So far there’s subscriptions for cruise control, adaptive beams, various navigation options, apple/google integration and my favorite, dual-zone climate.
This shit should be illegal. When you buy a device, you own all the hardware and have every right to use it to the full extent of its physical capabilities. Audi has no right to hold your property hostage!
Nope.
If you are leasing subscriptions it makes sense. Or for certain features.
I couldn’t care less as long as the option to buy remains. I’d almost certainly end up subbing though on my next lease.
Why do you hate property rights?
I WILL pirate car. My property, my rules, so fuck you.
YOU WOULDN’T DOWNLOAD A CAR
Can’t wait to start pirating cars.
Those ads in the early 2000s were prophetic. The answer is yes, by the way. Yes I would.
indeed, yes you should. civil disobedience is the best term for fighting uncivilized barbarian bullshit like this in the first place.
deleted by creator
This title is Amess
Welcome to Lemmy.
Living in an Amess Paradise
Absolutely insane to me that you’d pay $35k for a car, and then pay a subscription for basics like cruise control and phone connectivity. The free market free marketing again. Legislate against this now.
A fifth of users in the US rent the car itself via lease mechanisms. You aren’t the target.
Assuming there are discounts the folks leasing will use these options.
Why are you all over this thread shilling for a predatory subscription model by a multibillion dollar corporation? Very strange behavior.
Because this thread is an echo chamber. I know pointing out the target use case is very problematic and odd. I’ll be quite and you all can continue to ignore that a fifth of buyers rent the entire vehicle for 3 years and haven’t been doing it for 50.
I’m not even saying you’re wrong necessarily, but it’s just very weird behavior to take this aggressive of a pro-corporate stance on something I think everyone should agree is a shitty, unnecessary practice. Regardless of the use case, locking features behind a paywall is always a shitty thing for a multibillion dollar company to do.
People like the option. It’s not weird at all to believe that having different options for owning, leading, and renting allows more access to the vehicle and products. The original comment is about limiting how I pay for a car. Leasing+ subscription works for many customers.
People like the option to have already installed equipment just not work if they don’t pay the subscription? Like the car already has the features and the company is saying “we included this equipment in the price of your lease/purchase already but if you’d like to use it you have to keep paying more.”
Even in the case of a lease, this is just anti-consumer bullshit
This is what happens when cars are basically a necessity to live.
Oh, you’ve got some other magical way of transporting goods across huge physical distances?
Horse and buggy ain’t gonna cut it.
Wonder how much that ends up costing per month and how much that ends up costing over the lifetime of the vehicle.
Assuming the lifetime even matters when they decide to just cut off subscriptions at some point in the future to turn features off to drive you towards buying a new vehicle and dumping this one like a good consumer.
deleted by creator
dumbest fucking timeline. A subscription for a feature that requires no infrastructure and is part of the physical thing you just paid $40k for.
If they keep doing it is because it keeps working
