105

Halfway through he describes this as malicious compliance with the "right to repair" law. Apple and others are making a mockery of the law.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 week ago

even disabling things remotely that are there but you didn't subscribe to. This is bonkers.

I don't understand the consumer outrage about that though. It is like paying to unlock satellite TV reception (even though we are receiving the signals the whole time).

[-] PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

The best (worst) example I've seen in recent memory has been seat warmers. BMW and other manufacturers tried forcing a subscription on people just to use the seat warmers that are (1) already present in the car, (2) already wired up with buttons in place, and (3) cause no additional outlay of effort on the part of the manufacturer once they're installed. There's no valid reason to charge a subscription for something like that beyond straight greed.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It is like having a grandstand at a football stadium which costs extra to use. Do you resent that?

Do you resent the satellite TV example I gave earlier?

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

You don't own the stadium, and you don't own the satellite. So they're really not the same as a car, which you do (nominally) own.

[-] shiftymccool@piefed.ca 1 points 1 week ago

I resent that the cost to the car company to install seat warmers is the actual installation of the seat warmers. Running them costs ME money in electricity generated by gasoline I bought. It costs them nothing to run them but i have to pay a subscription to use them on top of paying to power them?

The football grandstand continues to cost the owners in maintenance and space that they own. You pay for the privilege of using something that is not yours. I bought my car, I shouldn't have to continue to pay for the privilege of using something I already own since the equipment is already there and doesn't require any interaction with a remote service that would make sense to charge for (navigation, satellite radio, etc...)

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

OK I accept the analogies are not good equivalents.

It is not necessarily true that everyone has already paid for the seat warmer hardware. The car may cost the same as if it didn't have the hardware installed. Certainly the owners were happy enough with the car price to buy it without seat warming option.

The manufacturer may find it cheaper to just install it for everyone and wear the cost in the hope that enough people will pay for the warmer to be enabled.

Of course it is possible that everyone pays for the hardware anyhow but it is not necessarily the case.

[-] architect@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 week ago

I don’t see how you could possibly think it’s okay to sell something to someone while telling them oh but technically you didn’t buy everything inside it, that’s an extra fee.

Come on you can’t be so broken you can’t see a clear scam right in front of you.

It should be illegal and if any of our institutions had teeth it would be.

[-] pogmommy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

This is such a weird hill to die on for someone who claims to be pro-consumer

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You make it sound like football team loyalty.

I am pro-fairness, not pro-consumer. I don't think the consumers are justified in their entitlement in this case.

[-] pogmommy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Ah my bad, despite having been coerced into a transportation economy that forces us to purchase multi-thousand dollar machines, I forgot to consider if we're asking too much of automotive manufacturers when we request to not pay a premium for comfort that literally costs them nothing since they already sold it to us.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You wouldn't have a warm seat anyhow if they only installed the seat for prepaid customers but it is possible that those customers would pay more because it would cost more to make two sets of cars. Or four sets if optional fancy suspension is done that way, or eight sets if you include digital radio, or sixteen if...

Much of the cost is R&D, not just the physical item.

Do you think all music should be free because it is already online and you downloading an album doesn't cost the artist even one cent?

[-] architect@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 week ago

I bought a car. That means I bought every piece in that car. You locking me out of the hardware i bought is me not owning my own car. You are not so dense you think artists that make music you didn’t buy yet are the same as the car manufacturer that sold you a physical car.

You are not that stupid nor dense so quit wasting everyone’s time.

[-] x00z@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Satellite TV is a service that requires constant upkeep by the companies which costs money.

And your football stadium is a bad analogy.

this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2025
105 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

77193 readers
238 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS