Tesla waived its Model 3 full battery range unlock fee, but BMW's heated seats subscription charge is staying

[Redaktion]

Both BMW and Tesla got in hot water recently by introducing pay-to-play restrictions for their vehicles. BMW wants to sell heated seats in a subscription model, while Tesla restricted access to the full battery capacity of a Model 3 unless the owners pays.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-waived-its-Model-3-full-battery-range-unlock-fee-but-BMW-s-heated-seats-subscription-charge-is-staying.638022.0.html

[vertigo]

People getting upset and making a scene because they're not getting what they didn't pay for, meanwhile those that did pay extra for it now paid extra for nothing. Yeah, that's definitely fair. Getting so sick of people expecting everything to be free. I saw it all the time at my last work, too, which ended up going under (not the only reason, but certainly part of it), and IMO it's a big part of why many small businesses are struggling. People will only have themselves to blame when the only companies left are the ones big enough to deal with their selfishness and cheapness.

As for BMW, I agree having to pay a subscription to use something you own is absurd. It's not a service they're providing, it's a function of the vehicle. Subscriptions have been getting out of hand for a while, and this is a great example of that. Consumers just need to vote with their wallets, which they rarely do.

Instead, they often reward companies for poor practices. Like when there's only a few checkout lanes open at the store (which happens quite often at the Walmart near me), creating a long line, and instead of walking out or at least just checking out with what they have, I've watched people peruse all the stuff strategically placed near checkout and pick up more stuff to buy. So the stores know that they can save money by having fewer lanes, which inconveniences the customer, but ultimately ends up making them more money off those last-minute impulse buys. So yeah, keep it up people. You've only yourselves to blame.

[Not model 3]

Author incorrectly states a model 3 when it's actually an older model S

[Daniel Zlatev]

Fixed, thank you!

[anan]

Somehow the article title in the news list still shows "Model 3". The article title shows "Model S" when you open the article itself.
Regarding the Tesla situation - it cannot be equated to the BMW one. Tesla changed parts on a warranty. They changed them for a better part and allowed the customer to use them to their full potential. They then spotted their mistake and decided to limit the part. This mistake is on them. Especially if the customer who bought the used Model S did so while only knowing that the battery was a 90 kWh one.

[Author]

Author incorrectly states a model 3 when it's actually an older model S

Yeah, author didn't do basic due diligence on the article. There isn't even a 90 kwh option on the 3.

[vertigo]

Tesla changed parts on a warranty. They changed them for a better part and allowed the customer to use them to their full potential. They then spotted their mistake and decided to limit the part. This mistake is on them. Especially if the customer who bought the used Model S did so while only knowing that the battery was a 90 kWh one.

Ah, that changes things. Assuming that's how it went down (the article isn't terribly clear), then that would be unfair and would change things, and, in that case, the customer would rightfully be entitled to the upgrade. I read it as they limited it when they put the new battery in, and that was discovered later, but rereading it, it does seem your interpretation is correct.

[BigMoe21]

Yeah but Tesla just increased the cost for the speed increase for the Model 3. Now I have to pay $2000 (used to be $1200) for them to send an update to increase the speed from 0-60 in 4.2 seconds to 3.7 seconds. The car can already do it I just need to pay the extra money for them to unlock it. How is this any different? They're still gonna get their money they just increased the cost for other things.