Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
That's 100% a lie on VW's part. What they're doing is slapping a lock on hardware you already own (by virtue of having bought the car) and renting the functionality back to you. It's literally theft and VW's executives ought to go to prison for it.
I do agree that owning something should mean you own it and can do with it as you like. This does not sit right with me either.
However, the car that you bought had presumably all information available, including the horsepower without the software unlock. If you bought the car because this fulfilled your needs, are you now being robbed because there theoretically is more horsepower available? Honest question: Are car motors not always limited to specific power outputs to reach emission, efficiency, or safety targets?
Again, I agree with the sentiment that owning something should mean really owning it, but I don’t think people are being robbed or lied to in this scenario.
Your premise is flawed. The horsepower didn't become available now; it was always available from the beginning -- the physical machine didn't magically change. That means even the most charitable interpretation is that VW deliberately made the thing artificially worse when they sold it to you.
Sure, but the bottom line is that either a tune falls within those targets or it doesn't, and a tune provided by the manufacturer always will (because they have to conform to emissions laws, honor warranties, etc.). Since the higher-performance tune is safe, using the lower tune is just leaving performance on the table for no reason.
It is not like a tune done by the owner or third-party that could exceed those limits at the owner's risk.
Thank you for the explanation regarding tune.
Let me preface my response with this: I do not particularly agree with VWs practices here. It seems to be a way to make more money by offering a „service“ instead of having only a one-time purchase. So please don’t understand me as defending VW here.
What I wanted to say with my premise is that the car that was bought is still the same car with the same lower horsepower that was advertised then. The car did not change and can be used in exactly the same way as when it was originally bought. Nothing was lost and no harm to the customer.
If you do not want to support these practices (which I would definitely not!) and you own this car, you can simply chose to not pay them money and continue to use the car under the specs you had originally purchased it.
You spend the money on the hardware capable of the higher spec though. The performance parts aren't free. They didn't reduce the price to match the spec.
Imagine getting a big 60' TV, but the screen is scaled to 48' if you don't pay a subscription. You still have a 60' TV, the manufacturer already paid for all 60' to be made. If they ask 48' TV prices, they're loosing a huge amount in upfront payment. In order to do that, they must expect subscription money to more than make up the difference. Since not everyone will get the subscription, that means the expected subscription money is close to or greater than the price of the entire TV, or the scaled TV isn't much cheaper than a normal 60' TV.
Also, because subscriptions are expected to pay for the extra pixels in all TVs, subscribers are paying the manufacturer to put disabled pixels in non-subscriber's TVs.
I agree. This kind of practice has a lot of potential to make things worse for everyone.
I may not have explained my point well. I was originally answering the comment that claimed theft by the manufacturer for, as I understood it, existing customers of the car. The comment read to me like the manufacturer slapped a lock on the engine after the fact, which is not the case here. Re-reading the comment now I think I simply misunderstood its meaning.
Ah, ok.
Even if the vehicles were hobbled after purchase, I don't think that would constitute theft, as performance isn't a tangible good. Apple has got into hot water for hobbling hardware after purchase though, so there's definitely precedent for an intentional reduction of performance being illegal.