BMW feature lockout scandal: Difference between revisions
m Bare minimum fix to references. This article's references are mostly broken for some reason |
m Replaced Louis Video reference with reference to the article he was referencing, still need to fix the references in the article |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==BMW Adaptive Suspension as a Service== | ==BMW Adaptive Suspension as a Service== | ||
This article documents BMW's practice of including the hardware for its M adaptive suspension in many vehicles, while requiring customers to pay extra to activate the software that enables the feature. This model exemplifies modern consumer exploitation by eroding traditional notions of ownership and leveraging subscription services to control access to features that are physically present in a purchased product. | |||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*It can be bought outright for a one time charge of $500 | *It can be bought outright for a one time charge of $500 | ||
This means that even though a consumer has physically purchased the car with the suspension components, they do not have full control or use of those components without paying an additional fee [1]. The cost of the equipment was already included in the price of the vehicle, meaning that the customer is effectively paying twice for the same components [ | This means that even though a consumer has physically purchased the car with the suspension components, they do not have full control or use of those components without paying an additional fee [1]. The cost of the equipment was already included in the price of the vehicle, meaning that the customer is effectively paying twice for the same components <ref>[https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/bmw-will-not-charge-extra-activate-existing-functions-cars "BMW will not charge extra to activate existing functions in cars"] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref>. This is a shift from traditional ownership models where the consumer has full access to the functionality of purchased goods [2]. | ||
This business model alters the definition of "purchase" and "own," as described in the Consumer Action Taskforce mission statement [2, 5]. The consumer does not have complete control over the purchased item, as the manufacturer can effectively disable or restrict functionality through software [2]. This raises questions about what it means to own a product, if the manufacturer retains control over key features [2, 5]. | This business model alters the definition of "purchase" and "own," as described in the Consumer Action Taskforce mission statement [2, 5]. The consumer does not have complete control over the purchased item, as the manufacturer can effectively disable or restrict functionality through software [2]. This raises questions about what it means to own a product, if the manufacturer retains control over key features [2, 5]. | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references> | <references> | ||
<ref name="Consumer Taskforce">[6] Consumer Action Taskforce. "Mission Statement." ''Consumer Action Taskforce Wiki'', 15 Jan. 2025, [https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/index.php?title=Mission_statement&oldid=1086].</ref> | <ref name="Consumer Taskforce">[6] Consumer Action Taskforce. "Mission Statement." ''Consumer Action Taskforce Wiki'', 15 Jan. 2025, [https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/index.php?title=Mission_statement&oldid=1086].</ref> | ||
</references> | </references> | ||