I’m not saying it is a good or bad model. I’m just commenting the fact that “it will backlash”, I just don’t see how.
As you just said, it is now a well admitted model, and more in line with the way people consume today (easy, fast, impulsive…). And it is financially really interesting for companies as well. So no reasons not to see this model keep flourishing.
Nothing tinfoil or anything.
I was referring to this:
I also don’t think it will backlash. Maybe if people decide they don’t want to watch movies at all, they will cut their netflix sub and replace it with nothing (I’m considering this, I feel like I already saw the best movies and the new ones i don’t care about that much).
None, in principle.
Recurring subscription is very good companies.
I‘m not saying consumer will stop consuming. But they may prefer non-subscription pricing.
Don‘t get me wrong, companies have, in many fields, only recently been enabled to charge subscription pricing for (non-consumable) functionality. And the pricing model is here to stay. We most certainly haven‘t reached its apex yet.
They are - but for consumable goods or experiences. While I‘d say a singular ride is a consumable service as well, seat heating is arguably not.
I can imagine there will be people feeling „I‘m paying full price for the car - and the manufacturer is trying to nickel and dime me for basic functionality that should be (and technically is!) included! That‘s extortionate.“
And I can also imagine someone, some manufacturer including it in their cars „for free“ (with the purchase price) and market the heck out of it.
Also, from observation, people like to own cars. If renting services is so great, why isn‘t car rental/sharing more prevalent?
True. You could argue that the same thing happens when Intel makes a chip, tests it, and then they lock some threads on the less performing ones, but also on perfectly good ones, and sells them a i5 and i7. You could say “hey, I paid for that piece of silicon, why is it not fully activated?”. It’s just sometimes more economical to make one product, but nerf a batch of them, and sell it as two different products with two different prices, in order to reach a larger market. If company X gave heated seats to everyone without a premium, they would make less money, if they raised the price for everyone, that would make fewer people buy it.
Good question. I think it’s a matter of convenience and cost. So far, to rent a car, you need to sign the papers, pay a lot of money, and return the car as soon as youre finished, so that the next person can use it. You need to get to the rental place to get it. It’s just too much hassle and costs too much money to do this on a daily basis. But eg mobility, where you can access the cars around train stations is already a more appealing alternative. I think once you have the option to call an “uber” that will arrive in up to 5 min, day or night, and take you to the city for less than it costs with the SBB, then many people will ask themselves “why I should I even own a car?”.
Caveat: it can never be cheaper than the SBB (thanks God I have to tell).
Not even publibike is cheaper.
And ppl in CH don’t need a car to “go to the city” but rather to go skiing, hiking, visiting friends who live in Kt AG and so on. These are most of the time much less convenient/affordable than mobility.ch which is a “IKEA/moving car rental” service for most.
I’m a non-parent, can you explain why having children makes it necessary to have a car?
Bonus points if you can answer from the perspective of a city dweller. I live in Zurich city, and use mobility perhaps once per 3 months and can’t really imagine why having children would change that, though I appreciate that there are lots of “unknown unknowns” when having children.
For context, I have a few friends with kids living in Zurich who claim that they need their cars, but I basically don’t believe them and think everything could be done with public transport or e-bike + trailer.
I agree with that statement. However a better city design (like in the Netherlands) would help greatly.
Even if we are already blessed with one of the best public transport systems of the world.
Just imagine to have to “motivate” 5 just born duck babies to walk from Zurich to Horgen without touching them, just speaking their “language” and gestures … if you push too hard, people will stare at you, so be patient. Btw, you also need to take food and water for them, brush to clean shit on the way, umbrella for sun protection. Did I mention that you are sleep deprived for last two years? 
A bit extreme example if you consider that most couples will have 1-2 newborn at a time.
I understand that car is easy to use, but the cargo bike with an electric motor is in my opinion a good alternative for intracity (and suburbian) transport, as long as it is supported with the right infrastructure of course.
I don’t get this discussion. What applies to some doesn’t apply to all. I know a guy who lived in Vienna with small kids and no car. I’m sure if you live in a large european city, you can manage without a car, if your flat is located in a convenient area.
I think when the self-driving market develops, there will be options for families too. After all, what would stop a family from using a robotaxi? If you need to keep your stuff in there, you can rent it for the day. If you really use the car a lot, sure, own one. But we’re talking about large scale trends, not edge cases!
it’s 2022 and the “most advanced autopilot system” still hits pedestrians without braking 
@user137 I would like you to now say “I’m sorry for spreading lies, I got manipulated”. Will you do that?
yes it seems controversial - but no, sorry, I was not spreading lies, neither got manipulated. I basically posted what I found where it belongs and you seem to have countered it, very well.
Now, on the same topic: do you need FSD or Autopilot turned on to actually stop for pedestrians? Because if so, that’s even less useful than in normal cars, most of which actually stop for peds no matter the circumstance.
Car logs and video footage have shown that FSD was engaged, but the driver was holding the gas pedal. FSD detected the obstacle and was urging the driver to react. FSD beta does not override human corrections. It’s the other way round: the human can always override what the beta is doing. And that is in line with the disclaimer when you agree to the terms of fsd beta program. YOU are responsible and you are in control. Will you agree, that for a beta software it makes sense that the car never ignores driver input?
This scam was sponsored by a billionaire Dan O’Dowd who, if I’m not mistaken, sells components to legacy car manufacturers. So he has skin in the game, and he has smeared Tesla multiple times. The damage is done, regardless of the truth. Scam like this is produced, so that people who are looking for something to hate Tesla for, can find it and then post it with smug satisfaction, without double-checking.
I wonder why this kind of scam are legal. It’s “mathematically” clear that it is a scam. I mean, an AI could decide on such cases, no need to expensive lawyers.
What could say the defense? They didn’t read the manual?
I don’t think they are legal. They could get sued, but then you need to prove how many people got misinformed and how big was the damage to the brand. That’s not something you can magically automate.
What you read in the news today is often not true, it is put there either to generate clicks or to form an opinion (sponsored). Take for example the slandering articles about buying a horse for a handjob or banging Brin’s wife. Bullshit Insider is known for such fake stories.
We definitely frequent two different sides of internet
Honestly, with all the misnaming and lies Musk himself has put out and engaged in on the subject of FSD, it’s hard to feel outrage or pity.
I’m about tho short TSLA since its way overvalued, Elon himself sold a bunch of stocks and i dont see how it can grow a lot from here.
Please change my mind.
