Although riding motorcycles is indisputably the best part of my job, talking about motorcycles with the rest of the Ultimate Motorcycling staff is yet another high point of my avocation. Anytime you can discuss motorcycles with informed enthusiasts, a splendid time is guaranteed for all.
With those conversations come spirited disagreements. One of the latest disturbances in The Force is the issue of motorcycle software as an extra-price option.
If you haven’t run across this development, a few manufacturers charge a premium for software-based features, such as additional riding modes or other electronically controlled enhancements.
There are two general schools of thought about this, and we have students of both persuasions on the staff.
One group believes you shouldn’t have to pay extra to unlock software already loaded into the motorcycle’s operating system. Once the bike is paid for and in your garage, you should have access to every feature onboard at no additional cost.
The other side contends that each piece of software costs money to develop. So, there are two ways to pay for that development: charge every buyer for an extra riding mode, or specific riders for the enhanced software features.
The group that believes there should be no locked software on a motorcycle contends that it’s a price that should be shared by all buyers of that model. The other group prefers the à la carte or package method, so only people who want the extra mode will pay for its development.
An excellent example is a track mode, particularly one designed to work with slick tires and rain racing tires—Ducati uses this on the Panigale V4 R. If an owner never intends to hit the track with slicks, or doesn’t feel the need to have the most sophisticated traction control, then the track mode is of no value to that person. So, that buyer won’t be happy to pay for a feature that won’t be used. However, the track day rider may feel put out that extra money must be spent to unlock that mode, even though it’s already embedded into the motorcycle’s software.
Another example would be an adventure bike with an off-road mode that works with knobbies. Not every ADV bike owner rides seriously off-road or puts knobbies on the rims. There’s the conflict.
Another wrinkle to this is the “1500 kilometers for free” feature from KTM. This allows the owner to enjoy the entire electronics suite for 1500 kilometers (or whatever distance) to test the option. This could be a track mode, or simply a more sophisticated street mode. Once the mileage threshold is reached, the extra electronic features disappear unless the owner wants to pay to retain them. Again, the group that doesn’t approve of locked software does not approve of this approach, and the group that only wants to pay for what they need is supportive of that method.
I fall into the à la carte crowd. I realize that software costs money to develop, and a manufacturer will want to keep the base price of the motorcycle as low as possible. I’ve tested some motorcycles with extra software that I consider essential—the Rally mode on the KTM 1290 Super Adventure R comes to mind because I want to ride it aggressively off-road. A casual off-road 1290 SAR rider won’t feel the same way I do about it. Other bikes have optional electronics options that, while nice to have, I wouldn’t personally pay extra for them.
As far as the free testing period goes, I would compare it to the manufacturer putting an accessory muffler on your motorcycle for 1500 kilometers and letting you try it out. After the bike accumulates the allotted kilométrage, you either buy the muffler, or the dealer slips the stocker back on.
My no-lockout friends contend that is different, as the muffler is hardware—a physical thing. My position is that hardware costs are no different from software expenses, so you have to pay in either situation. We will, of course, explain the functionality of the optional electronics when installed and let you decide—it’s your money.
This is both a philosophical and marketing discussion. To make it even more interesting, neither position is right nor wrong—both perspectives are reasonable and defendable.
Where do you stand?