Mercedes Locks Better EV Engine Performance Behind Annoying Subscription Paywalls
from the you-don't-own-what-you-buy dept
Last year BMW took ample heat for its plans to turn heated seats into a costly $18 per month subscription in numerous countries. As we noted at the time, BMW is already including the hardware in new cars and adjusting the sale price accordingly. So it’s effectively charging users a new, recurring fee to enable technology that already exists in the car and consumers already paid for.
The move portends a rather idiotic and expensive future for consumers that’s arriving faster than you’d think. Consumers unsurprisingly aren’t too keen on paying an added subscription for tech that already exists in the car and was already factored into the retail price, but the lure of consistent additional revenue they can nudge ever skyward pleases automakers and Wall Street alike.
Mercedes had already been toying with this idea in its traditional gas vehicles, but now says it’s considering making better EV engine performance an added subscription surcharge:
Mercedes-Benz electric vehicle owners in North America who want a little more power and speed can now buy 60 horsepower for just $60 a month or, on other models, 80 horsepower for $90 a month.
They won’t have to visit a Mercedes dealer to get the upgrade either, or even leave their own driveway. The added power, which will provide a nearly one second decrease in zero-to-60 acceleration, will be available through an over-the-air software patch.
Again, this is simply creating artificial restrictions and then charging consumers extra to bypass them. But this being America, there will indisputably be no shortage of dumb people with disposable income willing to burn money as part of a misguided craving for status.
If you don’t want to pay monthly, Mercedes will also let you pay a one time flat fee (usually several thousand dollars) to remove the artificial restrictions they’ve imposed on your engine. That’s, of course, creating additional upward pricing funnel efforts on top of the industry’s existing efforts to upsell you on a rotating crop of trims, tiers, and options you probably didn’t want.
It’s not really clear that regulators have any interest in cracking down on charging dumb people extra for something they already owned and paid for. After all, ripping off gullible consumers is effectively now considered little more than creative marketing by a notable segment of government “leaders” (see: regulatory apathy over misleading hidden fees in everything from hotels to cable TV).
But with so many companies making tinkering with technology you own a warranty violation, I’d expect we’ll see increasing collisions between the hacker, modding, and right to repair communities and automakers who’ve been working overtime trying to scuttle popular right to repair legislation.
This is all going to get very dumb very quickly, giving Cory Doctorow entirely new nightmares to write about in very short order.
Filed Under: automakers, dealership, new car, rip off, subscription, tech as subscription
Companies: mercedes
Comments on “Mercedes Locks Better EV Engine Performance Behind Annoying Subscription Paywalls”
Would manufacturers voiding a warranty be within the realms of a violation of the Magnuson-Moss warranty act? I fail to see how modifying your electric car to go faster is any different than me modifying my gasoline engine to do the same. Wouldn’t manufacturers have the burden of proof that any modification what the direct cause of a malfunction?
Re:
That what all the code is for. They shove code into everything so you can’t adjust shit without at least attempting to change a setting or something, which requires the OEM’s proprietary say-so. Doesn’t matter if it’s EV or full IC.
Re:
Yes, it would. To void the warranty, they’d need to prove that your modification – or even just opening the casing – broke what you’re seeking warranty coverage on.
There may be a core of sense here, but...
In countries like Germany, car insurance is dependent on a car’s horsepower, and any modifications have to be entered into the car’s papers and thus under manufacturers’ and/or licensed car service stations’ control.
So if horsepower is to be added, it has to be done under a tightly controlled procedure. Now why have horsepower built-in that the user will not be able to access? For an EV, the top acceleration rates and top deceleration rates supported by the drive train (and thus supported for energy-saving regenerative braking) are tightly linked.
So the logistics for firmware-controlled throttling for anything but cars insured as sports rockets need to be in place for the sake of at least some countries.
Which means that the cookie jar is right there in the accounting department and visibly filled.
Of course the long-term implications will be the privacy horror that is micro-insurance: if I make a vacation in the mountains and rent a few horsepowers for that purpose, the insurer will get to bill me for the more powerful car I have at my disposal.
Big Brother is watching you, with eyes as big as millstones.
That horse left the barn a long time ago.
That horse left the barn a long time ago.
Once we allowed software makers to convince us that we only paid for a license, rather than having actually bought a product, the game was over.
Everything follows from that.
We even have to fight for the right to chose who repairs our tractors, phones, etc.
Nobody paid attention.
Re:
The change in software marketing, and carried out for the same reason, lack of sales volume growth, was to switch from a one time purchase (of a license) to a subscription model.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Certainly! I understand that you would like me to write about the recent news regarding Mercedes and their subscription paywalls for accessing better EV engine performance.
Mercedes has recently come under scrutiny for their decision to offer better electric vehicle (EV) engine performance as a subscription service. Essentially, customers who purchase a Mercedes EV will have access to a certain level of engine performance out of the box. However, if they want to unlock better performance capabilities, they will have to pay a recurring subscription fee.
Many people have criticized this move as being annoying and consumer-unfriendly. They argue that customers who have already paid a premium price for a luxury vehicle should not have to pay more just to access its full capabilities. Additionally, some have raised concerns that this business model could set a dangerous precedent, where other car manufacturers may follow suit and start offering vital vehicle features as subscription services.
Despite the criticism, Mercedes has defended their decision, arguing that the subscription model is necessary for providing ongoing software updates and maintenance to their EVs. They also claim that the subscription fees are in line with similar services offered by other luxury vehicle manufacturers.
Overall, the debate over Mercedes’ subscription paywalls highlights the ongoing tension between consumer expectations and corporate profit motives in the rapidly-evolving world of electric vehicles.
Re:
Oh look, a human has posted a comment.
Re: Re:
So my temptation is to delete this spam, but your response is so amusing that I don’t think I can.
Mercedes-Benz…There’s an app for that.
“This is fine” because lots of people are (stupid enough) willing to pay for plenty of subscriptions ($treaming $ervices, Photo$hop, GamePa$$, etc). I hate Software as a $upscription, but if we keep swallowing it, they’ll keep shoveling it.
Re:
That you’ve comflated video streaming with SAAS, but not complained about cable or cell phones, suggests you haven’t thought long about your “subscriptions are bad” stance.
Re: Re:
I think those were covered in “etc.”, but go on…
This calls for...
Oh Lord, won’t you speed up my Mercedes Benz?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends…
There are enough idiots to make this happen
Just look at the multitudes of idiots paying a billionaire $8/month for a “blue checkmark”.
Re:
Turns out that there aren’t enough of them to make the plan work.
Microtransactions in videogames are a plague that gamers largely allowed to fester without widescale protest, thus normalizing that plague and turning it into the status quo. The automobile industry apparently hopes its “userbase” is willing to do the same thing.
Re:
Sadly, it will be the case, too.
brand dilution
You would imagine that Mercedes was worried about brand dilution. One of the things people who pay a lot tend to dislike is not getting nickled and dimed. The airlines have dozens of charges in economy class, but a business class ticket includes baggage checking, seat selection, meals and so on. It looks like Mercedes wants to compete with Spirit Airlines in this regard. If you want your seat back to recline, you pay extra.
Will the Robb Report start having articles on how to game the system? They could offer advice on bundling tiers, what addons to go for and which to avoid. You know, the kind of stuff rich people like. Having to play stupid games like that isn’t most peoples ideas of the luxe life. Is Luis Vuitton next with separate charges for the better leather finish or a brushed brass buckle on their supposedly top of the line handbag?
I’m more of a Honda Civic guy, but if I ever decide to splurge on a fancy car, maybe I’ll test drive Mercedes new Nickel und Groschen.
Fuck downloading cars.
I’m downloading a bike instead!
Re:
Since when are bikes allowed on information highways?
Re: Re: Bikes
Since they allow you to peddle bullshit all over the place!
Can't wait...
So, they wanna sell me a more easily hacked and stolen car? Coming in 2025 from Universal pictures: “Fat & Furious” about a group of car thieves who go legit providing firmware overrides to BMW owners, but when Dom’s ex-ex-ex-girlfriend runs into trouble with the head of the German automaker, the team finds themselves returning to their criminal ways to rescue her. Rated R for violence, adult themes, alcohol, and anti-capitalist messaging.
Re:
“This summer, it’s hack or be hacked.”
Re:
Rated R for violence? Not in the U.S. which proudly stands in the tradition of letting the evil stepmother dance in red hot iron shoes until she drops dead.
First it was Jeep, now it’s every car company, all making the same mistake. It’s going to take only one “hack” that kills one or more persons, and the government will come down on them like a ton of bricks, demanding that security for ‘OTA’ communications be hardened to the likes of Fort Knox. And who’s gonna pay for it? How many guesses do you want….
I know that Tesla has been doing this for years, but somehow nobody’s seen fit to criticize this, let alone take it to court and demand that car makers stop putting their lives at risk while driving said vehicle, and stop invading a purchaser’s privacy.
That last? We already have reverse warrants using geo-fencing on cell phones, how much longer before the cops start using vehicles’ OTA capabilities in the same way? And you know what? They’ll get away with it under the rubric of “When somebody is out in public, on a public road, they have no right to an expectation of privacy”. That has succeeded before, I don’t see it failing any time soon, especially when it comes to public roads.
We’re in some damnably deep kim-chee here folks, and I’m don’t see things getting any better any time soon.
Re:
I’ve criticized it in previous Techdirt comments. Unfortunately, there’s no simple solution. If updates aren’t automatic, people will just be driving around in cars whose software has known security flaws. (Haven’t we all seen people cling to unmaintained software for way too long?)
The root problem is software complexity—and that, in practice, programmers are unable to manage it. Regulators are much too lax about allowing software that’s too complex to be auditable, in places that are safety-critical. Over-the-air updates that affect the engines are just one example.
Re: Re: Updates
I can’t disagree with you, AC, but there are trade-offs in play here.
For one, if it works, don’t fuck with it. IOW, if it’s fulfilling the purpose for which it was designed, why fuck with it? Security updates, you say? Don’t let it communicate, simple as that. Turn off the bleepin’ OTA radio, and be done with all manner of worries.
Other similar compromises can be found, I’m sure, but that’s the big one – turn off the OTA radio.
As for programmers writing code that goes over their collective head, I have no sympathy for them. If they didn’t learn during the second day of programmers school about the importance of documentation, and how to write comments in-line, then that’s on them. Management comes from being able to refer to the history of the product, which is the documentation. Poor or no documentation equals future unmanagability.
And those are the better reasons not to hire code-monkeys. You know, the ones that crank out X number of “lines of code” per hour, claiming that doing so meets expected milestones, and….. quality of code be damned. Sorry to have to say, but about half of all the programmers I’ve met in the last 10 years don’t even know what a fookin’ linter is. Sad, just plain sad.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, yeah, that’s kind of my point: it’s really not easy to do, given the software design.
The radio? Sure, they could in principle turn off the cellular modem, and get sued by people who expect advertised features like OnStar to work (last I heard, those who don’t want it can find instructions online about what fuse to pull). The tire-pressure-monitoring radio is legally mandated, though. Then there’s BlueTooth and Wi-Fi, which people rely on for hands-free calling, music playback, etc. Cars don’t start with keys anymore, so there’s a short-range radio to detect a nearby fob; and the longer-range radio for working the door locks and starting the car remotely. All of those need to be properly isolated from the safety-critical software, or be proven safe and secure.
Nevermind the self-driving features, which need access to steering and most other safety-critical features, and may rely on over-the-air map updates. And that manufacturers can avoid expensive recalls (sending owners letters to get them back to the dealer) by pushing over-the-air fixes; as long as they’re legally allowed to do it, they’re not gonna stop.
This is not about commenting and documentation. Even good programmers can’t handle this level of complexity. Maybe they think they can, but can you name a single software system, about as complex as a car’s, that’s never had a security hole? Microsoft has excellent documentation, and some very good programmers, and they have several major holes a year. Boeing fucked up pretty majorly, despite their industry being seen as safety-conscious and highly regulated. Formal verification is neat, but the largest project I know of that used it is seL4; they threw wave after wave of grad students at it, and it’s still just a kernel (with unverified platform-startup and multiprocessing code).
The airline model of sales
Mercedes to customers…”Look, we are selling our newest models for $50!”
“Ability to start the motor, $175,000.”
“Brakes that work, $100,000.”
“Doors that open, $75,000.”
Etc…
Price differentiation
The idea of charging consumers based on what they are willing to pay is a very old marketing strategy. On the positive side we have discounts for young people/ students/ the elderly etc. The corollary is paying extra for marginal upgrades (apple anyone)
What’s different now is that technological advances make it more practical to build the extras in and then lock out the consumer unless they pay.
It’s not totally new though. I accidentally discovered that my consumer camcorder had a pro tape transport capable of playing back a pro format. The only reason it wouldn’t record that format must have been because the feature was blocked or absent from the firmware. And this was 15 years ago.
Are software mods for cars legal? I think it would probably void the warranty, but I don’t know whether it’s opens the mod applicator (or mod creator) to civil or criminal liability.
Re:
Yes and no. The software running the onboard computer in a car cannot be legally modded because you are only licensed to run an as-is copy of it, you aren’t sold a copy. Likewise, running your own software on the onboard computer that came with the car would be a digital circumvention device, under the DMCA, and therefore also illegal.
But there wouldn’t be anything stopping you from ripping out the stock onboard computer and installing a third party aftermarket computer that unlocked all the paywalled or unavailable-in-this-model features, providing the aftermarket computer complied with pollution standards set by the government (not so much an issue in an EV).
Doing this in the USA wouldn’t void your warranty due to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975, unless the car company could prove that your aftermarket parts or their installation damaged the part of the car you are seeking warranty coverage for – the burden of proof is on the car company, not the car owner.
The creator of mods to car company software or hardware would face legal liability, but a third party that makes a replacement computer in its entirety would not.
Fairly simple solution – replace the stock onboard computer with an aftermarket one that doesn’t lock features.
And you can bet once this new locked feature model hits the market, people will start selling them!
Re:
I can’t disagree with you. but modernizing data infrastructure for cloud is a stepping stone to modernizing enterprise data. Read this blog to find out the key phases of a Cloud migration plan.
Lenders LOVE recurring revenue. With Auto sales being fickle some years being really good some really bad having a recurring income model allows them to go to the banks and say see we can pay our bills no matter the market as we get X per month.
BMW tried in the USA putting Apple Car Play behind a paywall for the first few years and it bombed big time. They eventually unlocked for all and went back to the drawing board.