Support NeoGAF

[Theonik]

Yet this construct for this luxury item still exists. Why would consumers pay the money for a luxury item if they don't like it? So far you have demonstrated that you actually don't know how supply and demand works.

The only thing that can be justified using supply and demand is the existence of the 60KWh model to begin with (Tesla felt there was enough demand for a cheaper version of the 75) and that's OOP anyway, which indicates the market disagreed with them.
You are talking nonsense really.

Besides why would consumers care in the slightest about Tesla's bottomline. Understanding business and industrial manufacturing and being a consumer a completely different things.

 

[Nocebo]

Thanks for all the answers.

I guess I, and many others in here, just have a totally different view of things. To me this is being ripped off. It's just artificial value that holds no real value since it's just locked away to make more money.

To me it feels like you all are looking at it the wrong way. Which is why this thread is so frustrating to read since it's so obvious to me that people are fine being taken advantage of, and they don't see it no matter what... I guess it's simillar the other way around, only that you can't see what "we" think the big deal is.

To me it feels like you simply don't understand how value is determined in the first place. It appears as though you're ignorant about the world around you.

It is impossible for people to be taken advantage of in this situation.
Everyone pays the amount of money they think is fair for the item they think is fair to have for that amount of money. If they didn't think it was fair why would they pay that amount of money in the first place? For a luxury item they don't need.


Is it fair for a business to pay 30 times the amount of money for the same software than a student does?
Is it fair that a 4 pack of something costs less in some cases than buying it 4 times separately?
Are people taken advantage of when they pay 50$ for a game that can be bought for 25$ a year later?

What about having to sit in economy class when there are empty seats in business class, just because you bought an economy ticket? I mean you're on the vehicle why are you not allowed to sit wherever you want? Does this frustrate you too?

Everything has a cost.
Maybe you're the type of person who moans about things like that.

Actually, the fact that they made a 60kw option for cheaper should be a boon for every Tesla customer. If Tesla as a company does well by selling more cars thanks to a lower price point version then Tesla car owners as a whole will do well. One quick example: Tesla will likely be able to place more charging points faster. So the prospect of Tesla getting more customers should make Tesla car owners ecstatic.

 

[Sarye]

Thanks for all the answers.

I guess I, and many others in here, just have a totally different view of things. To me this is being ripped off. It's just artificial value that holds no real value since it's just locked away to make more money.

To me it feels like you all are looking at it the wrong way. Which is why this thread is so frustrating to read since it's so obvious to me that people are fine being taken advantage of, and they don't see it no matter what... I guess it's simillar the other way around, only that you can't see what "we" think the big deal is.

We don't see eye to eye on this issue. I can provide many examples of this outside of Tesla that no one cares about, but I won't because ultimately everyone has their opinion on things and their minds are made up. (This goes for me too)

Where I'm coming from, this is basic economics. If you have a problem with this, then you would have a problem with the pricing of pretty much any consumer goods out there.

Where I can see the outrage is if Tesla wasn't upfront with what consumers were getting but they were/are.

 

[KingV]

oh damn, I didn't realize people were dying in software limited Teslas. Do you have links to those news stories?

I didn't say that they were. In fact I said that they probably weren't (especially since there's only like 200K Teslas on the road).

It's almost like you didn't completely read the post.

 

[FreezeSSC]

I guess I, and many others in here, just have a totally different view of things. To me this is being ripped off. It's just artificial value that holds no real value since it's just locked away to make more money.

To me it feels like you all are looking at it the wrong way. Which is why this thread is so frustrating to read since it's so obvious to me that people are fine being taken advantage of, and they don't see it no matter what... I guess it's simillar the other way around, only that you can't see what "we" think the big deal is.

If this was an essential item I could see your point about being ripped off, but this car at this price point is a luxury item, and people buying it know exactly what they're getting.

 

[TheCochese]

Thanks for all the answers.

I guess I, and many others in here, just have a totally different view of things. To me this is being ripped off. It's just artificial value that holds no real value since it's just locked away to make more money.

To me it feels like you all are looking at it the wrong way. Which is why this thread is so frustrating to read since it's so obvious to me that people are fine being taken advantage of, and they don't see it no matter what... I guess it's simillar the other way around, only that you can't see what "we" think the big deal is.

You still haven't demonstrated why it is a rip off.

You pay for a 3hr battery, you get a 3hr battery.

You pay for a 3.5hr battery, you get a 3.5hr battery.

What is tripping people up is the fact there is no physical difference, only digital. You were getting what you paid for in either scenario. Except with a digital difference between the models, all you have to do is give the manufacturer the difference in price between the two models and you have the full version. No trading in and losing money, no downtime sending something in for modification.

Not one single person is being taken advantage of. In a ton of other scenarios where model differences exist, people have to end up paying more in the long run because of the things I mentioned. Or the fact that the parts are more expensive not done as a package deal. This has none of those drawbacks. Tesla isn't charging 60kWh purchasers more than the 75kWh paid.

Demonstrate how someone is getting ripped off please. No one has to this point.

 

[KingV]

But if someone gets stuck in the snow because they bought a 65 battery that wasnt artificially limited (and cost more) then its ok? Otherwise Tesla is at fault for people getting stuck in the snow?

There is no moral imperative to someone's premium luxury sports car not having the most premium available options. These are not government welfare smart cars given to the homeless, they're very expensive luxury vehicles. If you chose the 65kwh battery how is it immoral of Tesla to not give you more than that for free just because they can? You could say that about anything. Every product and company and service could give you more out of the goodness of their hearts. But its not a nonprofit organization. They sell sports cars.

The only interesting moral question here is about CFW and your right to modify the battery to surpass the limit on your own, Tesla has no moral obligation to give anything away for free. People expecting them to be saviours or wanting Elon Musk to be jesus or even the ones who spite him for having that perception are all getting carried away by their own caricaturized ideas of this guy who runs a business that just happens to be really smart and whose company happens to have potentially beneficial impacts on society and the planet.

Yes, it's fine if the 65Kwh battery is a physical restriction because Tesla does not have the power to do anything about it.

If there is an artificial limitation locked out by software that could potentially save someone from getting hurt or dying, then yes I think it's immoral to lock that feature out for the sake of making a buck.

It's not about giving you more for free. You already own the 75KWH battery. It's about letting you use the product that you already own.

It's fine that some people are ok with this. I can just say I will not personally ever buy a car that has DRM on the gas tank, or DRM on safety features (not really sure how much of autopilot could be considered a safety feature one way or another) just as a matter of principle.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Yes, it's fine if the 65Kwh battery is a physical restriction because Tesla does not have the power to do anything about it.

If there is an artificial limitation locked out by software that could potentially save someone from getting hurt or dying, then yes I think it's immoral to lock that feature out for the sake of making a buck.

It's not about giving you more for free. You already own the 75KWH battery. It's about letting you use the product that you already own.

It's fine that some people are ok with this. I can just say I will not personally ever buy a car that has DRM on the gas tank, or DRM on safety features (not really sure how much of autopilot could be considered a safety feature one way or another) just as a matter of principle.

If you ever owned a car the hardware is/was already restricted by the manufacturer.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

Yes, it's fine if the 65Kwh battery is a physical restriction because Tesla does not have the power to do anything about it.

If there is an artificial limitation locked out by software that could potentially save someone from getting hurt or dying, then yes I think it's immoral to lock that feature out for the sake of making a buck.

It's not about giving you more for free. You already own the 75KWH battery. It's about letting you use the product that you already own.

It's fine that some people are ok with this. I can just say I will not personally ever buy a car that has DRM on the gas tank, or DRM on safety features (not really sure how much of autopilot could be considered a safety feature one way or another) just as a matter of principle.

If you purchase a car with a satellite radio are you entitled to using it without a subscription?

 

[Kyzer]

Yes, it's fine if the 65Kwh battery is a physical restriction because Tesla does not have the power to do anything about it.

If there is an artificial limitation locked out by software that could potentially save someone from getting hurt or dying, then yes I think it's immoral to lock that feature out for the sake of making a buck.

It's not about giving you more for free. You already own the 75KWH battery. It's about letting you use the product that you already own.

It's fine that some people are ok with this. I can just say I will not personally ever buy a car that has DRM on the gas tank, or DRM on safety features (not really sure how much of autopilot could be considered a safety feature one way or another) just as a matter of principle.

So why not suggest a feature where you can request they lift the limit in an emergency? Why paint the whole thing out to be a bad thing when it was the car they chose to purchase at a more affordable price in the first place? It would be nice to have a feature like that but offering a cheaper option is still a win for the consumer, as opposed to either not having it at all or it not being as affordable and more wasteful producing actual physical 65s just to not have the liability of being at fault for people having bought something and needed something more

 

[KingV]

If you ever owned a car the hardware is/was already restricted by the manufacturer.

You mean like rev limiters to keep you from blowing out the engine, or driving at 225 mph, or switching into 1st gear when you are going 70 mph? That's obviously different.

Remind me again which manufacturers shut down the car once you have driven 300 miles without getting gas even though there is 5 gallons in the tank?

 

[KingV]

If you purchase a car with a satellite radio are you entitled to using it without a subscription?

Is satellite radio a safety feature?

Does satellite radio give your car additional range?

Does it cost money for the satellite radio company to provide satellite radio?

I already addressed that I was specifically talking about 1) safety features that 2) don't have some continuing cost to support.

Satellite radio is neither 1 nor 2.

 

[Jezbollah]

You mean like rev limiters to keep you from blowing out the engine, or driving at 225 mph, or switching into 1st gear when you are going 70 mph? That's obviously different.

Remind me again which manufacturers shut down the car once you have driven 300 miles without getting gas even though there is 5 gallons in the tank?

Do you think all pay TV channels should be free, if you have the capability to receive them with your dish and set to box then?

 

[Skellig Gra]

You mean like rev limiters to keep you from blowing out the engine, or driving at 225 mph, or switching into 1st gear when you are going 70 mph? That's obviously different.

Remind me again which manufacturers shut down the car once you have driven 300 miles without getting gas even though there is 5 gallons in the tank?

The gas analogy isn't any better either. You charge a car for 300 miles you get 300 miles. The gas powered car doesn't spit out the extra 5 gallons leaving you at a loss of $10-15 based on your fill up.

 

[King Gilga]

A Model S battery weights 1200lbs according to google.

So if you buy the 'lesser' model you're straddled with hauling around 240lbs of useless heavy ass dead weight you can't do anything with. That's far more than the weight another human being in most countries.

That's just gross.

 

[2MF]

A Model S battery weights 1200lbs according to google.

So if you buy the 'lesser' model you're straddled with hauling around 240lbs of useless heavy ass dead weight you can't do anything with. That's far more than the weight another human being in most countries.

That's just gross.

Playing devil's advocate here: is it possible that the whole battery is still used and has a longer lifetime with the smaller range? This might be the case if the battery cycles through using all cells or something like that.

Even if this is the case though, it may not justify the extra weight...

 

[Plumbob]

A Model S battery weights 1200lbs according to google.

So if you buy the 'lesser' model you're straddled with hauling around 240lbs of useless heavy ass dead weight you can't do anything with. That's far more than the weight another human being in most countries.

That's just gross.

Then don't buy it???

 

[FyreWulff]

A Model S battery weights 1200lbs according to google.

So if you buy the 'lesser' model you're straddled with hauling around 240lbs of useless heavy ass dead weight you can't do anything with. That's far more than the weight another human being in most countries.

That's just gross.

Um, the difference in mass between a fully charged battery and an empty battery can't be measured unless you have a a scientifically accurate scale that can read sub-microgram weight changes. It also massively extends the life of the battery to never fully charge it - even Tesla's official documentation says it's best to charge to 70-80% only (which you can manually define via the car's software)

 

[Kyzer]

A Model S battery weights 1200lbs according to google.

So if you buy the 'lesser' model you're straddled with hauling around 240lbs of useless heavy ass dead weight you can't do anything with. That's far more than the weight another human being in most countries.

That's just gross.

Why is that gross? The wastefulness?

 

[KingV]

So why not suggest a feature where you can request they lift the limit in an emergency? Why paint the whole thing out to be a bad thing when it was the car they chose to purchase at a more affordable price in the first place? It would be nice to have a feature like that but offering a cheaper option is still a win for the consumer, as opposed to either not having it at all or it not being as affordable and more wasteful producing actual physical 65s just to not have the liability of being at fault for people having bought something and needed something more

I think that would be a reasonable solution. Like you can pay some nominal fee some set number of times to unlock the extra capacity for a set time period in an "emergency" situation.

 

[KingV]

Do you think all pay TV channels should be free, if you have the capability to receive them with your dish and set to box then?

Which pay tv channels potentially are safety issues again?

 

[TarNaru33]

Which pay tv channels potentially are safety issues again?

You be cherry picking the argument. If there is a safety emergency where someone needs range, I am sure Tesla would give them that extra range if they asked or needed just like they just did.


Also we are talking about people that own really expensive cars, I am sure they can afford a pickup.

I just wanted to point it out that you are completely wrong on the subject regardless of your "view" as well as the many others who apparently don't understand how value of consumer goods work.

 

[DrForester]

Do you think all pay TV channels should be free, if you have the capability to receive them with your dish and set to box then?

You own the car.

You don't own the TV channels.

 

[Tatersalad]

Why is that gross? The wastefulness?

Because now you have to carry around that extra weight every time you drive the car, which drains your battery faster. All because Telsa is trying to save money by producing one size of battery instead of two. It might not be a big deal for you, but is it so hard to imagine why others might not be too fond of that?

 

[TheCochese]

Because now you have to carry around that extra weight every time you drive the car, which drains your battery faster. All because Telsa is trying to save money by producing one size of battery instead of two. It might not be a big deal for you, but is it so hard to imagine why others might not be too fond of that?

How much more wasteful would it be to produce an entirely different class of battery?

It's the same weight because it's the same battery. The stated range takes this into account.

This concern trolling is some next level fuckery.

 

[Kyzer]

Because now you have to carry around that extra weight every time you drive the car, which drains your battery faster. All because Telsa is trying to save money by producing one size of battery instead of two. It might not be a big deal for you, but is it so hard to imagine why others might not be too fond of that?

Yes but "gross"? Btw that lower cost to tesla also resulted in a cheaper price for the buyer. Its cheaper than it was when they manufactured separate batteries. Also you can upgrade the battery later if you want, the manufacturing was less wasteful, and the battery actually performs better than it would have if it were actually smaller. Also its zero emissions. Just trying to see whats "gross" about it

 

[Jezbollah]

Which pay tv channels potentially are safety issues again?

What about the scenario of extending capability of the battery capacity is a safety issue?

You own the car.

You don't own the TV channels.

You could say you own the capability of the product or service you engaged into the purchase contract with the seller.

 

[Nafai1123]

I've been thinking about this, and while I don't think Tesla is doing anything "immoral," I think my ultimate problem with it is because they're redefining the common idea of "ownership" of a vehicle.

Since cars were invented, owners have had complete control over that ownership. Modifications, tuning, etc were all up to the owner. If they wanted to, they could tear down the entire vehicle, piece by piece, and feel ownership over every nut and bolt. Yeah, you can void a warranty, but that's all it is...a warranty. You wanna strap a turbo on your stock 4-banger Civic? Go for it.

Now Tesla is changing that model. When you buy a Tesla, you no longer have complete control over every aspect of the car, and therefore no longer have that ownership. The parts installed on the car no longer matter as they can be locked behind a paywall.

I understand this works for Tesla, but as someone who's been into cars my whole life, and enjoys the idea of ownership of a physical thing (that I'm spending a shit load of money on), I just don't like it.

 

[toohectic]

You can void a warranty, but that's all it is...a warranty. You wanna strap a turbo on your stock 4-banger Civic? Go for it.

"You wanna hack your 60kWh battery to use the complete 75kWh capacity? Go for it." Is that a viable option to you in the same fashion that modifying a Civic to add a turbo is? It's just a warranty after all. If that was possible, would that resolve or change the issue?

 

[Nafai1123]

"You wanna hack your 60kWh battery to use the complete 75kWh capacity? Go for it." Is that a viable option to you in the same fashion that modifying a Civic to add a turbo is? It's just a warranty after all. If that was possible, would that resolve or change the issue?

Honestly, yeah I think it would. It would be cool for Tesla to embrace the home tuner market and allow the owner to "opt-in" to some tune-able software version, thereby voiding the warranty and any legal responsibility Tesla might have.

 

[FreddieQuell]

I've been thinking about this, and while I don't think Tesla is doing anything "immoral," I think my ultimate problem with it is because they're redefining the common idea of "ownership" of a vehicle.

Since cars were invented, owners have had complete control over that ownership. Modifications, tuning, etc were all up to the owner. If they wanted to, they could tear down the entire vehicle, piece by piece, and feel ownership over every nut and bolt. Yeah, you can void a warranty, but that's all it is...a warranty. You wanna strap a turbo on your stock 4-banger Civic? Go for it.

Now Tesla is changing that model. When you buy a Tesla, you no longer have complete control over every aspect of the car, and therefore no longer have that ownership. The parts installed on the car no longer matter as they can be locked behind a paywall.

I understand this works for Tesla, but as someone who's been into cars my whole life, and enjoys the idea of ownership of a physical thing (that I'm spending a shit load of money on), I just don't like it.

You still have complete control over your car. How does this battery issue change that? If you have the knowledge to change the software and get the additional 15KWh go ahead and do that.

 

[Kyzer]

I've been thinking about this, and while I don't think Tesla is doing anything "immoral," I think my ultimate problem with it is because they're redefining the common idea of "ownership" of a vehicle.

Since cars were invented, owners have had complete control over that ownership. Modifications, tuning, etc were all up to the owner. If they wanted to, they could tear down the entire vehicle, piece by piece, and feel ownership over every nut and bolt. Yeah, you can void a warranty, but that's all it is...a warranty. You wanna strap a turbo on your stock 4-banger Civic? Go for it.

Now Tesla is changing that model. When you buy a Tesla, you no longer have complete control over every aspect of the car, and therefore no longer have that ownership. The parts installed on the car no longer matter as they can be locked behind a paywall.

I understand this works for Tesla, but as someone who's been into cars my whole life, and enjoys the idea of ownership of a physical thing (that I'm spending a shit load of money on), I just don't like it.

Basically. I can see why the prospect is worrisome but this specific instance happens to work out

 

[Two Words]

How would you feel if Apple decided to make all iPhones have 256 GB storage to simplify their manufacturing, but charged with 32, 128, 256GB options to unlock that storage capacity?

 

[FreezeSSC]

How would you feel if Apple decided to make all iPhones have 256 GB storage to simplify their manufacturing, but charged with 32, 128, 256GB options to unlock that storage capacity?

I would honestly prefer they do that. If I want to upgrade down the road just a simple software unlock so I can buy the gimped phone and still enjoy the features of the new iPhone.

 

[Kyzer]

How would you feel if Apple decided to make all iPhones have 256 GB storage to simplify their manufacturing, but charged with 32, 128, 256GB options to unlock that storage capacity?

And the smaller capacities are even cheaper than they are now? That would be pretty cool

 

[Raonak]

Isn't this thing kinda common? manufacturing the same hardware but software disabling certain features to create tiered prices so that the lower-end model is essentia

 

[Two Words]

I would honestly prefer they do that. If I want to upgrade down the road just a simple software unlock so I can buy the gimped phone and still enjoy the features of the new iPhone.

And the smaller capacities are even cheaper than they are now? That would be pretty cool

iPhone profit margins are enormous. Why would you be okay without Apple limiting your capacity with a software lock designed just to extract more money from you?

 

[FreezeSSC]

iPhone profit margins are enormous. Why would you be okay without Apple limiting your capacity with a software lock designed just to extract more money from you?

They'd be losing money if they put the 256 GB version into say a 32gb software locked device and I'd have the option to upgrade later down the road. I tend to use one phone for 3-4 years so that gives me the option of buying the phone paying it off then software unlocking later same with the car, I can finance it, pay it off, then get it unlocked afterwards.

 

[FyreWulff]

Isn't this thing kinda common? manufacturing the same hardware but software disabling certain features to create tiered prices so that the lower-end model is essentia

yes, pretty much every part in a computer uses this method, even SSDs, because it's cheaper than throwing out a bunch of 95% working parts going after a 100% working part.

 

[toohectic]

iPhone profit margins are enormous. Why would you be okay without Apple limiting your capacity with a software lock designed just to extract more money from you?

Current US price points for iPhones are $649/$749/$849 for 32GB/128GB/256GB respectively. If your hypothetical scenario (where all iPhones are 256GB capable) were similar to Tesla's price model, the 32GB phone would still be sold at $649 with options for two discrete app-store purchasable memory increases at $100 per increase. I feel as though you are envisioning Apple selling them at $849 to start, with additional costs to obtain the memory increases. That hypothetical scenario is not equivalent to Tesla's prior pricing model for the 60kWh / 75kWh Model S, so it's disingenuous to compare them. If however you were imaging the initially presented scenario, I don't see how that scenario is necessarily anti-consumer in comparison to the hardware-locked versions. A customer who initially purchases a 32GB phone and later upgrades to a larger memory size clearly pays more in the hardware-locked scenario in comparison to the software-locked scenario. Which scenario is preferable?

 

[FyreWulff]

iPhone profit margins are enormous. Why would you be okay without Apple limiting your capacity with a software lock designed just to extract more money from you?

I'm not sure I'd follow. They would be competing directly against phones with the same storage. if it was a 250 GB locked to 40GB, and someone else was selling a 40GB, you're still comparing a 40gb to a 40gb in terms of price, and Apple would have competitive pressure still?

 

[TheCochese]

iPhone profit margins are enormous. Why would you be okay without Apple limiting your capacity with a software lock designed just to extract more money from you?

Why wouldn't you be okay with it?

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

I've been thinking about this, and while I don't think Tesla is doing anything "immoral," I think my ultimate problem with it is because they're redefining the common idea of "ownership" of a vehicle.

Since cars were invented, owners have had complete control over that ownership. Modifications, tuning, etc were all up to the owner. If they wanted to, they could tear down the entire vehicle, piece by piece, and feel ownership over every nut and bolt. Yeah, you can void a warranty, but that's all it is...a warranty. You wanna strap a turbo on your stock 4-banger Civic? Go for it.

Now Tesla is changing that model. When you buy a Tesla, you no longer have complete control over every aspect of the car, and therefore no longer have that ownership. The parts installed on the car no longer matter as they can be locked behind a paywall.

I understand this works for Tesla, but as someone who's been into cars my whole life, and enjoys the idea of ownership of a physical thing (that I'm spending a shit load of money on), I just don't like it.

Ooh good point. Tesla has DRM protection in the form of always online checking and regular OS updates just like a pc, haha.

Would suck if I modded my ecu to unlock more power, then my car went online and said nope, you performed an illegal mod, it won't start now. Also, no more updates for you.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Ooh good point. Tesla has DRM protection in the form of always online checking and regular OS updates just like a pc, haha.

Would suck if I modded my ecu to unlock more power, then my car went online and said nope, you performed an illegal mod, it won't start now. Also, no more updates for you.

Not really.

If you buy a TV and modify it, it makes sense the company would not service it considering they didn't modify it themselves. They have no time or money to waste trying to figure out what you did. You buy the TV in a certain condition, they agree to service it under said conditions. You change the TV, your contract is void.

You're the one saying they OWE you service beyond the sale of the product even after you break an agreement with them. So either you want ownership or you don't, can't pretend you want full ownership but then request the company to service it with no conditions.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Are there any complaints from actual Tesla owners?

No, which is why this thread is so hilarious.

 

[Two Words]

No, which is why this thread is so hilarious.

You have to be a Tesla owner to think that it's bullshit?

 

[Gravy Boat]

You have to be a Tesla owner to think that it's bullshit?

You could at least explain why you think it's bullshit. Or why your Apple example would be a bad thing too.

 

[xrnzaaas]

As much as the situation is tragic for the folks in Florida it really reads like an April Fools' Day joke.

 

[captive]

Thanks for all the answers.

I guess I, and many others in here, just have a totally different view of things. To me this is being ripped off. It's just artificial value that holds no real value since it's just locked away to make more money.

To me it feels like you all are looking at it the wrong way. Which is why this thread is so frustrating to read since it's so obvious to me that people are fine being taken advantage of, and they don't see it no matter what... I guess it's simillar the other way around, only that you can't see what "we" think the big deal is.

i dont understand how you can think this. If you want a 75kw car buy the 75kw. If you dont think you can swing the 75kw but you can the 60kw buy the 60kw. Then later if you want to upgrade pay the upgrade cost, which would have netted you the exact same cost as if you bought the 75kw in the first place. your not losing out on anything your not missing out or getting ripped off. You will pay the same exact cost for the battery either way if you buy the 75kw first or the 60kw first and then upgraded.

 

[captive]

You have to be a Tesla owner to think that it's bullshit?

not, but it is pretty telling that no 60kw owners have been complaining about it.