Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

They are doing less work. Designing a lower performance engine is harder and more expensive than producing more of the higher performance engine and limiting it.

It works in the market because sellers sellers want to charge as much as buyers are ready to pay. People who want a powerful engine are ready to pay more, so make them pay more. The limited power option is sold at a lower but still profitable margin to those who don't want to pay for the extra.

Market segmentation like this is seen everywhere. It is just that the subscription thing makes it particularly obvious.



They have to sell most of the cars in the lower performance configuration to meet fleet average emissions requirements.

It's cheaper to design and engineer one common engine block, heads, camshafts, crank, pistons, etc. and regulate the output in software.


Artificially limiting the engine is the extra work. In a competitive market artificial limitations would mean that you lose to a competitor.

I should tell my personal background here: Half of what I'm arguing against is my own personal experience of having people tell me that free market competition rewards those who offer the best product at the lowest price. I'm saying this is a counter-example; and, yeah, I agree with you that similar counter-examples are seen everywhere.


Is hardly extra work, just a tune to reduce bust.

From manufacturer point of view it makes sense, less boost is less stress on engine and less warranty claims.


We're talking about paid subscriptions here though, setting all that up is extra work.


In scheme of things that get redesigned for no reason other than fashion its negligible.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: