Musk, Tesla’s CEO, shared the news on Wednesday on X. FSD will no longer be available for outright purchase starting February 14, after which the software will “only be available as a monthly subscription.”

For Musk, the move signals an end to his longtime portrayal of FSD as an “appreciating asset,” worth buying outright now because the price will only rise as the software improves. And for Tesla, the change represents the latest decision by a tech giant to move towards a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model, in which a provider continues to host its software—handling updates, security, and maintenance—while renting it to users. But for the Tesla-curious and those who already own one of Musk’s cars, the move was a reminder of how difficult it has become to truly own things in today’s economy.

“Imagine buying a self-driving car and still having to pay a monthly subscription just for it to actually drive itself,” one user wrote in a reply to Musk’s announcement.

“You will own nothing and be happy.”

At current rates, Tesla owners can purchase FSD—which remains primarily a driver-assistance program that requires an attentive driver at all times—for $8,000, or opt for a monthly subscription for $99. Tesla owners who have already purchased FSD will retain the software, though it is unclear whether they will be able to transfer the rights to a new vehicle, as Tesla previously made possible through limited-time promotions. Tesla did not immediately reply to Fortune’s request for comment on whether rates would remain unchanged or transfers between vehicles would be possible after February 14. At the current monthly price point, it would take drivers around seven years to match the outright purchase cost.

Tesla has gradually raised FSD’s purchase price from $5,000 at launch to $ 15,000 in 2022, its most expensive point. Musk described the price hikes as evidence of FSD being a sound investment for consumers to get an early stake in, although the software’s upfront price dipped to $8,000 in 2024, around the same time Tesla reduced the monthly rental fee in the U.S. from $199 to $99.

The price slashes occurred in the wake of reports alleging a low conversion rate among Tesla drivers who opted to upgrade to FSD. While Tesla does not actively disclose the percentage of its customer base that uses FSD, CFO Vaibhav Taneja said the share was “still small, around 12% of our current fleet” during an October earnings call.

‘You will never actually own your EV’

Many of the replies to Musk’s announcement lamented the prevalence of subscription-based features that car companies now withhold. 

“People want to own their stuff outright, not be eternally beholden,” one user wrote.

“You will never actually own your EV, because it will be useless without the software that you can never remove, replace, or modify,” said another, before adding a recommendation: “Stick to internal combustion engines with as few computers as possible.”  

Criticism has ramped up recently about the software dependency of new vehicles, to the point that the industry has referred to electric cars as “smartphones on wheels.” Tesla is far from the only offender, as in August, Volkswagen released a new feature to increase the horsepower on some of its electric cars priced at $22.50 a month. GM also offers a subscription-based hands-free driving capability, Super Cruise, on designated highways. Launched in 2017, the service offers a three-year trial period, followed by a $25 monthly fee. Super Cruise has grown into a significant money-maker for GM, which late last year projected an active user base of 600,000 and more than $200 million in revenue for 2025.

Software updates and subscription fees in their cars might be starting to frustrate users. Last year, 68% of consumers said they would pay for car-connected services, according to an S&P Global survey, down from 86% in 2024.

While electric vehicles tend to be the most software-heavy, all cars nowadays rely on connected services in some way, regardless of their powertrain. Most modern cars are supported by up to a million lines of code, and frequent updates can quickly make some features incompatible. In 2022, as carriers upgraded their telecommunications infrastructure from 3G, many cars made by Toyota, Chrysler, and Jeep—including both battery- and gasoline-powered models—permanently lost access to a feature that automatically notified first responders in the event of a crash.

The suspension, which will take effect on Jan. 21, is the first time the U.S. is restricting applicants from Cambodia and Thailand, just months after U.S. President Donald Trump inked trade deals with both nations on the sidelines of the 2025 ASEAN Summit. He had assured Southeast Asian leaders at the event that they could view the U.S. as a “strong partner and friend” in the years to come. 

The suspension covers several other countries elsewhere in Asia, including the South Asian nations of Bangladesh and Pakistan, as well as countries in Central Asia and the Middle East. The suspension only covers immigrant visas; non-immigrant visas, like tourist and business visas, are not affected. (The U.S. is set to host the FIFA World Cup this year).

“President Trump has made clear that immigrants must be financially self-sufficient and not be a financial burden to Americans,” the U.S. State Department wrote in a post on Jan. 14. It continued that it was starting a “full review of all policies, regulations, and guidance to ensure that immigrants from these high-risk countries do not utilize welfare in the United States or become a public charge.” The post made clear that while nationals in the affected countries could submit applications, no visas would be issued during the suspension. 

“Given the transactional nature of the U.S. dealings with other countries, these pauses can be seen as another way for the U.S. to coerce countries to strike deals that they otherwise would not be keen to do,” suggests Nona Pepito, an associate professor of economics at Singapore Management University. 

Trump’s engagement with Southeast Asia has remained mostly focused on trade, though the U.S. President also tried to negotiate a ceasefire to the violent border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand last year. 

The ceasefire ultimately fell apart, and the two countries began fighting again in late December; both now operate under another, China-facilitated, ceasefire. Last week, the U.S. offered $45 million in aid to both countries to help maintain the truce. 

Laos is already subject to a full travel ban. Cambodia has also previously been in the Trump Administration’s cross-hairs, appearing in a leaked State Department memo last July that noted “concerns” with the Southeast Asian country’s migration policies, though it wasn’t included in later travel restrictions.

Before this suspension, Thailand had yet to be targeted by U.S. immigration policies. A ban could risk “pushing the Thai government and its people closer to China,” Pepito warns. “If the U.S. is seen as an unreliable partner, Thailand, a key treaty ally, may look elsewhere for security and economic cooperation.”

Thailand’s addition is “puzzling,” says Tan Sook Rei, a senior lecturer at Singapore’s James Cook University (JCU), who points out that both the Philippines and Vietnam—which rank among the top sources of U.S. immigrant visas—are “notably absent” from the visa suspension list. “The policy appears less focused on managing migration volumes than on political signaling.”

Jacob Wood, an associate professor of economics at JCU, points to allegations by U.S. officials that Thai businesses have been issuing fake certificates of origin to support China’s “tariff-washing” practices as a source of tension between Washington and Bangkok.

Trump has launched a sweeping crackdown on immigration since taking office a year ago. Last month, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in what it called “historic progress in securing the homeland,” claimed that over 2.5 million “illegal aliens” had left the U.S. 

The U.S. is also tightening pathways for legal migration to the country. Trump suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), which provided a safe haven for individuals overseas of “special humanitarian concern.” 

Moreover, the president has increased vetting for international students trying to attend the U.S. The number of new international students starting at a U.S. college or university in fall 2025 fell by 17%, according to the Institute of International Education.

The U.S. has also hiked fees for H-1B employment visas, often used by high-skilled labor in sectors like tech, to $100,000.

Around the turn of the 21st century, the U.K. witnessed a dramatic surge in housing prices: the costs rose from four times peoples’ annual earnings in 1995, to eight times by 2010. Homeowners subsequently enjoyed a wealth windfall, and it resulted in their kids receiving more housing wealth and higher-paying jobs, according to recent research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Lower-income renters, on the other hand, were faced with new affordability challenges. 

“This property boom meant enormous wealth gains for some households but not others,” the report notes. “Our results show that housing wealth, independent of other factors such as parents’ skills, substantially affects inequality in the subsequent generation.”

To put the wealth divide into perspective, the study found that for every £100,000 ($133,800) of extra property the wealthy parents had, the children were £15,000 ($20,000) better off in household assets when they reached their late 20s. It catapulted the social mobility of rich kids—who had enough funds to move to high-paying jobs in London—while the children of renters were blocked from generational wealth opportunities. 

Likewise, in the U.S. higher house prices provide parents with additional funding to invest in their children, resulting in higher salaries than the children of renters.

Why the children of property-boom parents have an upperhand 

It didn’t matter what wealthy parents did for work, or what degrees they had—the study found the kids of rich homeowners benefited regardless. And a key reason why they were able to secure tens of thousands of dollars in wealth gains is because of location; those who benefitted most from the housing boom owned property in London, or were able to move to the capital city brimming with better job opportunities. 

“An important explanation for this finding is that the children of parents more exposed to the house price boom were more likely to own in London—the most expensive property market in the country,” the report explains. 

“This is partly explained by an increased tendency of people whose parents did relatively well out of the house price boom, but who grew up outside of London, to move to the capital.”

The children of parents who fared better in the housing boom were less likely to take on middle-paying jobs outside of the U.K.’s capital, the study found. Instead, they were inclined to funnel into higher-paying occupations in the city compared to their family renter counterparts. 

However, the benefits have not been equally distributed among the children of these housing-rich families. Their sons were the most likely to secure jobs at the top of the earnings distribution—meanwhile, there was “no significant effect” with the daughters. The study found that “wealth from parents may help male children in particular access better labour market opportunities.”

U.K.’s housing affordability and stagnating wages 

While rich kids are reaping wealth and career gains from their parents’ housing boom success, many in the U.K. have given up on buying a home with their abysmal salaries.

U.K. property offers the worst value for money in the developed world, according to a 2024 analysis from The Resolution Foundation. Not only are U.K. housing costs more expensive relative to general prices than in any OECD country, the study found, but homes in England are even more cramped than those in New York City. The average house price in the U.K. currently rests at about £270,000 ($361,100). And those who rent are also up against an affordability crisis: rent in England is set to skyrocket by 25% in the next four years, real estate group Hamptons International predicted in 2023.

“Britain’s housing crisis is decades in the making, with successive governments failing to build enough new homes and modernize our existing stock,” Adam Corlett, principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, told Bloomberg. “That now has to change.”

But as housing costs increase every year, U.K.’s workers aren’t seeing the same bumps in their annual salaries—especially young people at the bottom of the totem pole. The average salary for working-age U.K. graduates is 30% lower than it was 15 years ago, according to government data analyzed by Bloomberg. 

Gen Zers are only getting around two-thirds of the pay their millennial counterparts received at the same career stage, and it’s causing many to reconsider if they can even succeed in the U.K. One in four Britons between the ages of 18 and 30 said they might leave, with many pointing fingers at the lack of affordable housing and high cost of living, according to a 2025 study from the Adam Smith Institute.