G37 should have came with auto-start
12-20-2007, 12:55 PM
#31
Not sure how any of that is relative to a remote start.
The only cost would be the software development and updating the repair manual. Oh, and training the dealer how to charge $500 for taking 30 seconds to configure the option using CONSULT III.
- Market acceptance - Who wouldn't "accept" this?
- Production costs - 0$
- Maintanance cost - 0$
The only cost would be the software development and updating the repair manual. Oh, and training the dealer how to charge $500 for taking 30 seconds to configure the option using CONSULT III.
12-20-2007, 01:31 PM
#32
Post Whore
1) Market acceptance: There are many people out there who do not need a remote starter. Say, those who never sees a real winter with snow, why would they accept this totally unnecessary feature and get charged for it? I actually live in a city that has pretty harsh winters and I never found a need for it and therefore do not want to pay for it.
2) Production cost: So let's say we have a choice in buying this option. The more options there are, the more complicated the production process is and the more it will cost (increased production time is equivalent to increased cost; time is money). As a matter of fact, it is exponentially more complicated: Let's say you're building a car that has 3 different options the total number of combinations are 8. So the manufacturer has to set up their production to accommodate for 8 differently equipped car. Add one more option to the mix and the total number of combinations come out to 16 (2^4). 5 options would equal 32 (2^5). The fact that you don't understand the impact of adding one option in production cost is laughable, please think about it instead of just being argumentative for the sake of it.
3) Maintenance cost: That's the cost to maintain if anything goes wrong. Under warranty anything that could possibly go wrong is a cost to them. One more option is one more liability and one more potential cost to them. When it's out of warranty and it goes wrong, you eat up the cost. I'm reminded of all those G35c owners who damned Infiniti to hell for putting in Brembo brakes, and talk about "market acceptance" for that, too.
2) Production cost: So let's say we have a choice in buying this option. The more options there are, the more complicated the production process is and the more it will cost (increased production time is equivalent to increased cost; time is money). As a matter of fact, it is exponentially more complicated: Let's say you're building a car that has 3 different options the total number of combinations are 8. So the manufacturer has to set up their production to accommodate for 8 differently equipped car. Add one more option to the mix and the total number of combinations come out to 16 (2^4). 5 options would equal 32 (2^5). The fact that you don't understand the impact of adding one option in production cost is laughable, please think about it instead of just being argumentative for the sake of it.
3) Maintenance cost: That's the cost to maintain if anything goes wrong. Under warranty anything that could possibly go wrong is a cost to them. One more option is one more liability and one more potential cost to them. When it's out of warranty and it goes wrong, you eat up the cost. I'm reminded of all those G35c owners who damned Infiniti to hell for putting in Brembo brakes, and talk about "market acceptance" for that, too.
12-20-2007, 03:47 PM
#33
1) Don't buy the option if you don't want it. But, I use mine as much in the summer as in the winter.
2) It's laughable that you can't comprehend that the same firmware could be installed in every car and the dealer could configure it to enable the option. Or, include it with the heated seats package. Or, make it a standard feature and spread the cost across all vehicle which would cost next to nothing (or nothing if it steals a couple sales from Lexus or BMW).
3) Software is cheap to create and cheap to fix and has a very high profit margin. If it's not made my Microsoft it's also more reliable than any physical option. And to quote DetroitG37Joe, for a car that u can talk to, link ur phone to, turning headlights, intelligent cruise, etc etc. remote start is a pretty common and at similar level of luxury.
2) It's laughable that you can't comprehend that the same firmware could be installed in every car and the dealer could configure it to enable the option. Or, include it with the heated seats package. Or, make it a standard feature and spread the cost across all vehicle which would cost next to nothing (or nothing if it steals a couple sales from Lexus or BMW).
3) Software is cheap to create and cheap to fix and has a very high profit margin. If it's not made my Microsoft it's also more reliable than any physical option. And to quote DetroitG37Joe, for a car that u can talk to, link ur phone to, turning headlights, intelligent cruise, etc etc. remote start is a pretty common and at similar level of luxury.
12-20-2007, 04:20 PM
#34
Post Whore
2) It's laughable that you can't comprehend that the same firmware could be installed in every car and the dealer could configure it to enable the option. Or, include it with the heated seats package. Or, make it a standard feature and spread the cost across all vehicle which would cost next to nothing (or nothing if it steals a couple sales from Lexus or BMW).
You can't just make it a standard feature, and then "spread the cost across all vehicles"; it's not something you can just say and it happens. It is a business decision based on cost/profit analysis; why would they do you a favour just so you can have a nice option next to no charge? They're in a business to make money, whether you choose to believe or not. And I don't buy the argument of "stealing sales from Lexus or BMW", because what fact are you basing it on? Where is the proof that when they include this feature their sales will increase with any statistical significance? And if it increases, will it be enough to justify the investment they put in to make it happen? Business decisions are based not only on whether they'll make a profit, but how much profit as well, otherwise it is not be a worthwhile endeavor to pursue. Honestly, I can go on and go.
You are either too naive or have no knowledge of how businesses are run. I feel like I'm talking to a 15yo who is whining about why they can't get things their way. Everything in the business world has to be justified by cost/profit, and to be brutally honest they don't care about you no matter how well they portray themselves; otherwise there wouldn't be a need for marketing and they might as well be a charity.
12-20-2007, 04:59 PM
#35
Post Whore
Let me just add that IMHO we are both talking about a whole lot of nothing and it is not my intention to hijack this thread into a debate. I was simply stating that with the additional feature there are possibly many factors that are potential reasons why Infiniti didn't include it, which may or may not have anything to do with the ease of installation in a technical sense.
Let's call it truce, I think we're not doing anybody any good in continuing.
Let's call it truce, I think we're not doing anybody any good in continuing.
Last edited by PSYH; 12-20-2007 at 05:02 PM.
12-20-2007, 05:20 PM
#36
Um, because they have to add aftermarket parts intsead of having it built in to the firmware. You know, the whole point of this thread.
Because I think it would cost them next to nothing.
I already covered how they could make money off this. If you don't believe how profitable software is ask your phone company or bank.
That's why I say "if".
I'd guess they'd have less than 20 hours in the programming if the remote security is enough to fire the engine. Maybe 100 hours if they have to tinker with the immobilizing security. Either way it's far cheaper than developing heated seats yet would add nothing to the production cost. I'd think the costs would be covered in just a couple gained sales.
And I could to but I'd end up violating the forum rules like you have.
why would they do you a favour just so you can have a nice option next to no charge?
They're in a business to make money
And I don't buy the argument of "stealing sales from Lexus or BMW", because what fact are you basing it on?
And if it increases, will it be enough to justify the investment they put in to make it happen?
Honestly, I can go on and go.
12-20-2007, 05:34 PM
#37
Post Whore
I think I have been very clear in my arguments as to why it may not be as easy as it seems. Need I remind you that Infiniti isn't in the business of developing software? Who's to say that even aligns with their business objectives?
Speaking of Microsoft, that's exactly why they've developed their SYNC system, because they're in the business of developing software, not FORD. There are rumours going around that other manufacturers (landrover, bmw) may team up with Apple to develop software. Infiniti is not in it to make money in software. You think signing a deal for this type of partnership is easy and cheap?
I don't see how you can just throw in numbers like "probably 20 hours" or "100 hours" to program it. I could say it will take 1,000 hours. Don't say things you can't back up with evidence just so you can support your position.
I formally apologize if I have made offensive comments; it just vexes me a lot how people can assume so many things and then base their conclusions on vague/unreliable assumptions.
Speaking of Microsoft, that's exactly why they've developed their SYNC system, because they're in the business of developing software, not FORD. There are rumours going around that other manufacturers (landrover, bmw) may team up with Apple to develop software. Infiniti is not in it to make money in software. You think signing a deal for this type of partnership is easy and cheap?
I don't see how you can just throw in numbers like "probably 20 hours" or "100 hours" to program it. I could say it will take 1,000 hours. Don't say things you can't back up with evidence just so you can support your position.
I formally apologize if I have made offensive comments; it just vexes me a lot how people can assume so many things and then base their conclusions on vague/unreliable assumptions.
Last edited by PSYH; 12-20-2007 at 05:37 PM.
12-20-2007, 09:26 PM
#38
Premier Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 3,346
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
1) Market acceptance: There are many people out there who do not need a remote starter. Say, those who never sees a real winter with snow, why would they accept this totally unnecessary feature and get charged for it? I actually live in a city that has pretty harsh winters and I never found a need for it and therefore do not want to pay for it.
2) Production cost: So let's say we have a choice in buying this option. The more options there are, the more complicated the production process is and the more it will cost (increased production time is equivalent to increased cost; time is money). As a matter of fact, it is exponentially more complicated: Let's say you're building a car that has 3 different options the total number of combinations are 8. So the manufacturer has to set up their production to accommodate for 8 differently equipped car. Add one more option to the mix and the total number of combinations come out to 16 (2^4). 5 options would equal 32 (2^5). The fact that you don't understand the impact of adding one option in production cost is laughable, please think about it instead of just being argumentative for the sake of it.
3) Maintenance cost: That's the cost to maintain if anything goes wrong. Under warranty anything that could possibly go wrong is a cost to them. One more option is one more liability and one more potential cost to them. When it's out of warranty and it goes wrong, you eat up the cost. I'm reminded of all those G35c owners who damned Infiniti to hell for putting in Brembo brakes, and talk about "market acceptance" for that, too.
2) Production cost: So let's say we have a choice in buying this option. The more options there are, the more complicated the production process is and the more it will cost (increased production time is equivalent to increased cost; time is money). As a matter of fact, it is exponentially more complicated: Let's say you're building a car that has 3 different options the total number of combinations are 8. So the manufacturer has to set up their production to accommodate for 8 differently equipped car. Add one more option to the mix and the total number of combinations come out to 16 (2^4). 5 options would equal 32 (2^5). The fact that you don't understand the impact of adding one option in production cost is laughable, please think about it instead of just being argumentative for the sake of it.
3) Maintenance cost: That's the cost to maintain if anything goes wrong. Under warranty anything that could possibly go wrong is a cost to them. One more option is one more liability and one more potential cost to them. When it's out of warranty and it goes wrong, you eat up the cost. I'm reminded of all those G35c owners who damned Infiniti to hell for putting in Brembo brakes, and talk about "market acceptance" for that, too.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
