If they're installing the hardware you _are_ paying for it, they just want to increase their profits by charging you more money to use the hardware you've already paid for!
If it's _your car_ then all the features in the car _belong to you_. Why should you pay a third party additional monies to use features of an object that _you already own_.
I think this is despicable, and I won't purchase a car that I can't own outright.
I think what the parent commenter implied to mean here is, they like when companies put in features (Razor and blade model) and add soft-locks to prohibit people from using them, because they a tech-savvy user can often find a way around it.
They think this benefits them, because they can get a device (for example a printer) at cheaper prices at what would be possible, and find ways around (cartridge) soft locks.
> They think this benefits them, because they can get a device (for example a printer) at cheaper prices at what would be possible
They think that, but that's wrong. It creates an industry with skewed incentives and less competition. The company can obviously sell the item at the lower cost and thus provide more competitive options to the marketplace, but they're trying to limit competition via software locks instead.
If it's _your car_ then all the features in the car _belong to you_. Why should you pay a third party additional monies to use features of an object that _you already own_.
I think this is despicable, and I won't purchase a car that I can't own outright.