Mercedes: More Horsepower Added by Subscription Only ($1,200.00 Annually)

1) there are people in this world who can easily afford the cost, have no intention of owning the car long term, and will pay it without blinking an eye; mainly because it's just bling for their status thing

2) there are people in this world who don't want to pay this quasi-extortion fee, and will either hack the code themselves, or pay a moderate fee ONCE to have it hacked

3) there are people in this world who won't reward companies like this with their patronage (me, for example)
 
It's old news, and it may not happen.

Corporations always push the envelope in customer abuse satisfaction as far as it's tolerated.

When they're done pushing, they'll try to push ... just a hair further.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Think of it this way - if you don't want that option, you will save $1,200 annually.

Unfortunately, this is the direction devices have been moving for a few years. Like when you cannot repair your Deere combine which I think was the first major restriction of software access to the hardware you have bought.
 
Didn't you yourself already post that here?


If this was for me - no, different time frames and different cases. Toyota with the key fobs, BMW with the heated seats, now Mercedes with the horsepower.

Three different manufacturers with three different approaches to gaining steady revenue with subscription based options to continue to "milk" the consumer. So far, the market has pushed back but the manufacturers are not giving up. A revenue stream compared to one time sales - hard to resist.
 
In the USA that will sell, look at the comments by most EV buyers, 0 to 60 seems to be the most important thing for them. No mention of how this will effect the range trying to get to 60 in a 35 zone every time you step on the pedal. Over a 10 year period milk another 12K out of the buyer.
 
How long before the software/operating system will be hacked?
This isn't the 80s/90s/early 2000s. Software now performs self-checks with cryptographic keys. And the cryptography is done in hardware. Like the Apple T2 chip for example. Other SoCs may have these features embedded. Hacking looks cool in movies, but mostly a fairytale. Most hacking today is done via social engineering, meaning that humans are the weakest link in the system.
 
This isn't the 80s/90s/early 2000s. Software now performs self-checks with cryptographic keys. And the cryptography is done in hardware. Like the Apple T2 chip for example. Other SoCs may have these features embedded. Hacking looks cool in movies, but mostly a fairytale. Most hacking today is done via social engineering, meaning that humans are the weakest link in the system.
Apple’s T2 chip was hacked 2 years ago allowing full kernel level and root access. If there’s a will there is always a way.
 
Apple’s T2 chip was hacked 2 years ago allowing full kernel level and root access. If there’s a will there is always a way.
You're right, it was, however, it was due to a flaw in the chip's design. I used it as an example because the T2 it's more commonly known.

"If there's a will there is a way" also works the other way around, and things can be made unhackable.

Boldly making claims while I'm typing this from a computer with a 10th gen Intel chip with Meltdown/Spectre vulnerability. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it is an excellent idea. The EQS in its stock form is already plenty fast. If buyers want more performance, they can pay for it.

Tesla had a similar approach with their vehicles several years ago. It is also no different than unlocking certain features on computer software with added cost.
 
Back
Top