this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2025
415 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
76986 readers
2886 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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...)
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.
If you buy an object, you pay for all the components that come with that object. If they didn't charge for all the components that's on them. As others have said, heating elements don't require any continued support from the manufacturer. It's a button and some wires and a control module. Should they be charging for window defrosters too? There is literally 0 explanation for this that isn't corporate greed.
It is necessarily the case. No company incurs the cost of making something, delivers it and then just hopes that someone pays for it. You literally can’t do business that way.
Right. Consoles can't be sold at a loss and stores never sell things at a loss at a sale because they make it back with other products that are sold at the same time....
It is very possible that if not enough people buy the subscription they will be at a loss.
However, I understand it from a business standpoint.
Cars are usually good quality now. They will probably last 15 years or more. Which means manufacturers are their own competition now. Not to mention that China is making some pretty cheap and impressive cars too.
So how does a brand keep existing? Extracting more value out of the customers they have. And hope that this minor thing isn't enough to make them buy a different car. Or hope other brands do the same thing so it doesn't matter.
I think on expensive brand cars, the buyers usually can afford a subscription. Odds are they also have a strong preference for a brand so they are not very likely to switch.
So for a Mercedes, Audi, Bentley, BMW etc I understand why they think they can get away with it.
I just hate it with a passion and will never ever go with it unless I literally don't have a choice. My car, I paid for it. Want me to pay extra to build an extra option? Fine, but it is a one time fee of the cost of building that option on the car. If it does not require anything that is a returning cost to the seller, I am not paying a returning fee.
Vote with your wallet and the bullshit will eventually disappear.
Of course you can do business that way. If the heating costs $x, and half the customers pay for it but $5x is charged then that is a profit.
The alternative would be to make two sets of cars (with and without heating). Or four sets of cars if another similar optional feature is shipped like this. Or 8 permutations if there are three features etc
It can certainly be cheaper to install them by default even if not all customers pay to enable them. ie it is mathematically possible that their system is cheapest for both the manufacturer and the consumer. The alternative would be no different for us cold-bummed drivers but possibly more expensive for the toasted-tush drivers.
Two sets of seats you mean. The car is the same. These days they don't even have to blank out the buttons because it's a touch screen anyway.
I already had heated + ventilated seats with the optional multi-contour (air based) cushions, but without the memory package, so they weren't fully electric. Then there were the different materials available. Each of these things was an option, and there were more that I didn't have that I probably didn't know. Somehow they made a profit off the car. I also had the four zone climate control as opposed to the two zone, which was also an option over the manual air conditioning. There were a ton more options present and many missing (seriously, who tf optioned the sunroof, but not adaptive cruise???)
This was a 2003 car. No subscription, you just paid for the options you wanted. In fact the sunroof necessitated different body shells according to the parts catalog. How is THAT still an option? That makes for a lot more complexity than any other item being an option.
In 2025 I would expect heated seats to be standard in any car more expensive than the very base model Dacia. Super simple tech, very easy to make, and pretty much a necessity in some areas of the world, particularly where I live.
Two sets of cars, not seats. The seats would be pre installed. Dealers do not be assemble to taste (except for maybe small items like radio).
Chances are that the savings in doing it the current way are not passed on to the consumer but mathematically, technically they could be. Same like self-serve checkouts.
With software it is common to pay extra to unlock premium features. You don't pay and then download those features. This is the same concept.
Uhh... You do realise that you can choose options when you order the car, right? There are enough options on some cars that if you wanted to stock every combo, you'd need billions of cars.
Some of those options are easy to retrofit, others require assembling to order.
There is a reason why odd colors cost more. If they could change the color with software but the base color was white, it would be fair to only charge those who wanted to employ the tech for a fancy color and let the others have it at the old price (even though both customers have the enabling tech on board).
None of these get retrofitted on new cars. They're literally built to order unless you buy a demo vehicle or an in-stock vehicle and those usually don't have a lot of variety anyway, they're meant for fleets more than anything.
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.