I don't disagree in theory, but:

<START AI SLOP>

Manufacturing one hardware setup and charging separately for features is not the problem. The problem is charging ongoing rent for a feature that isn't an ongoing service. A seat heater doesn't use a server, need content updates, or create meaningful recurring costs for the manufacturer after the car is sold. It shifts the relationship from ownership to permission. It also creates bad incentives: features can be removed later, tied to accounts, complicated for second owners, or turned into endless monetization opportunities.

<END AI SLOP>

I agree with that. I don’t know what your prompt was, but I wasn’t arguing in favor of subscription access to hardware, I said flat upfront fee based upgrades make more sense, and I was only pointing out that market segmentation over a single physical product via software feature locks is a pretty common thing and it’s not necessarily a bad thing for consumers, there are some side benefits, some tradeoffs.

I’m not personally into paying subscription upgrades, I tend to avoid them. But the one case where I could see potential for consumer benefit is when there’s a choice between a high upfront fee or a low subscription price. I would assume a subscription price over time will cost more than the upfront fee. However, there’s an argument to be made for lower cost access, for smaller barrier to entry for the upgrade, especially if it can be discontinued if the customer doesn’t find enough value.

There was a motorcycle airbag jacket that offered this choice and was discussed on HN maybe a year or two ago. People were, of course, freaking out about a safety feature being tied to a subscription, and I can totally understand the fear, but the rhetoric around it didn’t match what the actual product offered, and the company was offering the choice between flat fee and monthly fee, not demanding a rent-seeking only option. Personally I think most of the ick feeling of a subscription idea goes away for me if it’s not the only option.