• grimacefry@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    I worked in design for a major global automaker, I designed and prototyped various user experiences around enabling/disabling features on demand, and paying a subscription. This was 7-8 years ago, and the context was developing countries and what we called “emerging markets” where people just bought bare bones base model vehicles, but there were always 1 or 2 highly desirable features they needed but could only get in a high spec model - they couldn’t afford.

    The idea tested very well, they could buy their cheap vehicle and then enable just the things they really need. And they would pay for that. I still think this is a valid and good use case for subscribing, in these markets and for these people.

    Somewhere between then and today, sales and marketing entered the chat, and I know because I fought them tooth and nail. What I designed morphed into subscribing to everything for everyone. I don’t work there any more and that’s part of why.

    • Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the product is already on the car it is scummy as fuck to charge a subscription, the end. The higher price of high end vehicles is justified by the cost of adding those features to the vehicle. If they’re already there and off, you’re getting ripped off

    • yamanii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      That doesn’t solve the issue at all, the feature is there, it just isn’t enabled, extremely scummy. If it was a modular design where you payed a one time fee for whatever you needed it would be less bad, not a damn subscription.