Why is it Rivian's fault that they didn't take the immediate and immense profit that was handed to them? I.e. another example of goodwill already provided. I'm included in that group by the way that still owns all my shares, but I certainly don't fault Rivian for the fact I held on to them.
This goes back to the original statement I made: the actual costs associated with these features have already been realized and baked into the car. There may be some savings for the manufacturer by building one seat, but I highly doubt they are passing those savings onto you to then use for their subscription service.
It will without a doubt make the base vehicle cheaper, because market forces would dictate this (or else everything we think we know about economics and markets is wrong). Automakers won't just overnight make 100% of the expected subscription revenue as additional profit, they are making the gamble that over time it yields higher revenue/profits, but it most certainly is a loss on day 1. It likely will, because they get to capture revenue over the entire life of the vehicle (and from multiple owners rather than one) rather than trying to make the sale upfront to a single customer.
Yeah, have read it and jives with what has been discussed - internet connectivity, roadside, charging and enhanced vehicle features ("beta features"). Also this:
Using BMW as the example, they already tried this with CarPlay, which I would argue is way more logical a use-case for subscription because there is the potential for ongoing maintenance. They quickly reversed course. Also, if you look at BMW's subscription schedule there is an option for unlimited heated seats for $415. That doesn't exactly align with the ongoing revenue theory.
Right, they tried it, and they were too early and the only ones and thus the pushback (plus I think they also tried to apply it to existing vehicles didn't they? Not sure). The first one into battle always takes it on the chin. They, and others including Toyota, are back and trying again. And they will keep trying until they figure it out (or they just get more coordinated and leave no option). Each attempt creates a crack that eventually takes down the wall.
I just don't see this model catching on for established, static features like heated seats. I think there will be consumer backlash and rightfully so. Hard to see the benefit as a consumer, even if it could theoretically be there. I'm willing to pay for the handful of subscriptions I have today because of continuous improvements or offerings as well as the ongoing support required for those services. There's always new music on Apple Music. There's new shows and seasons premiering on Netflix. YouTube TV is providing me constant live streams of TV. None of this makes sense in the context of heated seats.
Heated seats may or may not be the application, I'm just saying something will. But even if they are, users still have the choice of whether to pay for it, at least then it won't be such a huge decision upfront, it can be a monthly one....I don't think there needs to be a distinction between new content/features being provided to justify a subscription, ultimately it's just a simple question of utility for the cost. Netflix and music services add content because that's what they are selling, content, and they have competitors. A heated seat is a heated seat. If you like your butt warm, you pay for it. If you like a cold butt, you don't. Doesn't need to be continually enhanced to provide utility/value.
Which document mentioned membership? I've ctrl-f'd through my purchase agreement document and there's no reference to membership, beta, trial, etc. If it's in your purchase agreement, which version is your document (mine is v. 5/22, presumably updated in May)?
