You are right. If you really own the car you should be able to use all of it, even if the manufacturer sold it to you under false performance claims.
I was hung up on the fact that in my understanding the existing customer still has the same product they originally purchased that I missed the point of what ownership should really mean. I never agreed with this practice but I was missing the point by arguing the wrong argument in my previous comment (and in another comment chain).
I wanted to come back to your comment after I received some input and slept over it.
Your point is that the customer, even though they bought the car under that impression that it has less horsepower, should now be able to unlock it for free since they own the car. If owning really means owning this should be possible and that is why you describe it as literal theft if the functionality is now being made available only through additional purchase.
I fully agree with your point and was simply misunderstanding your comment.
Thank you for the objective discussion. This helped me broaden my understanding of what ownership should be. I was very hung up on the point that existing customers still get what they payed for that I did not see the bigger picture what ownership should really mean.
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.
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.
Did you buy the car under the impression that it has more power than it has?
I agree that you should be able/allowed to unlock it yourself but I assume at time of purchase it was advertised with the correct value of horsepower available. So, you still own what you bought. Nobody is forced to buy the „upgrade“, are they?
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.
I agree with activating those options but due to timers preventing you to make another try starting after the 5th incorrect entry it will take at least 1h 21m to enter your PIN incorrectly 10 times. The last timer alone is 60min. So this unfortunately is not a quick way to wipe your iPhone in this scenario.
I suspect they will not wait 60min to let you enter the a wrong PIN for the 10th time if you even get that far. Much more likely they will confiscate the device to clone it in order to have unlimited tries for brute forcing if they really want to access your phone.
She seems to be sleeping but we don’t know if she’s sleeping well
I think both would be great. Make public transit better AND introduce a general speed limit. We don’t need to choose only one option.
I‘m all in favor of a general 130 km/h limit on German autobahn. In addition to being better for the environment, it would make our already relatively save autobahn even saver. But I have a feeling that the speed limit in Germany is similar to the gun discussion in the US. It’s a very emotional topic for many people.
To signal intent to overtake flashing the light (outside of settlements) is legal and described in the StVo. It’s not illegal. Doing so while driving very close to the front car while they have no chance to make space can be „Nötigung“, yes. The situation described by OP falls under the legal use of high beams in my opinion.
You can report websites in the extension if it does not work.
It’s still better than just accepting everything in my opinion. I trust that the coverage of websites/cookie prompts in the extension will improve over time.