The analogy to software is great though; nobody paying for software owns it, or even has the option to own it. This is not fully the case for physical things, and people are rightly angry about “owning” things without owning them.
I dont understand why people balk at car subscription for some feature, but perfectly fine with leasing a car => which is basically a car subscription driven to its logical end?
does it matter if you have to pay $700 to your bank for lease and separately $20 to VW for some feature?
would it matter if you had to pay $720 to your bank instead for full features???
Because that’s a choice with alternatives. This time they offer a “lifetime subscription”, not a purchase mind you! a subscription, next time they might not.
And since it’s a life subscription, does it transfer to the next owner? Or do they have to pay it again, a la Tesla? Will it get invalidated if I make a modification to the car?
You know what else VW can do: price each car at million dollar MSRP minimum, to make more money, but they dont do that. What do you think holds them from jacking up prices to $1 mln ?
Once you have bought the car, you are locked into paying the higher subscription costs, because the costs of switching are much higher than the increased subscription costs. There are no alternative suppliers for "increased performance" of your VW. Thus, the disincentive of lost sales is removed, and VW is not incentivised to keep subscription prices low.
(See also: Netflix)
I would also never lease a car.
I mean, lots of people here resent charging for software also!