So I'm going to jump on you here because this line is wrong, in this case.
> Renting stuff is economically efficient as long as you don't let the actual owners abuse the relationship to their benefit.
Renting is economically efficient when there is a limited supply of the item, and renting allows the item to be used more often & efficiently then it would with if it were owned.
A simple example: It is much more efficient to have a single lawn-mower that you and your neighbors can rent, rather than having every lawn owner buy a mower that sits unused 99% of the time. It is cheaper to rent than buy so the folks save money on mower expense, less waste is produced because there are fewer mowers, and the item sits idle far less. The downside is the coordination required to use the rented item - it may not always be available, or available when any given person would like it to be.
NONE OF THAT FUCKING MATTERS WHEN THE ITEM IN QUESTION IS HEATED SEATS!!!!
No one is able to use those "rented" heated seats when you're not using them. They will never be taken out of the car. There is literally no way to more efficiently allocate this item when rented rather than bought, unless the entire car is rented (in which case... moot point).
So this case cannot be anything other than abuse by owners. There are no efficiency savings to be had. The item won't be allocated more efficiently, it will just provide additional revenue.
Essentially - the argument that renting is more efficient UTTERLY fails when the item being rented is essentially the on/off switch to a thing built into an item you own. It's ALWAYS going to stay part of the item you own, and there is no way to re-allocate it when you are not renting it.
This is a scummy, scummy move. It should be illegal.
I think the assumption in the case you are presenting is that efficiency is viewed from the POV of the use of resources aggregated over the whole society. There are other POVs, such as it being more cost or production speed or resource or factory floor space efficient for BMW or their suppliers to maintain one product line as opposed to two, or it being more cost efficient for owners to have the option to turn on the feature temporarily or permanently as opposed to having to have the feature installed afterwards (which may depend on the percentage of owners who turn on the feature).
I think an analogy could be a software package which have some subscription features. The features are already contained in the software, but paying for the subscription would turn it on, and stopping the subscription would turn it off. Regardless of whether you are subscribed or not, it's taking up storage space, although I suppose the low cost of storage makes a difference in degree (but not in kind).
To be clear - all of the items you've listed would probably fall into the "owner is abusing the renter" category.
I'm becoming more and more hostile to "we've sold you product that has a little man inside who only obeys us" style approach, and to tackle your software example - I find it just as hostile there (I actually refuse to purchase Apple products because you absolutely do not own any device you've purchased from them).
I'll pay for a subscription service that has a genuine recurring cost for the company (ex: I'm using their networks and servers to process data as part of that subscription). But this new world where companies try to make you pay a subscription to get access to static content (or in this case: literal hardware) that lives nowhere except on devices you own is not something I find morally or ethically acceptable.
Frankly - my strong opinion at this point is: If I own a device, I legally must be provided with a key to EVERY lock the device has: physical or digital. No more "you own the phone, but we kept the keys" or in this exact case: "you own the seat heater, but we kept the on/off switch"
Would you think it's acceptable to have BMW stop providing you the ignition and door keys? "Just call us up and we'll unlock the car! (for a small subscription charge)" fuck that horseshit. That's no ownership, that's servitude.
Economics talked a lot about lighthouses historically, because they were the kind of thing that you couldnt stop people using once you'd built it. This meant there were less built than society might want. Solutions involve finding a way to make people pay and taxes are one such tool, either just general tax or taxing imports or something related to shipping.
Open source software is similar. I agree that its better for society, but there are two ways to achieve that. The bottom up approach of making it a better option (sometime with the extra stick/carrot of copyleft) or the top down approach, just mandate that any government bought software or any open standard need to be open source and usable by all since they all paid for it.
You can apply those same solutions to hardware and physical things, e.g. renters of housing often have various legal protections, but it varies by jurisdiction, you also have social housing where its lived in but not owned and the property value rises go back to the government.
Maybe coming from the chip design world, this is a bit more commonplace and normal-seeming for me. I'm used to huge software packages which cost 5 to 6 figures to license, and additional features which are enabled and disabled based on a license file. No live content (aside from bug fixes). A new version with upgraded features would be another license. I've been out of chip design for a while, so things might be different now.
> Renting stuff is economically efficient as long as you don't let the actual owners abuse the relationship to their benefit.
Renting is economically efficient when there is a limited supply of the item, and renting allows the item to be used more often & efficiently then it would with if it were owned.
A simple example: It is much more efficient to have a single lawn-mower that you and your neighbors can rent, rather than having every lawn owner buy a mower that sits unused 99% of the time. It is cheaper to rent than buy so the folks save money on mower expense, less waste is produced because there are fewer mowers, and the item sits idle far less. The downside is the coordination required to use the rented item - it may not always be available, or available when any given person would like it to be.
NONE OF THAT FUCKING MATTERS WHEN THE ITEM IN QUESTION IS HEATED SEATS!!!!
No one is able to use those "rented" heated seats when you're not using them. They will never be taken out of the car. There is literally no way to more efficiently allocate this item when rented rather than bought, unless the entire car is rented (in which case... moot point).
So this case cannot be anything other than abuse by owners. There are no efficiency savings to be had. The item won't be allocated more efficiently, it will just provide additional revenue.
Essentially - the argument that renting is more efficient UTTERLY fails when the item being rented is essentially the on/off switch to a thing built into an item you own. It's ALWAYS going to stay part of the item you own, and there is no way to re-allocate it when you are not renting it.
This is a scummy, scummy move. It should be illegal.