this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
373 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
15 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

When it comes to things that are trivial to include but locked behind exorbitant paywalls (i.e. heated seats), I agree.

However, range/battery capacity is the primary price differentiator for EVs and also the primary cost for manufacturing. Finding a way to offer options that suit the needs of different people at varying prices just allows more people to enter the market.

to become the de facto standard

I feel like it might be nice to have a sliding scale of ranges available for people who have a sliding scale of needs. If I need a second car strictly for my 20 mile commute, it might be nice to have an option to pay less for 100 miles of range over 200. And I assume if a market is established for low-range EVs, manufacturers will compete with each other on how to deliver that for the best price. Perhaps if the market is large enough, Tesla will find it better to actually remove the extra batteries and put them in other cars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

If manufacturers made parts available for longer (or perhaps at all in some cases?) then 2nd-hand cars already make for a cheaper option.

I believe artificially limiting hardware is an unacceptable for a health society because proprietary software gives the developer power over their users. Even people with good intentions will be tempted to use that power at the user's expense. A software update could suddenly make that 20 mil commute no longer possible unless you agree to pay more for some subscription, or accept a new terms of service where you agree to forced arbitration if you don't want to lose access to even using your vehicle.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

proprietary software gives the developer power over their users.

Agree here, but that's a much larger issue than just this particular pricing structure.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Is the artifical segmentation pricing structure possible without lockout software? Software has wide applications but in the end this is about freedom.

I would like an EV but I want an old dumb car converted as I don't want the modern car computing systems (unless there's one that runs a free OS).