Volkswagen locks extra speed behind subscription: microtransactions for cars

Nice! Well...new VW cars are cheap plastic toys so... bring more subscriptions! And sell them at Noriel stores! :))
 
It's like horseshoe theory between communism and capitalism.
Endgame for both seems to be "you will own nothing and be happy".
Difference is at the extreme capitalism allows for "you will see the opportunity for a car company people do not despise and offer a fair deal". And that and other pressures result in all the failed attempts listed in this article -- companies try to overstep, consumers set them straight.

That said I think I'd be in a favor of a "you own your hardware, and can repair and modify it however you'd like law" which should also short-circuit some of these shenanigans. Or rather, not a new law, just an absence of any law or enforcement which could prevent those things.
 
Difference is at the extreme capitalism allows for "you will see the opportunity for a car company people do not despise and offer a fair deal". And that and other pressures result in all the failed attempts listed in this article -- companies try to overstep, consumers set them straight.

That said I think I'd be in a favor of a "you own your hardware, and can repair and modify it however you'd like law" which should also short-circuit some of these shenanigans. Or rather, not a new law, just an absence of any law or enforcement which could prevent those things.
The US only has around 6 states with Right-to-Repair laws; it's a start. The EU has a Right-to-Repair law enacted and Canada has a federal RtR law.
 
This stuff only happens because consumers let it happen and continue. Wake me when that order of backbones finally comes in.
This is the motivation behind social or political movements, and also unions, but it only works if there's no resistance to crush said movement.
It doesn't require a truckload of spines, it only requires one. Most consumers are sheep (myself included) and will tolerate/accept whatever is available if there's no other/better option.
Grumbling is done in forums, website comments, chatrooms, lunchrooms, and at home with most of them unable to recognise they have the power to enable change.
Until one brave soul has that epiphany and starts a movement, then, either everyone else piles on or the powers who don't want change buy/take him/her out.
If a competitor can make a go of it and produce what consumers want/what the 'bad' guy isn't making then the sheep (myself included) will pile on and buy the new product, and competition is born.
It's an entertaining notion we live in capitalist countries, and mostly champion capitalists, but forget we each have the power, access, ability, and opportunity to be the change we want to see. Most of us simply grumble about and wait for someone else to solve the problems.
 
This is the motivation behind social or political movements, and also unions, but it only works if there's no resistance to crush said movement.
It doesn't require a truckload of spines, it only requires one. Most consumers are sheep (myself included) and will tolerate/accept whatever is available if there's no other/better option.
Grumbling is done in forums, website comments, chatrooms, lunchrooms, and at home with most of them unable to recognise they have the power to enable change.
Until one brave soul has that epiphany and starts a movement, then, either everyone else piles on or the powers who don't want change buy/take him/her out.
If a competitor can make a go of it and produce what consumers want/what the 'bad' guy isn't making then the sheep (myself included) will pile on and buy the new product, and competition is born.
It's an entertaining notion we live in capitalist countries, and mostly champion capitalists, but forget we each have the power, access, ability, and opportunity to be the change we want to see. Most of us simply grumble about and wait for someone else to solve the problems.
If you think society and democracy is a one man job, then you're part of the problem.
The best we've done has been voting for "one man" and where has that gotten us? Any fool can check a box.
 
The eradication (genocide) of the working class is rolling out as planned. The ruling elites know exactly how to wage war on the resource they no longer need.
 
Your insurance is for the higher rated performance. You’re paying for something you don’t have if you don’t have the upgrade. Going forward this could also affect car tax and driving zones.
 
If you think society and democracy is a one man job, then you're part of the problem.
The best we've done has been voting for "one man" and where has that gotten us? Any fool can check a box.
Nowhere did I state anything about a one-man job. You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said:
It doesn't require a truckload of spines, it only requires one. Most consumers are sheep (myself included) and will tolerate/accept whatever is available if there's no other/better option.
I stated "it only requires one" - that passage is directly following and connected to "It doesn't require a truckload of spines", meaning one spine, one person to [start] a movement, a group, an organisation, a company, a business, an idea. Learn to read AND comprehend.
Wow!, you're clearly angry at the world, and I have a feeling it won't be long 'til we read about you in a news story which ends with "... he then turned the gun on himself."
 
Nowhere did I state anything about a one-man job. You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said:

I stated "it only requires one" - that passage is directly following and connected to "It doesn't require a truckload of spines", meaning one spine, one person to [start] a movement, a group, an organisation, a company, a business, an idea. Learn to read AND comprehend.
Wow!, you're clearly angry at the world, and I have a feeling it won't be long 'til we read about you in a news story which ends with "... he then turned the gun on himself."
My reading comprehension is bad?

I'm talking about the average human lacking common sense and backbone to stand up for themselves in everyday life, instead of blaming politicians and anyone else for their problems.

You brought up unions and consumers...
 
Last edited:
This is a perfect feature for driver licensing which gov'ts could enable. Graduated speed control; new driver/repeat offender, max 70/80/90/100 posted limit. Get too many points, get a speeding ticket, back to 70% the limit.
Imagine Mr. Cool driving his $400,000 penis extension governed to max 70kph on the highway, for 3 months (first offence), LOL!!! ... that'll learn him not to do 200kph on the 401. Then add impounding and longer periods for tampering with the tech.
lol 70kph limit on a road where others are going up to a 100?
You know driving below the speed limit isn't safe under current laws right? And you're okay with it being legal to go as low as 30 below the limit? wow.

When drivers travel significantly slower than the surrounding traffic, it can create a "bottleneck" effect, causing other drivers to slow down, change lanes, or attempt risky passes.
 
lol 70kph limit on a road where others are going up to a 100?
You know driving below the speed limit isn't safe under current laws right? And you're okay with it being legal to go as low as 30 below the limit? wow.

When drivers travel significantly slower than the surrounding traffic, it can create a "bottleneck" effect, causing other drivers to slow down, change lanes, or attempt risky passes.
You're right, slow drivers cause accidents because it's not expected. Clearly, it'd be dangerous and wouldn't work. My idea is more about reveling in someone else's misery; the idea of someone with a Ferrari, Lambo, Maserati, Porsche, whatever being governed to lower speeds makes me chuckle. For a gear-head or adult adolescent the embarrassment of being locked to a lower sub-max speed would be an awesome punishment, likely far more effective than any monetary punitivity.
 
And people question why I bought a truck that predates emissions laws, this kind of crap is why, it has no computer, its electronics are the stater and radio.

Even if Ford wants to one day they can't force my 74 F250 to go into limp mode, they can't lock me out of features, and if they try to stop selling gas I've already got the conversion kit and boiler to make wood gas and they can't ban trees.
 
Just say no, people. Otherwise, virtually everything on future cars that isn't absolutely necessary will be a subscription. Want AC? That's $30 a month. Want heat? That's also $30 a month. Heated seats? $20 a month. Stereo? That's $15 a month... You get the idea. Again, just say no.
 
You're right, slow drivers cause accidents because it's not expected. Clearly, it'd be dangerous and wouldn't work. My idea is more about reveling in someone else's misery; the idea of someone with a Ferrari, Lambo, Maserati, Porsche, whatever being governed to lower speeds makes me chuckle. For a gear-head or adult adolescent the embarrassment of being locked to a lower sub-max speed would be an awesome punishment, likely far more effective than any monetary punitivity.
your idea was poor at best.
 
£649 for a lifetime unlock which they'll turn back whenever they want, accompanied by a lame excuse.
Thanks VW, it was nice knowing you.
I wonder what happens when someone is driving a 15 or 20 year old car that is no longer supported by the manufacturer?
 
To what end?
When a resource is no longer viable or necessary, what do you do with it? In this case the resource is the working class and/or 70-90% of the population. When the masses are no longer required and subsequently no longer self sustain by working to live, do you think the ruling class will arbitrarily create purpose for them or take care of them? Of course not. That resource has then become a burden.
 
They would just add new services which wouldn't be covered by the £649. Everyone wants to offer subscriptions to grab as much revenue as they can. A week ago Amazon offered me a subscription for toilet paper.

Are you referring to "subscribe and save"? That's actually useful for saving money. You have a window of time to "skip" the next auto-delivery. Hardly a valid comparison to what the likes of VW, GM, etc. are doing.
 
When a resource is no longer viable or necessary, what do you do with it? In this case the resource is the working class and/or 70-90% of the population. When the masses are no longer required and subsequently no longer self sustain by working to live, do you think the ruling class will arbitrarily create purpose for them or take care of them? Of course not. That resource has then become a burden.
You've touched on an important point/distinction; that of "When the masses are no longer required ... do you think the ruling class will arbitrarily create purpose for them or take care of them?" - That statement perfectly identifies the very problem with the working class; that of requiring others to "care" for them.
Excepting 'work' can only come from an employer, is a crutch for many people. Each person not recognising the responsibility to provide for is one's own is beyond the realisation of many in society. Instead, the flawed notion of getting a job hampers self-responsibility. We leave school, get a job, start a family, retire. That's pathway is drummed into society from a young age.
But, what if there are no jobs? Many in the working class have no plan B. They blame the rich, big box stores, unions, automation, immigrants, gov't, etc. for their inability to find work.
You also mentioned "The eradication (genocide) of the working class is rolling out as planned." - I don't believe this is accurate, "eradication"? yes, that's effectual of change. "genocide"? no, that's a little strong and a completely different topic. I agree changes eliminate available jobs, but I don't agree it's a form of genocide. People are adaptable.
Each is responsible for him/herself and his/her dependents. Homeowners and farmers years ago didn't rely on big-box stores, they grew their own food. Seeds, water. effort, harvest, store. Then barter for what you lack. That will revive.
 
Back