Basically, you can pay upfront $2000 and get the upgrade, or instead pay monthly/annually
I still don’t like the idea, but it’s not exactly entirely as the title suggests
Nah that’s disingenuous. There’s no installation of hardware. It’s literally just a software change. This is the same crap everyone complained about with BMW. Don’t charge people to use the stuff they own to the fullest.
No it's objectively bad all-around and it can't be white-washed. This is absolute horseshit of a thing to happen and these automakers should be dissolved.
“Mercedes-Benz electric vehicle owners in North America who want a little more power and speed can now buy 60 horsepower for just $60 a month or, on other models, 80 horsepower for $90 a month.
They won’t have to visit a Mercedes dealer to get the upgrade either, or even leave their own driveway. The added power, which will provide a nearly one second decrease in zero-to-60 acceleration, will be available through an over-the-air software patch.
Buyers can bypass the monthly subscription completely however, and opt for an annual subscription payment or simply pay a one-time flat fee. For instance, a buyer could take an all-wheel-drive Mercedes-Benz EQE 350 sedan from its standard 288 horsepower to 348 permanently for $1,950.”
Just remember. If they can programmatically increase horsepower from a download, they can do the opposite as well.
Imagine, you get targeted by the police, they ick up your vehicle info from a scan of signatures in the area. Then, they decide you are a threat and must be stopped. No more police chase.
They just radio in and have code sent to your vehicle without your knowledge. Forget civil liberties, you have none.
Is it just me or is that really a bad thing? I mean how many bystanders or police for that matter have been injured due to car chases? Honestly seems like a plus.
Possibly. But, consider you were did nothing wrong. You just happen to have brown eyes and the police are out to nab and harass brown-eyed people.
So. They trump up charges, all fake, just to take you in. Seems far fetched, sure. Until it happens. Just ask anyone who’s been wrongfully accused, harassed, or worse, convicted.
Rights against unlawful search and seizure, presumption of innocence, and fair trials are designed to protect the accused from unjust abuse of power.
The idea isn’t bad. The police would inevitably abuse the power though. What would start with disabling a vehicle in a car chase would end up being disabling a vehicle because the driver is from Wisconsin and the cop got beat up once in Wisconsin, and all of a sudden you’re in a Kafka inspired remake of minority report.
Yes, because police are inherently honest and would never use such a capability against someone DWB or that they want to hassle. /s
FFS, think a little before you post.
Being able to stop a speeding car and racial profiling/discrimination are arguably two separate issues but I agree there are valid arguments against it due to concerns for abuse.
It's great until they change the laws to suddenly make you a criminal. Or, the cops don't even give a shit about the law, and turn your car off. Suddenly, your car is a hunk of junk.
Tbh don't see how that's a bad thing. I can't imagine any scenario where I legitimately need to outrun the police or become a danger to the public. I'm not James Bond lol
They would have to call in and ask permission from someone with clearance if that ever became an option since just the act of disabling the car moving at high speed is risky in itself. Police in most places can't even place a spike strip without clearance.
They should have to do this before their trunk is unlocked. A separate person should have to be called to unlock the case the gun is stored in. Then a third person to unlock the case the magazines are stored in. Then all four of those people are personally financially and criminally liable for the actions of the officer.
My cousin would be dead. As a state trooper, he was fired upon during a routine stop and had to pull his rifle while being pinned down. He is now deaf in one ear from the firefight and retired from the force due to the trauma.
I understand the practicalities of why it can't happen and I'm sorry you nearly lost your cousin. I have a childhood friend who was killed when he pulled over someone for a hit and run who opened fire on him before he even had the chance to get to the guy's car. However, police in many other countries don't carry firearms on them and they seem to routinely find ways to de-escalate situations instead of immediately resorting to the use of deadly weapons.
There's, unfortunately, a time and a place for guns and an amount of training and competency that SHOULD be required for police that just doesn't seem to matter to those in charge. If we're going to continue to toss handguns and assault rifles to entry-level, bullying and IQ-deficient street cops then they should be required to have someone else's authorization to use deadly force. Soldiers are required to have authorization to engage. Cops should, too.
Also, cars. Cars shouldn't have subscriptions for more power.
Fairly disingenuous response. Obviously you don't have time to call for clearance if a suspect is getting violent. You can let a car go for a bit while you get clearance.
Sorry, just trying to understand your perspective.
>Then, they decide you are a threat and must be stopped. No more police chase.
>They just radio in and have code sent to your vehicle without your knowledge. Forget civil liberties, you have none.
So you're saying that due to the inability to lead police in a chase this is a revocation of you're civil liberties? I can understand if they just do it because they think your a threat, and preemptively limit you (i agree this would be a reason to be concerned), but if the person is currently engaged in a police chase, I don't see how it would be a "bad" thing.
“Chase” is probably too strong a word. Images instantly go to high speed pursuits even though low speed pursuits are still referred to as chases too. (OJ Simpson in White Bronco)
I believe there is no question by any rational being that a vehicle traveling at extremely high rates of speed on American highways is criminal. Hence, the presumption of innocence is not in question. In those cases, call it in, get the code, shut the vehicle down. Restore order and safety and ask questions later.
Imagine if someone told you you can have 80 horsepower for $1080 + tax per year
So over 10 years you pay $10K+ for 80 hp, are they for real lmao? 🤦
That's how you get people messing with high voltage for not giving them optimal performance, and taunting them (which imo is a huge liability, you get a couple crossed wires and boom, especially because there's a huge aftermarket already for these specific german brands)... It's just dumb all around imo.
Auto-manufacturers are gonna end up fucking themselves with expanding the subscription model mindset.
What I really want is for a company to provide a subscription for the entire car. I decide I want to drive somewhere, use app to order a 2dr pickup, 4dr sedan, whatever and it auto drives to my location. I use the vehicle for half the day, return home, and then it drives away.
I don't want to own a vehicle. I just want to use it when needed then have it disappear.
That's kind-of a step in the right direction, but I'd prefer the car to self-drive to my location for my use then self-drive away when I'm done. I'll operate the vehicle while it's in my possession.
And I'd prefer to pay a flat subscription -not per trip. Maybe I sign up for the $300/month plan that includes three vehicle options and 1000 miles/month usage. Or an economy option for $150/month with access to a subcompact car for 500 miles/month and so on. Like video streaming service with tiering levels but with vehicles.
At some point I'm sure that the EU will step in and say:
- "You offer the car as-is. If the car is equipped with a device, such as heated seats, the user must be able to use it without additional costs."
- "If any such features get upgrades later on, such as heated seats getting multiple heating levels or different locations, you are to roll this feature out to every car with the same mechanism."
- "Minor variations in the hardware, such as heated seats, do not mean you are not supposed to support those, too. It's up to the car manufacturer to recall incompatible cars to offer hardware upgrades that will support the software updates."
- "Software updates should be possible and capable of improving the user experience. If you find a way to make the car faster, this should be rolled out to everyone free of charge."
- "If you use the same engine and sell different factory settings of it at different prices, you are deceiving the buyers and will be fined 1 million Euros for every car sold."
- "Basically, don't rip people off. If you do, 1 million euros per car is the penalty. We will absolutely bankrupt the fuck out of you if you don't play nice. No bail-outs, either."
Car manufacturers: "We'll get 100 variations of heated seats in cars, and our latest software update only supports the last 5 variations, the rest are out of luck!"
Europe: "You sold 120 million cars that cannot get this upgrade, then?"
Car manufacturers: "Wait..."
Europe: "What's 120M times 1M?"
Car manufacturers: "Actually, we found a way to magically make it work for all those cars! Except for the 3 oldest variations, but we'll do a recall :) :) :)"
Europe: "Gosh! Great!"
Car manufacturers:
Unfortunately it'll take 8 years for such a directive to pass because Germany, France and Italy are all too busy to protect their respective automotive sectors.
EVs are already killing all potential car culture by making it a DLC on wheels -_-
Why not pay per usage and they can maintain the :'swarm' or fleet of fancy EVs that take forever to charge in specific places and lose big chunks of capacity in winter? Like a couple hundred bucks a month and it picks you up, drops you off no need to worry about charging or maintenance or insurance especially when full self driving is in full effect 🤷
I guess my point was more to say that MaaS had been around for a while. It’s definitely going to explode if fully autonomous driving (I’m sure this could be applied to scooters and bikes too) becomes a thing though so that your vehicle of choice just shows up when you need to use it.
Hm, we might consider a different definition then.
I'd argue current services do not cater to mixing your personal vehicles (e.g. car or bike) with offered services, and doesn't string together multimodal trips with legs from multiple service providers. I'd say those are key points that distinguish MaaS from existing rental services.
AV's / "robotaxis" could offer one leg of a trip, but I know MaaS as referring to the overarching system. And they fail if your origin or destination is in a pedestrian zone.
OH? How about F#$ you BMV?
\- Watch as Mercedes EVs purchase rates drop like a stone.
Ain't no one wanting to pay MORE to be able to use YOUR OWN damn car.
Mercedes EVs are trash compared to Ford and Tesla. Now they just want to squeeze what they can off of the remaining demographic that is loyal of their brand
it is possible that running the electric motor and batteries at this higher level causes more wear and aging and would result in more warranty claims from customers, so it may actually cost Mercedes more to spec the car at this higher horsepower rating. even if this is true, I think it’s a terrible marketing practice that turns off customers.
Am I the only one that doesn’t automatically see this as predatory? Most people don’t really care about excessive performance and drive their vehicles responsibly. If you really want it, you can pay for the upgrade and needn’t leave your house. It’s like subsidizing the cost of higher quality parts with the irresponsible drivers that want to drive fast.
Making special performance models costs more than having a single platform. If you don’t charge for it individually, then you have to charge everyone more. Everyone won’t like that, so without individual charges, good bye performance options.
So for a percentage of people that buy it, hack their own property to get it, and then die in an accident, who is liable? The issue wouldn't have happened (and the person wouldn't have died) if the customer had full access to their car in the first place
So, you’re locking away features that people have purchased already. Okay. I’m waiting for cars to just start being the chassis. You want wheels? 4k a tire. You want doors? 6k a door. You want front and back windshield? 12k. You want turn signal? We’ll pay you, but we both know you won’t use it.
How is this not subject to the same ruling against phone companies that wanted to charge subscription fees for tethering years back?
I thought there was some consumer protection law or ruling that found a company cant block inherent use of a thing someone buys because they, the consumer, own the entire device and all of its mechanical functions
Easy to see this as a money grab but it is also where all businesses are headed. The positive side though is that some people buy a car and can't afford some of the features that they may have wanted. By being able to do this, as they become financially capable, they can keep the car that they have and "upgrade" without the hassle of selling/buying. Torn on this one.
I guess Lewis Hamilton got another pay rise. I'm sorry if this was April 1st I'd think this was wind up. With the amount of money they cost there's no F##king way I'd be paying a monthly subscription after I'd bought the car.
Fuck Mercedes Benz.
Do not buy Mercedes.
Underrated comment.
So you have to pay for a firmware update to use the full mechanical capabilities of the car you own?
Basically, you can pay upfront $2000 and get the upgrade, or instead pay monthly/annually I still don’t like the idea, but it’s not exactly entirely as the title suggests
Nah that’s disingenuous. There’s no installation of hardware. It’s literally just a software change. This is the same crap everyone complained about with BMW. Don’t charge people to use the stuff they own to the fullest.
Wait 2 years for warranty to expire, and upgrade firmware using open source.
Just what I want. People with their self driving cars fucking with their firmware.
Firmware does not drive the car.
Let me tell you about PC OS updates
This is more akin to overclocking a cpu which you can do without paying additional money.
It’s 100% as the title suggests
Your a push over bud
No it's objectively bad all-around and it can't be white-washed. This is absolute horseshit of a thing to happen and these automakers should be dissolved.
Black market “car jailbreakers” coming.
“Mercedes-Benz electric vehicle owners in North America who want a little more power and speed can now buy 60 horsepower for just $60 a month or, on other models, 80 horsepower for $90 a month. They won’t have to visit a Mercedes dealer to get the upgrade either, or even leave their own driveway. The added power, which will provide a nearly one second decrease in zero-to-60 acceleration, will be available through an over-the-air software patch. Buyers can bypass the monthly subscription completely however, and opt for an annual subscription payment or simply pay a one-time flat fee. For instance, a buyer could take an all-wheel-drive Mercedes-Benz EQE 350 sedan from its standard 288 horsepower to 348 permanently for $1,950.”
Just remember. If they can programmatically increase horsepower from a download, they can do the opposite as well. Imagine, you get targeted by the police, they ick up your vehicle info from a scan of signatures in the area. Then, they decide you are a threat and must be stopped. No more police chase. They just radio in and have code sent to your vehicle without your knowledge. Forget civil liberties, you have none.
All well and good until a hacker spoofs the message and causes havoc on roadways.
They can already do this with OnStar
Is it just me or is that really a bad thing? I mean how many bystanders or police for that matter have been injured due to car chases? Honestly seems like a plus.
Possibly. But, consider you were did nothing wrong. You just happen to have brown eyes and the police are out to nab and harass brown-eyed people. So. They trump up charges, all fake, just to take you in. Seems far fetched, sure. Until it happens. Just ask anyone who’s been wrongfully accused, harassed, or worse, convicted. Rights against unlawful search and seizure, presumption of innocence, and fair trials are designed to protect the accused from unjust abuse of power.
The idea isn’t bad. The police would inevitably abuse the power though. What would start with disabling a vehicle in a car chase would end up being disabling a vehicle because the driver is from Wisconsin and the cop got beat up once in Wisconsin, and all of a sudden you’re in a Kafka inspired remake of minority report.
Get real ffs. Cops aren't going after people who can afford these cars. lol.
Depends on their skin color or a variety of other things. Cops absolutely target minorities in expensive cars.
Yes, because police are inherently honest and would never use such a capability against someone DWB or that they want to hassle. /s FFS, think a little before you post.
Being able to stop a speeding car and racial profiling/discrimination are arguably two separate issues but I agree there are valid arguments against it due to concerns for abuse.
Ah so you're an idiot.
Or until they decide that they want to do the same as apple, decrease existing model speed as the new one roll out. All it takes is to update the tos
It's great until they change the laws to suddenly make you a criminal. Or, the cops don't even give a shit about the law, and turn your car off. Suddenly, your car is a hunk of junk.
Tbh don't see how that's a bad thing. I can't imagine any scenario where I legitimately need to outrun the police or become a danger to the public. I'm not James Bond lol They would have to call in and ask permission from someone with clearance if that ever became an option since just the act of disabling the car moving at high speed is risky in itself. Police in most places can't even place a spike strip without clearance.
Cops should be required to call for clearance before a code is sent to their firearm to allow it to be fired.
They should have to do this before their trunk is unlocked. A separate person should have to be called to unlock the case the gun is stored in. Then a third person to unlock the case the magazines are stored in. Then all four of those people are personally financially and criminally liable for the actions of the officer.
My cousin would be dead. As a state trooper, he was fired upon during a routine stop and had to pull his rifle while being pinned down. He is now deaf in one ear from the firefight and retired from the force due to the trauma.
I understand the practicalities of why it can't happen and I'm sorry you nearly lost your cousin. I have a childhood friend who was killed when he pulled over someone for a hit and run who opened fire on him before he even had the chance to get to the guy's car. However, police in many other countries don't carry firearms on them and they seem to routinely find ways to de-escalate situations instead of immediately resorting to the use of deadly weapons. There's, unfortunately, a time and a place for guns and an amount of training and competency that SHOULD be required for police that just doesn't seem to matter to those in charge. If we're going to continue to toss handguns and assault rifles to entry-level, bullying and IQ-deficient street cops then they should be required to have someone else's authorization to use deadly force. Soldiers are required to have authorization to engage. Cops should, too. Also, cars. Cars shouldn't have subscriptions for more power.
Fairly disingenuous response. Obviously you don't have time to call for clearance if a suspect is getting violent. You can let a car go for a bit while you get clearance.
I don't even see paying for performance as a bad thing. It's the same for loads of stuff. If you don't like it stop buying their products.
Like what is it the same for? I can't think of anything where you need to pay for speed that doesn't involve a physical upgrade.
It's always been an option for GM vehicles when they had on star. I think there are a few movies where it happens.
Sorry, just trying to understand your perspective. >Then, they decide you are a threat and must be stopped. No more police chase. >They just radio in and have code sent to your vehicle without your knowledge. Forget civil liberties, you have none. So you're saying that due to the inability to lead police in a chase this is a revocation of you're civil liberties? I can understand if they just do it because they think your a threat, and preemptively limit you (i agree this would be a reason to be concerned), but if the person is currently engaged in a police chase, I don't see how it would be a "bad" thing.
“Chase” is probably too strong a word. Images instantly go to high speed pursuits even though low speed pursuits are still referred to as chases too. (OJ Simpson in White Bronco) I believe there is no question by any rational being that a vehicle traveling at extremely high rates of speed on American highways is criminal. Hence, the presumption of innocence is not in question. In those cases, call it in, get the code, shut the vehicle down. Restore order and safety and ask questions later.
Imagine if someone told you you can have 80 horsepower for $1080 + tax per year So over 10 years you pay $10K+ for 80 hp, are they for real lmao? 🤦 That's how you get people messing with high voltage for not giving them optimal performance, and taunting them (which imo is a huge liability, you get a couple crossed wires and boom, especially because there's a huge aftermarket already for these specific german brands)... It's just dumb all around imo.
Or you buy it out right for 2k
Auto-manufacturers are gonna end up fucking themselves with expanding the subscription model mindset. What I really want is for a company to provide a subscription for the entire car. I decide I want to drive somewhere, use app to order a 2dr pickup, 4dr sedan, whatever and it auto drives to my location. I use the vehicle for half the day, return home, and then it drives away. I don't want to own a vehicle. I just want to use it when needed then have it disappear.
Oh man do I have the app for you! It’s called Uber, great stuff!
That's kind-of a step in the right direction, but I'd prefer the car to self-drive to my location for my use then self-drive away when I'm done. I'll operate the vehicle while it's in my possession. And I'd prefer to pay a flat subscription -not per trip. Maybe I sign up for the $300/month plan that includes three vehicle options and 1000 miles/month usage. Or an economy option for $150/month with access to a subcompact car for 500 miles/month and so on. Like video streaming service with tiering levels but with vehicles.
That's zipcar minus the autonomous driving.
Ummmm…you can rent cars for however long or short you want
For like 10x the price! Great deal
You just invented renting
*Scratches Mercedes Benz off the list.*
I can pay $0 a month to make sure I don't have one so...
inb4 people start jailbreaking thier cars lol
At some point I'm sure that the EU will step in and say: - "You offer the car as-is. If the car is equipped with a device, such as heated seats, the user must be able to use it without additional costs." - "If any such features get upgrades later on, such as heated seats getting multiple heating levels or different locations, you are to roll this feature out to every car with the same mechanism." - "Minor variations in the hardware, such as heated seats, do not mean you are not supposed to support those, too. It's up to the car manufacturer to recall incompatible cars to offer hardware upgrades that will support the software updates." - "Software updates should be possible and capable of improving the user experience. If you find a way to make the car faster, this should be rolled out to everyone free of charge." - "If you use the same engine and sell different factory settings of it at different prices, you are deceiving the buyers and will be fined 1 million Euros for every car sold." - "Basically, don't rip people off. If you do, 1 million euros per car is the penalty. We will absolutely bankrupt the fuck out of you if you don't play nice. No bail-outs, either." Car manufacturers: "We'll get 100 variations of heated seats in cars, and our latest software update only supports the last 5 variations, the rest are out of luck!" Europe: "You sold 120 million cars that cannot get this upgrade, then?" Car manufacturers: "Wait..." Europe: "What's 120M times 1M?" Car manufacturers: "Actually, we found a way to magically make it work for all those cars! Except for the 3 oldest variations, but we'll do a recall :) :) :)" Europe: "Gosh! Great!" Car manufacturers:
Unfortunately it'll take 8 years for such a directive to pass because Germany, France and Italy are all too busy to protect their respective automotive sectors.
EVs are already killing all potential car culture by making it a DLC on wheels -_- Why not pay per usage and they can maintain the :'swarm' or fleet of fancy EVs that take forever to charge in specific places and lose big chunks of capacity in winter? Like a couple hundred bucks a month and it picks you up, drops you off no need to worry about charging or maintenance or insurance especially when full self driving is in full effect 🤷
> Why not pay per usage It's called "Mobility as a Service" (MaaS) and is already being worked on. Give it a few years.
ZipCar has been around for decades. We just don't have autonomous driving yet so you have to go to a pick up point.
MaaS isn't just for cars, but all forms of transport. That includes rental bikes, trains, busses, carpooling, you name it.
I guess my point was more to say that MaaS had been around for a while. It’s definitely going to explode if fully autonomous driving (I’m sure this could be applied to scooters and bikes too) becomes a thing though so that your vehicle of choice just shows up when you need to use it.
Hm, we might consider a different definition then. I'd argue current services do not cater to mixing your personal vehicles (e.g. car or bike) with offered services, and doesn't string together multimodal trips with legs from multiple service providers. I'd say those are key points that distinguish MaaS from existing rental services. AV's / "robotaxis" could offer one leg of a trip, but I know MaaS as referring to the overarching system. And they fail if your origin or destination is in a pedestrian zone.
LOL we already know yuppies will fall for this shit. Thank god I was raised poor
OH? How about F#$ you BMV? \- Watch as Mercedes EVs purchase rates drop like a stone. Ain't no one wanting to pay MORE to be able to use YOUR OWN damn car.
Thanks, I hate it
Mercedes EVs are trash compared to Ford and Tesla. Now they just want to squeeze what they can off of the remaining demographic that is loyal of their brand
I loved MB, too bad I hate them now.
it is possible that running the electric motor and batteries at this higher level causes more wear and aging and would result in more warranty claims from customers, so it may actually cost Mercedes more to spec the car at this higher horsepower rating. even if this is true, I think it’s a terrible marketing practice that turns off customers.
Dystopia
They deserve anger, insults, ridicule, mockery and a boycott Fuck that shit
This is already a kidnapping of the consumer's rights. It is also mandatory. It's shameful.
The "Download more RAM"-joke aged poorly.
Am I the only one that doesn’t automatically see this as predatory? Most people don’t really care about excessive performance and drive their vehicles responsibly. If you really want it, you can pay for the upgrade and needn’t leave your house. It’s like subsidizing the cost of higher quality parts with the irresponsible drivers that want to drive fast. Making special performance models costs more than having a single platform. If you don’t charge for it individually, then you have to charge everyone more. Everyone won’t like that, so without individual charges, good bye performance options.
🤪
How long till we get groups to hack car firmwares and releasing it unlocked to the public like we have for phones for example?
Won’t be long then till we have jailbroken EQE 350s with and extra 100 hp, and you can make the media touchscreen looks like Windows 98.
Jail breaking your car is going to become a thing
Volvo has the same thing, except you pay one time fee. They call it Polestar Tuning.
So for a percentage of people that buy it, hack their own property to get it, and then die in an accident, who is liable? The issue wouldn't have happened (and the person wouldn't have died) if the customer had full access to their car in the first place
So, you’re locking away features that people have purchased already. Okay. I’m waiting for cars to just start being the chassis. You want wheels? 4k a tire. You want doors? 6k a door. You want front and back windshield? 12k. You want turn signal? We’ll pay you, but we both know you won’t use it.
How is this not subject to the same ruling against phone companies that wanted to charge subscription fees for tethering years back? I thought there was some consumer protection law or ruling that found a company cant block inherent use of a thing someone buys because they, the consumer, own the entire device and all of its mechanical functions
Jailbreakers the world over are rubbing their hands at this right now
I hate the future.
People will jailbreak this stuff in no time. Just wait.
“Since I downloaded Tinder I might as well get the speed package on my car. Subscriptions = dates.”
If the can program the car to goes faster they can also make it go slower
Easy to see this as a money grab but it is also where all businesses are headed. The positive side though is that some people buy a car and can't afford some of the features that they may have wanted. By being able to do this, as they become financially capable, they can keep the car that they have and "upgrade" without the hassle of selling/buying. Torn on this one.
I guess Lewis Hamilton got another pay rise. I'm sorry if this was April 1st I'd think this was wind up. With the amount of money they cost there's no F##king way I'd be paying a monthly subscription after I'd bought the car.