Leasing is good from most manufacturers because they can charge full price and markup on leases. Consumers suck at negotiating lease rates because the math is a bit tricky and that adds additional profit points. Tesla doesn't discount yet so it's not such a big deal for them yet but the additional interest on the lease adds additional profit
Yeah. But at the same time, if the contracts say I can't repair it except by the manufacturer, can't modify it in anyway, and dictates how, where, and when I can use the product, etc., there's no point in owning it. If there's no point in owning it, leasing is the way to go.
That's almost never what they say. Generally the laws say that if you open it up you violate your warranty and that if you violate the terms of the software your license to operate that software is revoked. Hardware can't be "licensed" because it's a physical good, not an intellectual concept. Software that runs on hardware can't be owned unless it's as part of the whole - if you owned the software on your phone, you would be okay under the law to duplicate it and resell it. Theoretically software could be a co-op- everyone who runs it "owns" 1/n of the overall, made up of n shares - but realistically speaking it's more convenient to license the use of software. Cars are so expensive that few people are incentivized to violate their warranties. In general, the maintenance of vehicles is part and parcel of the ownership experience. It's pretty clear that as our technology becomes more complex, that maintenance must necessarily become more sophisticated and sophisticated maintenance requires sophisticated contracts. The way to look at it is as a financial transaction. The question is who wishes to undertake the inconvenience of resale, and who wishes to undertake the inconvenience of depreciation. One of the wisest parables I've read this year came from a book on telecom, actually - the author asserted that there's really only one product, the only difference is how you pay for it.
I'm on lunch and I'm about to clock back in, but there have been a few articles about car manufacturers wanting to lock up their cars when it comes to repairs and modifications, just like John Deere is doing. http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/27/copyright-dmca-gearheads-can-repair-modify-cars/ GM. Ford. Toyota. Honda. They all seem to want to head in that direction.
That's an example in my favor, not yours. That's the USPTO arguing that a ruling entirely about Hollywood does not bear any weight on vehicle ownership. Make no mistake: the DMCA is going to die. It's going to die horribly. It might be replaced by something worse, but it'll certainly be replaced by something different. Do you really think that SEMA will allow the companies they support legislate them out of existence? It would be a PR disaster of the highest order. It makes perfect sense for car manufacturers to argue that they have every right to shit all over anyone who does anything they didn't think about and zero sense for them to do so and your linked article basically says "car manufacturers can't even do that."
Usually its because you have no choice. The manufacturer offloads the inventory holding cost to you and then gets to charge you a defacto lease. Look at software, everyone is going to the software as a service model because there is more profit in it and there is no alternative. As an added bonus Its a lot easier to upsell the moonroof, and nicer speakers when you say its only costing you $20 a month instead of the 3500it costs as a package.