Bmw subscription correction

[ISmokeAir]

Yesterday, on the wan show, Linus talked about BMW introducing a subscription for heated seats.

 

I think they didn’t fully explain the topic and it’s a little bit misleading.

 

First, if you purchased the car eith the heated seats, you own them there is no subscription. They will work for the lifetime of the vehicle. Source. Also a quote: “"If a vehicle is initially ordered with heated seats, that option will remain fully operational for the life of the vehicle," BMW said.”

 

Second, if you didn’t purchase the option, the seats will still be in the car but not activated. You can “buy” them outright at the price of $415, or you can pay the subscription. Source. Also a quote “A monthly subscription to heat your BMW’s front seats costs roughly $18, with options to subscribe for a year ($180), three years ($300), or pay for “unlimited” access for $415.”

 

I think this is a great thing, because if I decide to get the heated seats I don’t have to go to the dealer and may more (man labor) and waste time if there’s a problem.
 

Story time. My parents have a Skoda. They bought the car without android auto/carplay. After a year they decided  to get this functionality. So they booked a service appointment. I went with them. It took 4 hours for them to “install” it. Android auto/carplay is a function called Smart link. As far as i know it is just a software license. They told me that it’s also hardware but I don’t really believe them. After the 4 hrs they told us they couldn’t do it and they also DAMAGED the e-call function (calling the emergency number after an accident). So they gave us a loan car for a week and after a week they told us they repaired the e-call function, but they couldn’t install the Smart link function. My best guess, they were too incompetent to order the right thing so that’s why it didn’t work because in a special service menu the car tell you the functionality is compatible with the car.

 

Also if you bought the car from someone else who didn’t need the heated seats because he lives in a hot city, you can just buy it on your phone in 5 min.

 

Also because bmw can make the manufacturing easier by including the heated seats, you don’t pay more for the car and you also have the ability to retrofit but this is a speculation.

 

Will there be people who don’t do the math and use the subscription despite it being cheaper to buy it outright? Yes, but I see that as their problem not bmw’s. Bmw is in the business of making money not helping you make good financial decisions.

 

Also if someone is using the heated seats for 1-2m/year and they change the char often, it would be cheaper for them to use the subscription.

 

TLDR: You can still buy the heated seats forever, you don’t need to pay a subscription. Stop crying.

[RONOTHAN##]

6 minutes ago, ISmokeAir said:

I think this is a great thing, because if I decide to get the heated seats I don’t have to go to the dealer and may more (man labor) and waste time if there’s a problem.

The problem a lot of people have with this though is the fact that you already have the heated seat materials installed in the first place, and it costs them nothing to turn it on, so why do you have to pay for the ability to use something you already have. 

 

If they're just gonna include heated seats in all their cars, just make that a standard feature and stop charging people extra to turn it on. It's already a luxury car, why are you trying to nickel and dime the consumer. 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

3 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

It's already a luxury car, why are you trying to nickel and dime the consumer. 

This isn't a new thing for luxury cars or cars in general. If you want an actual colour, that's at least a grand extra. Sort of explains why I see so many white BMWs roaming the streets. 

 

[ISmokeAir]

2 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

The problem a lot of people have with this though is the fact that you already have the heated seat materials installed in the first place, and it costs them nothing to turn it on, so why do you have to pay for the ability to use something you already have. 

 

If they're just gonna include heated seats in all their cars, just make that a standard feature and stop charging people extra to turn it on. It's already a luxury car, why are you trying to nickel and dime the consumer. 

I get it but let’s think about this in another way. Let’s say the car costs 40000 with them included but inactive. It also costs 40000 without them because the added complexity. The heated seats still cost 400 either way, or maybe even less if they include them in every car. My point is you still end up paying the same amount (while bmw makes a little bit more money) but it’s easier for both of you.

 

Also if you are made about the price maybe this isn’t the car for you. As you said it’s a luxury car. It’s made for people who look at the price for the heated seats and go “yeah sure y not”.

 

You also said y not turn it on for everyone if you have the installed. Easy, because bmw wants more money. Bmw isn’t a charity. 
 

You can also ask y not sell it cheaper, make less money on it, if it’s still profitable and it’s the same answer.

 

It may be harsh but it’s the truth, if you can’t afford heated seats, maybe look at a toyota.

[Heliian]

3 hours ago, ISmokeAir said:

It also costs 40000 without them because the added complexity

That's hogwash, and it's not just about heated seats, it's about pointless subscription products.  

 

Considering heated seats are being installed in cheap cars today for very little cost it's ridiculous for BMW or anyone else to charge extra to activate the feature that is already installed.

 

What I do know is that most manufacturers use 3rd party suppliers for things like seats and I would guess their cost difference from heated to unheated is slim. 

 

They will also try and hook each consecutive owner of the vehicle into a sub.

 

Solution for me is simple, I won't be buying their car. 

[Arika]

3 hours ago, ISmokeAir said:

You also said y not turn it on for everyone if you have the installed. Easy, because bmw wants more money. Bmw isn’t a charity. 

Let's flip the script. 

You're building your dream house, which is only available through 1 builder.  There is multiple versions one with 7 rooms, one with 8 rooms. They both cost the same amount of money and material,  but on the 8 room version there is one room that is locked that only the builder is able to unlock, your need to pay extra for lifetime access to this room or pay a subscription to keep the room unlocked. 

 

The housing company just needs to make money, they aren't a charity. Not everyone needs that extra room, but it's there if you want to pay more for it. 

 

Do you not see how absolutely insane that is?

 

You already own everything about the house, but you've given someone else the key (literally) to locked you out of something you legally own. 

[Roswell]

1 hour ago, Heliian said:

That's hogwash

It’s not. BMW isn’t an on demand manufacturer like say Toyota, they’re going to save money via not having an excess of unpurchased cars because they don’t have the right option installed. 
 

Many luxury car brands install almost all options at the dealership for this exact reason. Having an enormous stockpile of car seats in the back room doesn’t make much sense when a bunch of them are going to go unused for the model year.

 

You could argue that they should come with heated seats by default, but… luxury car brands are going to do luxury car brand things.

[TetraSky]

Looking forward to jailbreaking my car.

[Kopaka]

11 hours ago, ISmokeAir said:

You also said y not turn it on for everyone if you have the installed. Easy, because bmw wants more money. Bmw isn’t a charity.

If they want more money then sell the care more expensively. Making subscriptions for something physical you own and have in your hands is a road we shouldn't be going down.

[Imbadatnames]

1 hour ago, Kopaka said:

If they want more money then sell the care more expensively. Making subscriptions for something physical you own and have in your hands is a road we shouldn't be going down.

You’ve been accepting this practice for years dude 

[Tamesh16]

I think its just cheaper to make one type of car seat rather than two (one with heated seats and one withput),

 

Louis Rossmann explained a bit better though, its more of consumer ideality, the idea of selling a product and including a physical feature which is locked but still in your possession is strange. Its almost as if you bought a house and didnt pay extra for AC, and when you arrive there is an AC system installed but with a Lock on it. 

Especially given the fact the car is so expensive, this subscription should never have been a thing, especially with the heated steering wheel subscription as well

The worry of the consumer is the erosion of ownership, so the path this might lead to is having more things you don't own in a car you bought

[ISmokeAir]

9 hours ago, Kopaka said:

If they want more money then sell the care more expensively. Making subscriptions for something physical you own and have in your hands is a road we shouldn't be going down.

They dooooo. But if you are too cheap to pay extra for the seats, they also give you the option to “ lease” it

[ISmokeAir]

16 hours ago, Arika S said:

Let's flip the script. 

You're building your dream house, which is only available through 1 builder.  There is multiple versions one with 7 rooms, one with 8 rooms. They both cost the same amount of money and material,  but on the 8 room version there is one room that is locked that only the builder is able to unlock, your need to pay extra for lifetime access to this room or pay a subscription to keep the room unlocked. 

 

The housing company just needs to make money, they aren't a charity. Not everyone needs that extra room, but it's there if you want to pay more for it. 

 

Do you not see how absolutely insane that is?

 

You already own everything about the house, but you've given someone else the key (literally) to locked you out of something you legally own. 

I just don’t see it as insane. Did i pay for the room? No. Then I don’t get the room simple as that.

 

Do i need the room for a month? I ll subscribe to it. Do I want it for a life time? Then I’ll pay for it.

 

Its extra simple, I don’t need to hire the company again and waste time to extend my house.

 

Also considering it’s my dream house, it means I have a lot of money. If I don’t and I live paycheck to paycheck to afford it, I shouldn’t have bought the dream house, I should have bought a normal one.

[ISmokeAir]

Are you ppl mad at Porsche or Rolls Royce for asking for $2000+ for a god damn paint job that costs them basically nothing? No. Because they are LUXURY items. 

[Roswell]

9 hours ago, Kopaka said:

If they want more money then sell the care more expensively. Making subscriptions for something physical you own and have in your hands is a road we shouldn't be going down.

They already do… You can just buy it with the heated seats option at purchase time and never have to pay a subscription.

 

You can also just pay the flat option cost and again get your heated seats without paying a subscription.

[Neroon]

On 7/16/2022 at 11:00 PM, ISmokeAir said:

I get it but let’s think about this in another way. Let’s say the car costs 40000 with them included but inactive. It also costs 40000 without them because the added complexity. The heated seats still cost 400 either way, or maybe even less if they include them in every car. My point is you still end up paying the same amount (while bmw makes a little bit more money) but it’s easier for both of you.

 

Also if you are made about the price maybe this isn’t the car for you. As you said it’s a luxury car. It’s made for people who look at the price for the heated seats and go “yeah sure y not”.

 

You also said y not turn it on for everyone if you have the installed. Easy, because bmw wants more money. Bmw isn’t a charity. 
 

You can also ask y not sell it cheaper, make less money on it, if it’s still profitable and it’s the same answer.

 

It may be harsh but it’s the truth, if you can’t afford heated seats, maybe look at a toyota.

You are assuming that you aren't already paying for them to begin with.

 

Think about it this way, putting them in costs them money right? (if you assume it doesn't cost extra because it's in every car, that raises a whole different discussion), so let's say that 25% will actually pay for them, because believe it or not, many people don't like them or won't pay for them.

How is BMW paying for that? Is it out of their pocket, or is it out of the customers pocket?

 

They obviously believe they will make money this way, otherwise they wouldn't do this, that ALWAYS means people are paying for it, and either the people who paid for the option are paying for the people who didn't pay for it, or everyone just paid for it, and they get some people to pay double for it. You can be assured that it's not BMW paying for it.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, Neroon said:

(if you assume it doesn't cost extra because it's in every car, that raises a whole different discussion)

Well I mean it is sort of the same discussion really.  Overall the costs might be very similar then building without.

 

Reasoning:

1) Overproducing ones with heated seats means you have vehicles sitting, and may eventually be sold without the upgrade

2) Single SKU means the assembly line might be more efficient (no need to maintain 2 sets of parts, or switch one line to heated vs one without).  So less downtime during the build itself

3) Higher purchase volume of same seat (while not as likely, but economy of scales might kick in)

 

Overall I wouldn't be surprised if the total cost of adding it into every vehicle ends up being sub $50.

 

This all gets countered then by the fact that people who lease the vehicle 4-5 years before flipping the vehicle will have a higher incentive for renting for a few months (as it's cheaper that way).  You also then have it so they can sell the vehicle and the people after might purchase the heated seat option.

 

The way I look at it it's a trade off.  They can sell the vehicle at the same price as before (but make slightly less on the initial sale), but then hope that enough people rent it a few times or the next owner decides to purchase it to recoup and make more the cost.  Probably helps with the resale value as well, having the option to add heated seats.

 

On 7/16/2022 at 5:55 PM, Arika S said:

Let's flip the script. 

You're building your dream house, which is only available through 1 builder.  There is multiple versions one with 7 rooms, one with 8 rooms. They both cost the same amount of money and material,  but on the 8 room version there is one room that is locked that only the builder is able to unlock, your need to pay extra for lifetime access to this room or pay a subscription to keep the room unlocked. 

Honestly, if a builder told me, a house with 5 rooms with 2000 sq feet costs $1mill and then they said they could build a house with 6 rooms 2400 sq feet for $1 mill and everything would look exactly the same except only 5 rooms would be accessible (with the option of being able buy the 6th room later or unlock it with a subscription) then I would take the 6 room option.

 

 

In general the analogy I use is old school cable.  They use to use filters attached to your house to assign the channels...you didn't hear people complaining that the cable company was already delivering all the cables to the house, and just filtering out the ones you aren't paying for.  [Actually now I think of it, you did have a few people complaining...but I think it's pretty agreeable it is an acceptable practice by cable providers]

 

 

The only thing that I think Linus really missed on the WAN show is that there is a purchase option.  If they didn't have a purchase option then I'd be raising my pitchfork like everyone else.

 

Another way to look at it, would you rather a PS6 that costs $500 but you have to subscribe to unlock the full potential or a PS6 that costs $1000 without subscribing.  If they offer the choice, it really shouldn't matter.  The whole concept is that they offer part of it at a loss, with the intent on making it back in other ways.

 

It's no different than a dealership selling a vehicle at a loss, but effectively roping someone into a servicing package (so they eventually make money)

[Arika]

12 hours ago, ISmokeAir said:

I just don’t see it as insane. Did i pay for the room? No. Then I don’t get the room simple as that.

 

Do i need the room for a month? I ll subscribe to it. Do I want it for a life time? Then I’ll pay for it.

 

Its extra simple, I don’t need to hire the company again and waste time to extend my house.

50 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Honestly, if a builder told me, a house with 5 rooms with 2000 sq feet costs $1mill and then they said they could build a house with 6 rooms 2400 sq feet for $1 mill and everything would look exactly the same except only 5 rooms would be accessible (with the option of being able buy the 6th room later or unlock it with a subscription) then I would take the 6 room option.

Oh god, people have actually lost their minds. are people so desensitised to subscriptions and pay forever models that people are willing to just not care about the things they own anymore?

 

[wanderingfool2]

15 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Oh god, people have actually lost their minds. are people so desensitised to subscriptions and pay forever models that people are willing to just not care about the things they own anymore?

It's not desensitized it's about using a bit more logic regarding a scenario than just assuming the worst with a knee jerk reaction.

 

So tell me, if you were offered a house you wanted for $1 million with 5 rooms at 2000 sq feet, but the developer said they could build a 6 room 2400 sq feet at the same cost but they walled off one room which you could pay for later if you want (with their rational that they would eat the extra cost to build to make it the same price, knowing that most people will eventually decide to purchase the extra room).  Would you seriously say no to that offer?

 

It's not losing my mind, they offer a package to buy it outright.  It's not that hard to understand, just people still feel that possession means you own something.  If you don't purchase the heated seats, you don't really own it...it's just it's installed in the even you want it in the future.

 

Similar concept on lease to own vehicles, no one seems to have any issue with that.

[Arika]

52 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Would you seriously say no to that offer?

I would say:

"That I'd a fucking stupid proposal" the room is still there, in YOUR house, it's nothing more than an arbitrary lock to get more money out of you.

 

Or I would say "build the extra room" but then just break down the wall they put up. It's my house, I can do what I want with it.

[Zancaster]

14 hours ago, ISmokeAir said:

Are you ppl mad at Porsche or Rolls Royce for asking for $2000+ for a god damn paint job that costs them basically nothing? No. Because they are LUXURY items. 

That's not how it works, Firstly if you know anything about paint (especially industrial paint) you'd know that the difference between standard and premium paints are significant.

Secondly, if you don't pay for them, you don't have them on your car, and you'd need to get some other shops to paint it for you because it has cost such as material, labour and service.

The enable/disable system by BWM on the other hand, provides no value. They went out of their way to design a system that stop a product that would have provided service from doing so, which ADDS complexity and points of failure. Remember, they put heated seat in all their cars purely to cut production cost, and it has the benefit of a streamlined production, then they are not luxury items, they are mass produced commodities. Again, this is a situation where it take more resources to reduce the value of the product, than providing it. BMW is literally wasting the resources that our society has created, just to stop a service to be provided.

Sure, companies are not charities, but their existance should only be justified by the goods and services they provide, not the other way around.

[Lurking]

I think Tesla did something similar with the rear-seat heaters. They also create problems for those added options when you sell the car and the new owner may then have to re-buy the feature. Same for some of their software features that don't necessarily transfer to the next owner. At minimum, once paid, the feature should stay with the car forever. 

 

I bet BMW already included the heater in the base price since they had to physically install the hardware inc. the buttons. Heaters aren't like a software feature that cost zero to add (after software is developed), each heating wire actually cost $. 

 

For a complex software that also include liability and continuing development and updates (i.e. self driving feature) I kind of see the benefit of paying since not everyone needs or wants it. But the software complexity of a heater seems limited. Making the heater an option probably requires added software complexity than making it standard. 

 

And shame on BMW to not have heated seats standard, even if they install them. What a waste of resources. For a "luxury" car something mundane like resistance heater for seat, mirror and steering wheel should just be standard. On the other hand, for heaters I could see a benefit to sell "southern" cars without winter package, and "Northern" cars with ALL heated options. but once you have a winter version, it should include all heat, not just seats. but since the physical hardware is already installed and the software very simple, thsi is a rip-off. 

[Neroon]

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well I mean it is sort of the same discussion really.  Overall the costs might be very similar then building without.

If it's cheaper to produce without, they are fucking over the customers even more by having them pay for something that costs less for them.

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Neroon said:

If it's cheaper to produce without, they are fucking over the customers even more by having them pay for something that costs less for them.

Never said it was cheaper to produce, just that the cost might be closer to the same cost than most people think.

 

At which point it's all about profit margins.  It doesn't always make sense producing all vehicles to have heated seats standard, even if it were to cost the same.  You would still get those people who complain that they don't want heated seats so it's added to the cost.  You will also make less in your profit margin because you now don't have that more expensive premium option that people would purchase (because they want heated seats).

 

Let's say (and this is just saying it as an example it is likely wrong) that it was $30 extra per vehicle.  You have maybe 50% of people who (wouldn't purchase it anyways) rent it twice in the lifetime.  That means on average it's now just $12 more per vehicle.  Lets say of those 10% who rent it decide to eventually purchase it for $400, you now have an extra $28 per vehicle...yet you are still charging the same amount for the base model; while potentially making more money.  That's why you don't just offer things up for free.

 

The profit margins on vehicles actually aren't overly high.  You also have BMW which is apparently like 70%+ leased...which could mean they are trying to target more of the people who purchase vehicles for 4-5 years before switching and getting a new one.  In a scenario like that it's a lot easier to justify going onto a subscription vs paying $400 for it.

 

Overall, it's a calculated move...and I honestly don't mind it.  There would be times that I would really enjoy having heated seats, but I really couldn't justify it when originally purchasing the vehicle...but after walking to the car in -11 C weather I wish I had it...so for someone like me it would be worth it.

 

[Just that Mario]

On 7/16/2022 at 11:36 PM, ISmokeAir said:

I think they didn’t fully explain the topic and it’s a little bit misleading.

You mean like every single news site and channel reporting this? *surprised pikachu face*
 

On 7/16/2022 at 11:36 PM, ISmokeAir said:

You can “buy” them outright at the price of $415

That's so cheap, wtf.

 

On 7/16/2022 at 11:47 PM, RONOTHAN## said:

The problem a lot of people have with this though is the fact that you already have the heated seat materials installed in the first place, and it costs them nothing to turn it on, so why do you have to pay for the ability to use something you already have. 

That's such a dumb argument. No words to even comment this thought, but kudos for coming up with it.

 

On 7/17/2022 at 5:44 AM, Roswell said:

It’s not. BMW isn’t an on demand manufacturer like say Toyota, they’re going to save money via not having an excess of unpurchased cars because they don’t have the right option installed. 
 

Many luxury car brands install almost all options at the dealership for this exact reason. Having an enormous stockpile of car seats in the back room doesn’t make much sense when a bunch of them are going to go unused for the model year.

That's just bunch of fake news. BMW takes orders from dealers, who either pick setups themselves or from customer for specific orders.

___

Not even going to bother to reply to comments that behave like car parts, paint, etc are free and stupid they cost money. By that same logic everything should be free.

Seat warmers and coolers as seasonal subscription wouldn't even be crazy. In many countries you never use those features or use them few months of the year. It basically gives infinite options for much cheaper. You don't want them? don't pay. You want them all the time? Buy fully. Only need them three months of the year? Pay for those three months. You later decide you DO want them or next owner wants them? Congratulations, you can just buy them without the extra cost of brand new seats, new wiring loom, new ECU, new dash buttons, software update, etc.