I do agree that owning something should mean you own it and can do with it as you like. This does not sit right with me either.
However, the car that you bought had presumably all information available, including the horsepower without the software unlock. If you bought the car because this fulfilled your needs, are you now being robbed because there theoretically is more horsepower available?
Honest question: Are car motors not always limited to specific power outputs to reach emission, efficiency, or safety targets?
Again, I agree with the sentiment that owning something should mean really owning it, but I don’t think people are being robbed or lied to in this scenario.
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.
Let me preface my response with this:
I do not particularly agree with VWs practices here. It seems to be a way to make more money by offering a „service“ instead of having only a one-time purchase. So please don’t understand me as defending VW here.
What I wanted to say with my premise is that the car that was bought is still the same car with the same lower horsepower that was advertised then. The car did not change and can be used in exactly the same way as when it was originally bought. Nothing was lost and no harm to the customer.
If you do not want to support these practices (which I would definitely not!) and you own this car, you can simply chose to not pay them money and continue to use the car under the specs you had originally purchased it.
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!
I do agree that owning something should mean you own it and can do with it as you like. This does not sit right with me either.
However, the car that you bought had presumably all information available, including the horsepower without the software unlock. If you bought the car because this fulfilled your needs, are you now being robbed because there theoretically is more horsepower available? Honest question: Are car motors not always limited to specific power outputs to reach emission, efficiency, or safety targets?
Again, I agree with the sentiment that owning something should mean really owning it, but I don’t think people are being robbed or lied to in this scenario.
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.
Thank you for the explanation regarding tune.
Let me preface my response with this: I do not particularly agree with VWs practices here. It seems to be a way to make more money by offering a „service“ instead of having only a one-time purchase. So please don’t understand me as defending VW here.
What I wanted to say with my premise is that the car that was bought is still the same car with the same lower horsepower that was advertised then. The car did not change and can be used in exactly the same way as when it was originally bought. Nothing was lost and no harm to the customer.
If you do not want to support these practices (which I would definitely not!) and you own this car, you can simply chose to not pay them money and continue to use the car under the specs you had originally purchased it.
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!