So don't buy BMW's if it matters to you. The issue will then self correct. I guess it's easy for me to say, because beyond a BMW 2002 (which ain't got no airplay) I wouldn't even consider it.
As an owner of a 2002 I can attest to the fact it has no airplay. Or air conditioning. Or power steering. Most surprising thing about ownership: trying to explain to people the model is 2002 not the year.
It's a blast to drive. Tiny little euro engine that you have to thrash to go anywhere and incredible steering. It's a great slow car fast.
I'm certainly in BMW's demo as a young professional who loves driving, but this sort of gouging would make me shop elsewhere. It's not even about the money since compared to the price of a car it's nothing. It's a principal of ownership. I'm happy to pay ongoing fees for services that cost companies to maintain. Carplay doesn't have ongoing fees, so bmw behaving like that is crazy.
I'm guessing that if you bought a 2002 (congrats, btw; I was looking into the various flavors thinking of picking one up myself, but the old-school safety standards vs modern vehicles have me very reluctant to get anything older than a ~2012MY), you didn't give BMW much / any money.
bmw got their money way back in 1975 and it certainly didn't come from me.
It is strange to own a car that is older than I am and safety is a big part of it. I have some self imposed rules that don't get rid of the risk, but do reduce it. I won't let kids ride in the car, but adults are free to make up their own mind. I only drive it in good weather and I'm pretty obsessed about maintenance. It's also tiny, so I can give myself tons of room around other cars. Modern cars are bloated (though it's annoying to be in front of pickups since the headlights are higher than my roof)
Compared to my 2016 daily driver it would much more dangerous to actually crash, but I am convinced I am far less likely to actually have an accident. The visibility in modern cars is awful as a direct result of the thick pillars required for them to be safe. In the 2002 I can see everything; there is no blind spot for cars to hide in. It also requires huge amounts of concentration to drive. The power band (what little there is) is all up top, so you have to be in the correct gear at all times. My 2002 requires actual driving, so I'm engaged at all times. I sometimes scare myself with how little I can pay attention in my daily.
If you want the same experience in a modern car get a fiat 500 abarth. Buzzy little engine you can thrash and corners on rails.
You are right about being less likely to crash. Hagerty has stats on this. It’s for exactly the reasons you state. I daily drive a ‘67 (though not a BMW) and it’s only when not foggy / rainy, I give myself plenty of room around other drivers, I avoid left turns when I can, etc.
I work from home. Drive very little. I have a barebones wrangler with no power locks, no power windows. No airplay. No backup camera. The only amenity is AC. Is it the safest vehicle? No. But it's an old body on frame, and because of that I tend to drive slow anyway. I'm a little jealous of your 2002.
I had one of those in the 90s but with (non-working) factory AC, fun little car.
Ended up cracking the head, getting a replacement head from the junkyard that was also cracked then throwing half the engine in the trunk and selling it. Apparently they're known for cracking heads.
Not as bulletproof as the Superbeetle I replaced it with but was by far the best handling car I ever owned.
I mean, if you think that $80/year is "gouging" then you are not in their target demographics. To wit, over the price of a new car (whether BMW or Kia), the $80/year does not begin to register.
>> I'm certainly in BMW's demo
No, you are not. Carmakers target people that will actually want to buy a new car. They do not target people that drive a 2002 or whatever rustbuckets, for obvious reasons.
My 1975 bmw 2002 is my fun, weird weekend car. I bought a brand new daily driver in 2017 and bmws were among the cars I tested. I decided to get a fairly boring, reliable daily and the fun weekend car, but I seriously considered going with a single car, which would have likely been a bmw m235i. So, yes, I'm in very much in their demo.
As I said before, the actual money involved isn't what would turn me off. It could be $1/year and I'd feel the same way. It's the principal of being charged an ongoing fee for something that doesn't require it. I'm happy to pay to change fluids in car, or pay to get data over an integrated radio because those are ongoing services that require the service provider to invest in maintaining or offering a service. Having carplay continue to work after they build the car requires bmw do exactly nothing.
I have no issue with bmw charging whatever they want for people to get a leather wrapped steering wheel. They should charge obscene amounts of money if they can get people to pay. What I have a problem with is bmw charging me again next year if I bought a leather wrapped steering wheel. I already bought the feature, I own it, they can't charge me again. The fact carplay is some code and a security chip from apple doesn't make it different from a steering wheel. The concept of ownership is being eroded.
>> Having carplay continue to work after they build the car requires bmw do exactly nothing.
You seem to think that carplay can automagically connect to the internet without any cost involved.
That cannot happen. It is a cell phone basically and needs a monthly plan just like your phone. Do you have free internet on your phone? No. So, don't expect free internet in your car, either.
>It is a cell phone basically and needs a monthly plan just like your phone. Do you have free internet on your phone? No. So, don't expect free internet in your car, either.
carplay does not include an LTE radio of any kind. It's a spec to allow an iphone to display content on the screen in your car over a lightning cable. Any internet data is transferred by the iphone using the existing data plan you already pay for. There are no ongoing licensing fees from apple and no reason it would cost a car maker any money to have it keep working. carplay works perfectly fine in cars that don't have their own cell radio connections.
If you boil it all the way down carplay is like having an hdmi port in your dash that displays your phone on the car's screen. If your bluray player had an annual fee for hdmi to keep working you would be annoyed at paying that too since there is nothing about an hdmi port that it makes sense to charge an annual fee for.
I don't think you understand how this technology works, so I will try to help here.
Briefly: some car manufacturers provide a car with a cellular connection. That is, the car can connect to the mobile network, just like your cell phone can.
So now, with cellular connection, your car can show you online maps, or play online music, or whatever services Apple CarPlay, or Google whatever, or proprietary solutions can provide. Just like your cell phone.
Now, I hope this is getting clearer. Is your cell phone usage free? No. You pay Verizon or whoever, a set, monthly fee for the usage. You probably also have a cap (like, 10G data/month). The important takeaway is: the service is not free. You pay for it, usually on some kind of a monthly plan.
Now back to the car. It needs the same cellular service that your cell phone needs. Given that your cell-phone usage is not free, it is kind of obvious that your car's cellular connection is not going to be free, either.
Makes sense?
Now.
So now, we know that there are things that are one-time cost (like, when you buy a car for cash), and then there are ongoing costs. For example, your car may need regular oil changes, checkups, and maybe a monthly fee for cellular, and another monthly fee for that Sirius thing.
Some carmakers may decide to sweeten the deal that is your car buying experience, by eating up the cost for any, or some of the above. Mind you, it still costs money to e.g. do the oil change on your car; it is not free; it is just that the manufacturer has decided to pay for it. The same logic applies to Sirius and CarPlay and OnRoute or whatever.
It is important to realize that, whether it is the oil change or Apple CarPlay, these are ongoing things that the car manufacturer cannot provide themselves. Oil change is not provided by the car manufacturer. Rather, that is provided by dealerships or other independent shops. Same with cellular, car manufacturers do not own cellular networks. Rather, they will hook up your car to whoever provides the cellular.
Bottom line. Whether we are talking about the regular oil change, or CarPlay, there is a cost to it, and someone (the car owner -- who else?) will have to pay for it.
You seem to be confusing carplay with in car cell service. Carplay uses the phone's data connection and the car is just a dumb terminal displaying content from the phone.
In car cell radio should obviously have a service fee since there is an actual service. Carplay is a static, one time car feature.
Ok, so you want to get a new BMW. If it is a lease, that may be $500 or $1000 or whatever per month. That's after downpayment of $many, will be more without downpayment or trade-in or whatever you got.
BMW throws in a cellular connection ("BMW assist" or whatever they call it) for $0, for the first X years. Not sure how many.
You can also get carplay, free for the first year (I think)
But then after that, carplay will be like $80/year. That is <$7/month. How does that even register, never mind make any difference?
And what is the narrative here, like "Oh, I was looking at BMW and Audi; I bought Audi because of the BMW's price-gouging $7/month fee!".
Did that ever happen? May be, but it just does not compute. Far as I can tell, if you are concerned over $7/month, you will not be buying a new BMW or Audi. It just does not add up.
I’m not quite sure I understand the reasoning of your argument.
I certainly agree that if someone is buying a bmw they can afford an extra $7/month. But I think that the question is value as well as a sense of fairness. Just because someone has money doesn’t mean they will spend it arbitrarily for things of little value.
This does happen all the time (eg, natural water), but there is certainly a large group of people who don’t purchase based on this philosophy. This may contribute to their wealth level making them capable of buying luxury vehicles. I think so.
Arguing that people have the money to pay, therefore should pay, without evaluating the value of the item is silly and will lead to increased poverty. As the market will make more and more expensive things without value until an equilibrium is reached where the buyers can not afford it.
Do you find that you win a lot of arguments with this condescending tone?
At hand is the question of whether a buyer might reject paying $80/year to BMW USA in order for one bit to remain in the 'on' position to enable CarPlay--not provision of cellular service or anything further.
My suggestion is that not everyone says "oh, the lease is $800 a month, another $80 a year is fine." $80 is still enough that being charged $80 for a pencil, or a chicken sandwich, or whatever, would be outrageous. And leaving a bit flipped is incalculably less work effort than preparing a chicken sandwich.
FWIW: I've purchased or leased various BMWs and Audis over the last decade, and have rejected every offered subscription plan for pushbutton concierge, car wifi hotspot, etc., and have regretted paying more than $0 (on a one-time basis) for BMW's older iOS integration product.
>> My suggestion is that not everyone says "oh, the lease is $800 a month, another $80 a year is fine." $80 is still enough that being charged $80 for a pencil, or a chicken sandwich, or whatever, would be outrageous. And leaving a bit flipped is incalculably less work effort than preparing a chicken sandwich.
You are comparing apples and oranges, montlhy payments and yearly payments. "$800 a month, another $80 a year". How about being honest, "$800/month, another $7/month"?
>> FWIW: I've purchased or leased various BMWs and Audis over the last decade, and have rejected every offered subscription plan for pushbutton concierge, car wifi hotspot, etc., and have regretted paying more than $0 (on a one-time basis) for BMW's older iOS integration product.
Who cares about what you did or did not? Looks like you are here to congratulate yourself. Why would that matter to anyone other than you?
Or maybe you were stretching to get the car that you cannot afford. Who cares about adding 1% or 2% of the monthly price for something that is useful? Among people that buy luxury cars (myself included) I've not seen that. You need winter tires? Could be several thousands. Nobody blinks at $7/mo. I don't think you have been honest here.
But what's the percentage of BMW drivers are HN readers/tech savvy? I would guess pretty small. The BMW salesman will probably say "This car comes with CarPlay, you can connect your iPhone to it, it costs $80 per year. And they will either pay it because if they can afford a BMW they'll think that's cheap; or they won't pay for it and just use BMW's iDrive (will they even get rid of iDrive on CarPlay-enabled cars?).
Later BMW can say, "Hey Apple, only x% of buyers want CarPlay". Speaking of iDrive, I wonder if this decision was forced by whichever C-level-guy (or whatever level) sees iDrive as his baby project.
I've recently been looking to hack CarPlay into my 2007 BMW. There are 3rd party upgrades of the nav system, in addition to companies like Pioneer selling multimedia units that include it.
It'd be pretty pissed if BMW wanted to charge me yearly for it. Really all I want is decent maps support / siri integration that doesn't require me touching my phone.
Put a Pioneer system with CarPlay in my 2010 Porsche. I am pretty happy with it. I need to figure out a better mic, as Siri is bad enough most times, but with the top down...well....
Sorry, but this is childish thinking.This won't make a damn difference because so many other people will continue to buy. Same shit with the iPhone X. There are enough suckers that will buy it that Apple will continue to charge an ultra premium.
And on top of it, you buy a car for a variety of reasons. For example, BMW has better handling, style, etc... Some people just don't want a mercedes or audi. You can't convince enough people to jump ship and BMW will never think its because of the airplay thing anyways.
2017 flagship phones are expensive because of R&D, manufacturing, and profit margins. Samsung and Apple both roll some of their own silicon (Exynos + A-series). The iPhone X has a Samsung display, and I'm sure that they give them as bad of a deal as they can get away with, since they're their direct competitor. Though https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171108005056/en/iPh... puts the cost of the CPU at $27.50 , consider the R&D that was required to get to that part and that part cost, and the operating system, which receives continual updates for years after the device is released, which has hundreds of people working on it at Apple.
The LEGO 75192 Millennium Falcon is $800 retail and sold out everywhere. It's just plastic blocks to some people.
The reason it costs so much is because that's how much it costs to design, develop , manufacture, distribute, market, sell (Apple owns a ton of retail locations + employs many salespeople + support people that you usually get free access to), and support the hardware and software while maintaining ~20% net profit margins ( https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NASDAQ/Company/Apple-Inc/R... ).
The fact that it exists at $1000 is impressive to me given how Samsung, LG, Sony, Motorola, HTC, etc bear much less of the cost of OS development + support. http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/11/02/android-versus-ios-s... shows where some of the extra cost of an Apple device goes.
Your points are valid but they seem to imply iPhones are priced using cost-based pricing. That is obviously not true - these phones are priced using value-based pricing, which succinctly is simply “the highest you can charge based on the value the customer gets”.
> There are enough suckers that will buy it that Apple
will continue to charge an ultra premium.
and
> For example, BMW has better handling, style, etc...
Sounds like BMW is trying to extract maximum value for a brand and reputation it took them decades to garner. Where is the childish thinking again? If the fee is worth all these other things, people will pay. As well they should.
Every time I see a restaurant with a line I think of the Nash equilibrium.
If there's a line, your prices are too low. Period. If people line up to buy BMWs, the price for BMWs are too low, and they (BMW) should soak people for however much they can. What part of that is childish?
If many people stop buying BMWs, they're gonna have to adjust prices or cut component costs.
Actually the iPhone X is selling so poorly that Apple has not only cut production, they are rumored to be dropping it entirely this year. The technologies in the iPhone X will apparently be distributed across three new iPhone models.
I had kind of always assumed that the X was a special edition phone anyway, and it was going to percolate into the other models eventually anyway. And it's always good practice to take these "analyst" reports with a (massive) grain of salt.
I have an X. Did not plan on it. No way. Have a 6P for years. Went in to T-Moble to get my wife a new phone. I was thinking about getting an 8, but... then the guy said, hey it's a few bucks a month + $300 credit for your old 6P and it includes Apple care. So I got an X for what I would have paid for the 8, and I am using their money interest free. Worked out well.
Also, surprisingly I love the phone. Camera is amazing. The faceID thing does not suck.
I tend to be skeptical of such analysts, though. Not that the ultimate claim of "the iPhone X's advances and form-factor are going to be moved into all the other models" is terribly controversial -- that's pretty literally what Apple said would happen. Just that it's a person guessing, and such things have been fairly spectacularly wrong in the past.
So are they dropping “it”, by which I assume you mean the FaceId tech, or are they rolling it out to the other phones that Apple sells? Your statement contradicts itself.
