If you bought the car because this fulfilled your needs, are you now being robbed because there theoretically is more horsepower available?
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.
Are car motors not always limited to specific power outputs to reach emission, efficiency, or safety targets?
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.
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.
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.
I agree entirely with your point, and the OP sentiment. Having an optional post-purchase power upgrade is one thing, selling it as a subscription is where I personally draw a line and would refuse to consider it.
The only things you own are things which cannot be taken away. A subscription can always disappear or go prohibitively up in price.
Having an optional post-purchase power upgrade is one thing, selling it as a subscription is where I personally draw a line and would refuse to consider it.
Even as a one-time fee it’s still wrong, and I’ll tell you why: because if it’s as simple as a software setting and they want to sell it, they’re going to infect the car with DRM to prevent the owner from unlocking it for free, and that by itself is already a violation of the owner’s property rights.
“Post-purchase upgrades” that don’t require installation of new hardware to enable the new functionality are always inherently evil and wrong, because, by definition, you already owned them!
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
I agree entirely with your point, and the OP sentiment. Having an optional post-purchase power upgrade is one thing, selling it as a subscription is where I personally draw a line and would refuse to consider it.
The only things you own are things which cannot be taken away. A subscription can always disappear or go prohibitively up in price.
Even as a one-time fee it’s still wrong, and I’ll tell you why: because if it’s as simple as a software setting and they want to sell it, they’re going to infect the car with DRM to prevent the owner from unlocking it for free, and that by itself is already a violation of the owner’s property rights.
“Post-purchase upgrades” that don’t require installation of new hardware to enable the new functionality are always inherently evil and wrong, because, by definition, you already owned them!