It seems we agree on the fact that there’s a lot of “artificial value” added in many different fields. Aren’t you concerned about that? Don’t you take that into consideration as a consumer? That’s what I’m talking about here.
Anyway yes, if a product cannot sell at full price, they should lower the price not the product like what’s happening here. And yes wineries are full of shit anyway.
Also, people won’t be “able to upgrade” they will only be able to unlock what they already bought.
Modern pricing structures allow companies to maximize their profit, but they also allow consumers to maximize the reach of their dollar.
It just so happens that it can be cheaper to manufacture one version of a product and change the features in software than it is to try to exactly predict consumer demand and minimize waste.
Would you feel better if Tesla charged the customer $1k in engineering time to pay a guy to rip out the extra batteries and button the car back up for them? What is the point of that? The end result is the same. Less range for fewer dollars. Isn’t it cheaper to just switch the batteries off in software?
The misconception is that not adding the larger battery etc. would save costs for Tesla which they would pass on to the consumer. Unfortunately, capitalism dictates they would not, thus from a consumer’s perspective there is no price disadvantage. For sure, you overpay - but in the end, you are still buying.
Doesn’t capitalism dictate that the company needs to offer the most compelling price in order to beat the competition?
Like, nobody has to buy a Tesla. Also, nobody has to buy a software limited version of a Tesla. “Capitalism” is driving people to do both of those things however because people find that the car has a greater value for what they can afford than what other companies offer. How is that bad?
Like…what exactly do you think the motivation behind essentially giving away batteries for free that nobody can use?
I agree. I would argue that the batteries are valuable enough that they will eventually be utilized at some point (like secondary market or if the vehicle happens to last long enough to fully wear out the batteries), but they could certainly be put to better use now. In fact, I’d argue that most 200+ mile range EVs are a waste of batteries, because many consumers don’t realize that they could get by with much cheaper, lighter 100 mile range vehicles. That’s not really the fault of the manufacturer though. I put the blame on consumers who don’t realize that the use case of an EV that you charge at home daily is different than a gasoline vehicle that must be refueled at a station.
All that aside, this conversation was about how Tesla is greedy for software locking batteries. I’m arguing that giving away unusable batteries is hardly an act of greed.
It seems we agree on the fact that there’s a lot of “artificial value” added in many different fields. Aren’t you concerned about that? Don’t you take that into consideration as a consumer? That’s what I’m talking about here.
Anyway yes, if a product cannot sell at full price, they should lower the price not the product like what’s happening here. And yes wineries are full of shit anyway.
Also, people won’t be “able to upgrade” they will only be able to unlock what they already bought.
Modern pricing structures allow companies to maximize their profit, but they also allow consumers to maximize the reach of their dollar.
It just so happens that it can be cheaper to manufacture one version of a product and change the features in software than it is to try to exactly predict consumer demand and minimize waste.
Would you feel better if Tesla charged the customer $1k in engineering time to pay a guy to rip out the extra batteries and button the car back up for them? What is the point of that? The end result is the same. Less range for fewer dollars. Isn’t it cheaper to just switch the batteries off in software?
The misconception is that not adding the larger battery etc. would save costs for Tesla which they would pass on to the consumer. Unfortunately, capitalism dictates they would not, thus from a consumer’s perspective there is no price disadvantage. For sure, you overpay - but in the end, you are still buying.
Doesn’t capitalism dictate that the company needs to offer the most compelling price in order to beat the competition?
Like, nobody has to buy a Tesla. Also, nobody has to buy a software limited version of a Tesla. “Capitalism” is driving people to do both of those things however because people find that the car has a greater value for what they can afford than what other companies offer. How is that bad?
Like…what exactly do you think the motivation behind essentially giving away batteries for free that nobody can use?
They arent giving away free batteries, they are wasting batteries by putting them in a situation where they are unusable. Its waste.
I agree. I would argue that the batteries are valuable enough that they will eventually be utilized at some point (like secondary market or if the vehicle happens to last long enough to fully wear out the batteries), but they could certainly be put to better use now. In fact, I’d argue that most 200+ mile range EVs are a waste of batteries, because many consumers don’t realize that they could get by with much cheaper, lighter 100 mile range vehicles. That’s not really the fault of the manufacturer though. I put the blame on consumers who don’t realize that the use case of an EV that you charge at home daily is different than a gasoline vehicle that must be refueled at a station.
All that aside, this conversation was about how Tesla is greedy for software locking batteries. I’m arguing that giving away unusable batteries is hardly an act of greed.