When it comes to software, rental code has been relatively easy to achieve. Prior to today's cloud-based Software-as-a-Service that runs in your browser or in an app that fetches fresh code from the developer each time it starts up, you didn't own the program that you paid for.
Instead, you paid for the licence to use that code, with all sorts of restrictions buried in multi-page agreements that hardly anyone ever reads. This is why open source code has to be licensed, to remain free and not be claimed by commercial interests as theirs.
SaaS brings many advantages, like the ability to quickly add features, improvements and security updates without big downloads and reinstallations. It's convenient for users, but longer term the SaaS value proposition erodes especially if the provider in question feels it has a lock-in on the market and can continue to increase subscription charges.
Makers of physical goods have long been envious of software companies enjoying rivers of gold that flow into their coffers through subscriptions.
Car makers like Toyota and BMW have dipped their toes into as-a-service waters, but their offerings have so far not floated their customers' boats.
When you buy a car, a big ticket item that most of us will use for many years, the expectation is that what you pay for is what you get. In the United States, Toyota apparently tried to tweak that by asking its customers who had bought cars from 2018 and newer to take out a subscription to ensure, of all things, that the remote start feature in key fobs would continue to work.
That was a bridge too far and annoyed Toyota owners. Likewise, BMW upset its car owner cadres by not only demanding an upfront charge for Apple Carplay smartphone integration in vehicles, and then asked for an annual fee to keep it going. BMW drivers were not impressed and in 2019, the German car maker had to ditch that subscription plan and make Apple Play available for the lifetime of the vehicle.
Despite customer resistance, it's a safe bet that monthly subscriptions for newer cars in which computers control key features (pun intended) that can be switched on and off remotely will become the norm.
Would you like driver assistance functions like navigation, self-parking, adaptive cruise control and more? A monthly subscription is required for that, thankyouverymuchly.
The whole model will no doubt be sold as the driver being in control and able to decide that for example heated seats and steering wheels are only worth paying for in winter time. I don't know about you, but I would rather not have an automated system remotely switch stuff off in my car.
Not only does it sound like useless functionality that could go wrong, but I suspect this will push up pricing of older second-hand vehicles that can't be remotely controlled like that substantially.
Now it looks like IT hardware is not exempt from the as-a-service push either. Chip giant Intel is getting its Software Defined Silicon (SDSi) feature ready, which can be used to turn processor features on and off.
This is causing consternation among the open source crowd, who wonder if the exact same processor will be sold at different pricing, depending on what features are and aren't enabled; or if you can get better performance and the features needed, but it will cost you extra.
The exact details of SDSi are yet to be revealed; will it be a clever move, or Intel shooting itself in the foot by introducing a feature nobody's asked for?
It's a complex issue that competition and consumer watchdogs need to keep a close eye on.
We're entering an immediate future in which ownership of a great many things is eroded, and instead pay ongoing rent to use them.
It'll be hard to avoid that scenario too, unless you're willing to forego important or attractive services and products, and we need to have a discussion as to where to draw the line before we hit a real dystopia in which, for example, people with bionic implants have features turned off if they can't pay their monthly subscription charges.
