It's about the concept of ownership and creating arbitrary product lines which shouldn't exist by the means of software locking.
But to be clear: any of these things you're saying are totally fine if they're not done with a software lock, yes? Creating the illusion of a premium model by selling a stripped-down model? Selling two-door cars is fine and not anti-consumer, selling cars with software locked doors is evil? And product stagnation (like, say, mobile phone battery life) is fine as long as there was never a software lock involved?
Firstly, as stated numerous times in this thread, there are no limits for software locking, which can lead to pretty absurd situations in the future if companies continue to freely embrace this concept (a car with software locked rear doors is an example). Problem is, in the future, people like you will continue do defend this anti-consumer principle.
Well, first that's a slippery slope fallacy. Second, if consumers continue to buy stripped-down models, clearly someone's getting value out of it. I personally hate two-door cars, or even worse two-seater cars, and I don't understand why people would buy such products, but that's not my decision to make for other people. If someone would rather have a car with room for just two people, well, that's his or her decision to make.
Secondly, this can easily lead to gradual decline of the rate of progress of these vehicles. Who will stop Tesla from continuing to offer a 60kWh model (software locked from a larger battery) when the battery density increases 2x, 4x, etc, if it is very profitable, and if the '60' brand is already created?
How is this problem exacerbated by software locks? If anything software locks can prevent this sort of stagnation by making it easier/more profitable for Tesla to sell a wider range of products and easier for consumers to upgrade as they see fit.
If they couldn't do software locks, what makes you think they'd make 240kw batteries as the only model available if the 60 model is the most profitable? The much more reasonable conclusion in the scenario I believe you're outlining is to just sell 60kw models, meaning the 240kw isn't available even to those who want it.
I'd rather have the option to buy a phone with a bigger battery than not have that option. If the cheapest way to give consumers that option is through software locks, why do you want to make it harder for them to give consumers options?
Thirdly, I'm sorry to break it to you, but not using a full potential (in this case, hardware) of a product you own is not okay from a consumer perspective. What you're effectively getting is an arbitrary software licence to use the hardware you own.
It's not arbitrary: it's what I paid for. If I paid for a 60kw car, and I get a 60kw car, that's called a fair and transparent business transaction.
And again: I don't think it's better for anyone involved if it's a hardware restriction. You've failed to give any reasoning for that (aside from the weight issue which, again, I think is clearly not on anyone's mind).
The complicated issue (bolded part of the quote) of Tesla's pricing is the very reason they are doing this. It seems to you that the 60 model is the bargain in the range, but it is there actually to create sense for the premium they are making the consumer pay for the 75 version. Software locking enables them to create that sense, or meaning for it's existence, and for that, software locking is not okay.
So you're saying using software locks to achieve the exact same psychological effect that hardware differences have been doing since forever is scummy.
But it's totally fine for Tesla (and every car company in existence) to sell multiple models if and only if those models have different hardware, right?
