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.
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.
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.