A company can run their own VPN server. A third party need not be involved. The commercial VPN service providers can therefore be blocked by government without affecting those businesses.
I would prefer you discussed the point rather than trying to bully me into agreeing.
It is quite possible that the current seat warming arrangements are such that it ends up cheaper for those who want it (since it isn't custom installed physically) and is of no consequence to those who don't want it.
If it was enabled for everyone the price of the car could conceivably go up for everyone. Admittedly that may not necessarily be how it works out but it is a possibility.
That is not a good comparison because people don't buy the car expecting the seats to have the warming feature. It probably is even offered as an option that the customer rejected upon purchase.
When I download software and pay for the basic tier it has the pro features built in anyhow. I can pay to unlock those pro features but I don't expect to use those features already just because I already have them.
If I go to the football and the crowd is small enough to fit in the grandstand but only those who explicitly paid for it are allowed into the grandstand I don't complain about my entitlement.
Some of those options are easy to retrofit, others require assembling to order.
There is a reason why odd colors cost more. If they could change the color with software but the base color was white, it would be fair to only charge those who wanted to employ the tech for a fancy color and let the others have it at the old price (even though both customers have the enabling tech on board).
Two sets of cars, not seats. The seats would be pre installed. Dealers do not be assemble to taste (except for maybe small items like radio).
Chances are that the savings in doing it the current way are not passed on to the consumer but mathematically, technically they could be. Same like self-serve checkouts.
With software it is common to pay extra to unlock premium features. You don't pay and then download those features. This is the same concept.
You wouldn't have a warm seat anyhow if they only installed the seat for prepaid customers but it is possible that those customers would pay more because it would cost more to make two sets of cars. Or four sets if optional fancy suspension is done that way, or eight sets if you include digital radio, or sixteen if...
Much of the cost is R&D, not just the physical item.
Do you think all music should be free because it is already online and you downloading an album doesn't cost the artist even one cent?
He is revealing the risk, he is informing. He is indignant that it is a risk which is deliberately obscured by the manufacturer. It is not a traditional risk most buyers would expect and the manufacturer is exploiting that.
It is reasonable to expect to DIY your brake pads without this exorbitant price.
Of course you can do business that way. If the heating costs $x, and half the customers pay for it but $5x is charged then that is a profit.
The alternative would be to make two sets of cars (with and without heating). Or four sets of cars if another similar optional feature is shipped like this. Or 8 permutations if there are three features etc
It can certainly be cheaper to install them by default even if not all customers pay to enable them. ie it is mathematically possible that their system is cheapest for both the manufacturer and the consumer. The alternative would be no different for us cold-bummed drivers but possibly more expensive for the toasted-tush drivers.
OK I accept the analogies are not good equivalents.
It is not necessarily true that everyone has already paid for the seat warmer hardware. The car may cost the same as if it didn't have the hardware installed. Certainly the owners were happy enough with the car price to buy it without seat warming option.
The manufacturer may find it cheaper to just install it for everyone and wear the cost in the hope that enough people will pay for the warmer to be enabled.
Of course it is possible that everyone pays for the hardware anyhow but it is not necessarily the case.
I don't have a solution but more transparency for starters. If I put money on the line I want to make sure the judge isn't corrupt.
"Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial"
— Jeremy Bentham, 1748-1832,
English Jurist & Philosopher.
My friend just had a $100k decision against him and looking at a further $500k in legal fees for the other side while having paid $600 of his own fees.
The judge lied in the published decision that my friend already pleaded guilty to a crime from a recent previous hearing and was convicted. However the police had dropped the prosecution of that case because there was no evidence.
Despite that obvious bias going into the decision I don't know if any lawyer will appeal on that basis because of the career repercussions of calling out a judge.
It would help if he could publish online the previous case which was dismissed but he would risk contempt of court for continuing to talk about the matter (a defamation case).
There were plenty of other dodgy things like the other party committing perjury, being caught out lying yet the judge not caring.
This other party is not "rich" but connected to powerful people.
even disabling things remotely that are there but you didn't subscribe to. This is bonkers.
I don't understand the consumer outrage about that though. It is like paying to unlock satellite TV reception (even though we are receiving the signals the whole time).
A company can run their own VPN server. A third party need not be involved. The commercial VPN service providers can therefore be blocked by government without affecting those businesses.