So what's the fundamental principle here, and why does it only apply to car companies? Just because you can make a law that way, it follows a principle you respect?
I'm not concluding my opinion on either side of this right now. I just am lately skeptical of the number of laws and movements we have that are justified "because I agree with this particular outcome" but aren't sustainable principles to run a society off of (without constantly having to create exceptions). Even if I like that I'm not being "gouged" in NJ, is the principle behind this right?
Is the principle, "you shouldn't be charged for something that a company has already built and put in the product"? Or "we don't like paying for something that seems like you should physically have control over"?
If it's the first one, how does this not apply to subscription models in general? Tons of companies have stuff they've already built and put in what the customer could conceivably already access without charge. Printer ink, locked CPU cores, how about private areas of venues that you have to pay extra to access? Software that a company has already developed but doesn't "cost them anything" to keep offering to you aside from a login barrier. First class seats on airplanes. Doesn't this all follow the same principle?
On the second principle, why is this specially deserving of interference / protection in what customers are willing to pay or tolerate? Why don't they pass a law about not being "gouged" on extra storage on my iPhone costing $100 more? The memory is already in there, why should I be forced to pay extra to unlock it? (or similar analogy)
Cars are often one of the most, if not the most, expensive purchases people will make in their lives. It's not unreasonable to me to have extra protections for those purchases.
Not only that, a car is basically a requirement for life in the US.
With a complete lack of decent public transportation in the majority of the US, couples with a lack of walkable communities, a car is virtually required.
Anybody who disagrees, try living in the Phoenix metro with a family without a car. Good luck buying groceries, getting to the doctor, etc...
Individually, no, but as part of the overall trend of in-car subscriptions for these kind of features, yes.
Cars, like houses, are in a special class of purchases that we as a society have decided need extra consumer protections because of the high cost involved.
For the same reasons that car buyers enjoy more consumer protections than purchasers of most other goods. Because cars are incredibly expensive, are necessary for life in America, and because there's huge incentives for manufacturers and dealers to screw the buyers.
I'm not concluding my opinion on either side of this right now. I just am lately skeptical of the number of laws and movements we have that are justified "because I agree with this particular outcome" but aren't sustainable principles to run a society off of (without constantly having to create exceptions). Even if I like that I'm not being "gouged" in NJ, is the principle behind this right?
Is the principle, "you shouldn't be charged for something that a company has already built and put in the product"? Or "we don't like paying for something that seems like you should physically have control over"?
If it's the first one, how does this not apply to subscription models in general? Tons of companies have stuff they've already built and put in what the customer could conceivably already access without charge. Printer ink, locked CPU cores, how about private areas of venues that you have to pay extra to access? Software that a company has already developed but doesn't "cost them anything" to keep offering to you aside from a login barrier. First class seats on airplanes. Doesn't this all follow the same principle?
On the second principle, why is this specially deserving of interference / protection in what customers are willing to pay or tolerate? Why don't they pass a law about not being "gouged" on extra storage on my iPhone costing $100 more? The memory is already in there, why should I be forced to pay extra to unlock it? (or similar analogy)