• ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    You don’t have to buy the car. People aren’t getting conned here… They would buy a more expensive version of the car with a higher range if they thought that would suit their needs.

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      You don’t have to buy the car.

      If it’s a profitable decision then it has the potential to become the de facto standard, so simply not buying it isn’t enough.

      The manufacturer using software to lock use of hardware in people’s own cars is an attack on ownership rights.

      • ch00f@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        When it comes to things that are trivial to include but locked behind exorbitant paywalls (i.e. heated seats), I agree.

        However, range/battery capacity is the primary price differentiator for EVs and also the primary cost for manufacturing. Finding a way to offer options that suit the needs of different people at varying prices just allows more people to enter the market.

        to become the de facto standard

        I feel like it might be nice to have a sliding scale of ranges available for people who have a sliding scale of needs. If I need a second car strictly for my 20 mile commute, it might be nice to have an option to pay less for 100 miles of range over 200. And I assume if a market is established for low-range EVs, manufacturers will compete with each other on how to deliver that for the best price. Perhaps if the market is large enough, Tesla will find it better to actually remove the extra batteries and put them in other cars.

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          If manufacturers made parts available for longer (or perhaps at all in some cases?) then 2nd-hand cars already make for a cheaper option.

          I believe artificially limiting hardware is an unacceptable for a health society because proprietary software gives the developer power over their users. Even people with good intentions will be tempted to use that power at the user’s expense. A software update could suddenly make that 20 mil commute no longer possible unless you agree to pay more for some subscription, or accept a new terms of service where you agree to forced arbitration if you don’t want to lose access to even using your vehicle.

          • ch00f@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            proprietary software gives the developer power over their users.

            Agree here, but that’s a much larger issue than just this particular pricing structure.

            • tabular@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Is the artifical segmentation pricing structure possible without lockout software? Software has wide applications but in the end this is about freedom.

              I would like an EV but I want an old dumb car converted as I don’t want the modern car computing systems (unless there’s one that runs a free OS).