad but still need software. That’s why they can activate it with software When you subscribe. It’s up to the manufacturers to decide how much they want to charge For that little code.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

You made my point for me.

FSD is software...the hardware it needs is just being reused - ultrasonic sensors, radar (though not anymore), cameras...all already there for hands-free driving. What's missing is the software.

In this case what you *are* paying for is the cost of developing FSD. That I'm OK with. The fact that it's a bit overpromising notwithstanding of course.

I would argue that Tesla could of used a cheaper computer if they didn’t have FSD and only use autopilot. So tesla is spending more money than it needs to on an upgraded computer for people that did not buy FSD.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Bottom line is the manufacturer can charge what they want and how they want for their product. It’s up to you to decide if you Will pay for it.

 

[mkhuffman]

heated seats used to only need a switch. but now everything is intergrated which need software. maybe not super difficult like fsad but still need software. That’s why they can activate it with software When you subscribe. It’s up to the manufacturers to decide how much they want to charge For that little code.

I still don't like it.

But if many people don't care, or even warmly accept the approach, they will continue to do it and more car manufacturers will do the same thing.

I realize some are considering a subscription approach for the entire car, so you wouldn't even own it. There would be a monthly fee for whatever capabilities you are paying to use. I suppose that approach could work for some because some people look at cars like a utility.

I happen to be a car (and vehicles in general) fan and I want to own and customize my car. I consider it my private property and I will avoid buying a car that requires a subscription to access certain features. That is just me and maybe, eventually, I will be in the minority. That is OK. I don't mind being different.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

I still don't like it.

But if many people don't care, or even warmly accept the approach, they will continue to do it and more car manufacturers will do the same thing.

I realize some are considering a subscription approach for the entire car, so you wouldn't even own it. There would be a monthly fee for whatever capabilities you are paying to use. I suppose that approach could work for some because some people look at cars like a utility.

I happen to be a car (and vehicles in general) fan and I want to own and customize my car. I consider it my private property and I will avoid buying a car that requires a subscription to access certain features. That is just me and maybe, eventually, I will be in the minority. That is OK. I don't mind being different.

My understanding is that you can buy it outright, or subscribe. I don't believe they force you to only subscribe.

 

[mdolan92869]

My understanding is that you can buy it outright, or subscribe. I don't believe they force you to only subscribe.

Yet

 

[21st Century Pony]

I think we are all talking here about a fast-evolving social contract. It was generally static since the 1920s when automobile licences and titles were proposed and then accepted to account for workable social responsibility rules with a new, expensive investment that was mass-produced yet wasn't fixed-in-place like real estate. Now, the commonly understood and accepted century-old "automobile" social contract exemplified by licence plates, driver licences and automobile titling appears to be rapidly evolving, and the examples that represent this social contract will probably also change in their importance, evolve or some will soon disappear. One such example: the classic car title. Another example: car dealerships. Potential example: licence plates.

 

[The Black Horse]

Never pay for hardware subscriptions, especially for hardware you already own. It is NEVER wise.

 

[Terence Murphy]

Never pay for hardware subscriptions, especially for hardware you already own. It is NEVER wise.

you mean like a lease? Ok, in that case you don’t own any of the hardware, but basically Mercedes is giving the option to lease more speed for a period of time.

Not that I’m interested in paying extra, but I’d love to pay less for high-power or other features I don’t need. Maybe the absurdities of mass production means it’s easier/cheaper to always install a feature, and then rent it to those willing to pay. Somehow the Mercedes base price makes it hard to buy into this explanation.

 

[The Black Horse]

you mean like a lease? Ok, in that case you don’t own any of the hardware, but basically Mercedes is giving the option to lease more speed for a period of time.

Not that I’m interested in paying extra, but I’d love to pay less for high-power or other features I don’t need. Maybe the absurdities of mass production means it’s easier/cheaper to always install a feature, and then rent it to those willing to pay. Somehow the Mercedes base price makes it hard to buy into this explanation.

Yes, like a lease. By far the most expensive way to "operate" a vehicle is a lease. Again, it is NEVER wise, to pay a subscription for physical hardware. Ever.

 

[mkhuffman]

Yes, like a lease. By far the most expensive way to "operate" a vehicle is a lease. Again, it is NEVER wise, to pay a subscription for physical hardware. Ever.

I think you are making a rent vs. own argument, right? It is better to buy, because there is overhead (additional cost, profit, etc.) involved if you rent from another owner. However, most of us have rented a car before. There are use cases where it does not make sense to buy something, and renting is wise. So it seems like "never" is too strong a word since I can think of some use cases where a subscription makes financial sense.

Sponsored