Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range
https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551713024171548672
658 comments
>> (I'm assuming that Tesla only made the owner pay the cost of the 60 battery swap even though they replaced it with a 90)
It says right there that it was done under warranty.
If my RTX3080 breaks, and Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement(because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update. And yes, I'm allowed to sell it on as a 3080Ti, because....that's what it is.
>>The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90".
Maybe, but again, I don't see why that should be necessary. Tesla should not have been able to do this, period.
It says right there that it was done under warranty.
If my RTX3080 breaks, and Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement(because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update. And yes, I'm allowed to sell it on as a 3080Ti, because....that's what it is.
>>The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90".
Maybe, but again, I don't see why that should be necessary. Tesla should not have been able to do this, period.
Imagine Apple replacing your broken Macbook Pro M1 base model with the upgraded model because they didn't have any exact replacements in stock, and then years later deciding to disable two of the CPU cores, two of the GPU cores, and half the SSD space (1 TB to 512 GB). People, especially on HN, would lose their freaking minds.
They would also lose their minds if Apple only sold the highest-end model but firmware-locked CPU cores and SSD space unless you paid extra for it, or, even better, paid a subscription for it.
Refresh rates up to 120 Hz, available for $4.99 per month!
They would also lose their minds if Apple only sold the highest-end model but firmware-locked CPU cores and SSD space unless you paid extra for it, or, even better, paid a subscription for it.
Refresh rates up to 120 Hz, available for $4.99 per month!
We’ve come a full circle where rather than using the “Car Analogy” to picture the consumer realities of personal electronics (”imagine if they locked the performance of your car like they do with your phone”), it’s now the other way around (“imagine if they locked down your laptop like they do with your car”).
And welcome to the dystopian nightmare that is a subscription based service for features like heated seats.
It stems from the desire to receive revenue without actually performing new work.
Physical objects sold never had that option before the advent of a persistent internet connection, and you at least fully owned it.
Now, software updates which are mandatory, are making physical objects not be truly owned by the buyers.
There needs to be new laws to allow consumers to retain the rights of ownership that is being erroded at record pace.
Physical objects sold never had that option before the advent of a persistent internet connection, and you at least fully owned it.
Now, software updates which are mandatory, are making physical objects not be truly owned by the buyers.
There needs to be new laws to allow consumers to retain the rights of ownership that is being erroded at record pace.
Heh, this made me smile.
The world has changed and keeps changing. When I was a kid, smartphones just weren’t a thing. And yet today I simply cannot imagine life without them.
As the world changes so do the metaphors useful in describing it.
The world has changed and keeps changing. When I was a kid, smartphones just weren’t a thing. And yet today I simply cannot imagine life without them.
As the world changes so do the metaphors useful in describing it.
Yeah, this is ridiculous.
I had the exact same situation with, weirdly enough, InstantPot.
My device had a clear warranty-covered issue during the warranty period.
The model I had had been discontinued (and I suspect because of supply chain issues they didn’t have any in stock stateside anyways).
They sent me the new upgraded model as a replacement which was at least twice as expensive.
I would be mad as hell if a few years in now, if they had the ability, they would decide to degrade it to the older model.
I had the exact same situation with, weirdly enough, InstantPot.
My device had a clear warranty-covered issue during the warranty period.
The model I had had been discontinued (and I suspect because of supply chain issues they didn’t have any in stock stateside anyways).
They sent me the new upgraded model as a replacement which was at least twice as expensive.
I would be mad as hell if a few years in now, if they had the ability, they would decide to degrade it to the older model.
Unrelated, but it's weir how the electric pressure/combo cooker market has been cornered by InstantPot to the extend that plenty of recipe sites have specific InstantPot recipes rather than electric pressure/combo cooker recipes. There are competing devices but they seem to mostly fly under the radar. Perhaps it's just the term InstantPot being genericised? Don't have a complaint about mine at all but just feel a little bit icky when a brand gets that much mindshare.
Intel has occasionally done this: https://www.zdnet.com/article/facepalm-of-the-day-intel-char...
It tends not to go down well.
It tends not to go down well.
And they are planning to do it again https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-software-defined-cpu...
Now this time the idea is that because their differnt SKU's are basically the same chip under the hood anyway just locked at the Silicon level why not allow them to be unlocked if the extra features are found to be needed after purchase.
This happen in other markets just fine. One market that jumps to mind is oscilloscopes, you will basically have a single piece of hardware spanning multiple skus where features are disabled via software/hardware (sometimes the CPU is just reading resistor values or jumpers to determine which model it is and therefore which features it has enabled), one notable vendor jumps to mind is Hantek. You can take a 70Mhz scope and opening it up to unlock it to 250mhz. (The same can be done in a number of Rigol scopes iirc)
Now this time the idea is that because their differnt SKU's are basically the same chip under the hood anyway just locked at the Silicon level why not allow them to be unlocked if the extra features are found to be needed after purchase.
This happen in other markets just fine. One market that jumps to mind is oscilloscopes, you will basically have a single piece of hardware spanning multiple skus where features are disabled via software/hardware (sometimes the CPU is just reading resistor values or jumpers to determine which model it is and therefore which features it has enabled), one notable vendor jumps to mind is Hantek. You can take a 70Mhz scope and opening it up to unlock it to 250mhz. (The same can be done in a number of Rigol scopes iirc)
[deleted]
Please, don't give them ideas.
> no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update
I think the problem is that there are 2 different types of "can't": can't as in technologically impossible, and can't as in legally disallowed.
In the past, the former was usually the case. Vendors literally could not technologically take away features because things either were not controlled by software or software could not tell the hardware apart because there were no unique identifiers. Because of this nobody really pushed for the legal protections, and as such they do not exist today (at best you _might_ be able to claim misrepresentation by the previous owner and get a return or refund, like if someone sells a LHR card as if it were non-LHR. But with a large purchase like a car, that would be costly time and money wise).
> Tesla should not have been able to do this, period.
Yeah, morally, but we need to start working to make this guaranteed legally. As it is now, "Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement (because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update" is totally allowed.
Heck, they could even cut down all legitimate 3080Tis to what would be 3080 or even 1060 performance via drivers after 3 years and you'd be able to do nothing besides complain on social media -- you still have exactly the amount of hardware sold, and they never promised any performance levels (just check their site, you only get things like compute units, clock speed, ram etc. not performance guarantees like FLOPs or FPS)
I think the problem is that there are 2 different types of "can't": can't as in technologically impossible, and can't as in legally disallowed.
In the past, the former was usually the case. Vendors literally could not technologically take away features because things either were not controlled by software or software could not tell the hardware apart because there were no unique identifiers. Because of this nobody really pushed for the legal protections, and as such they do not exist today (at best you _might_ be able to claim misrepresentation by the previous owner and get a return or refund, like if someone sells a LHR card as if it were non-LHR. But with a large purchase like a car, that would be costly time and money wise).
> Tesla should not have been able to do this, period.
Yeah, morally, but we need to start working to make this guaranteed legally. As it is now, "Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement (because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update" is totally allowed.
Heck, they could even cut down all legitimate 3080Tis to what would be 3080 or even 1060 performance via drivers after 3 years and you'd be able to do nothing besides complain on social media -- you still have exactly the amount of hardware sold, and they never promised any performance levels (just check their site, you only get things like compute units, clock speed, ram etc. not performance guarantees like FLOPs or FPS)
>Heck, they could even cut down all legitimate 3080Tis to what would be 3080 or even 1060 performance via drivers after 3 years and you'd be able to do nothing besides complain on social media -- you still have exactly the amount of hardware sold, and they never promised any performance levels (just check their site, you only get things like compute units, clock speed, ram etc. not performance guarantees like FLOPs or FPS)
They can't legally do that now either. Apple was challenged in court for doing something similar and lost. There's already legal precedent. The problem is while that can't do that legally, they can do it technically and the path to recourse for the individual is difficult and often not worth it. Which means they can usually get away with it.
We need a way for the legal system do deal with these kinds of things that don't involve actually going to the over worked and too expensive courts to settle it.
They can't legally do that now either. Apple was challenged in court for doing something similar and lost. There's already legal precedent. The problem is while that can't do that legally, they can do it technically and the path to recourse for the individual is difficult and often not worth it. Which means they can usually get away with it.
We need a way for the legal system do deal with these kinds of things that don't involve actually going to the over worked and too expensive courts to settle it.
Assuming this refers to Batterygate, the loss was only in the EU where they do have better consumer protections.
They actually settled in the US to avoid setting precedent...
They actually settled in the US to avoid setting precedent...
> We need a way for the legal system do deal with these kinds of things that don't involve actually going to the over worked and too expensive courts to settle it.
Arbitration?
Could also gather a class. Unless if we are saying the argument is we shouldn't have to do these things. I agree, this is true. We also don't have to purchase Teslas if they indeed do these types of things on the regular.
Arbitration?
Could also gather a class. Unless if we are saying the argument is we shouldn't have to do these things. I agree, this is true. We also don't have to purchase Teslas if they indeed do these types of things on the regular.
[deleted]
It's called small claims court.
That might be worth for the $4500 Tesla downgrade but for the 3080 Ti vs. 3080 example you are probably going to spend more in court fees and wasted time than you are going to get unless small claims in your jurisdiction somehow lets you claim compensation for those too.
> I think the problem is that there are 2 different types of "can't": can't as in technologically impossible, and can't as in legally disallowed.
Exactly. Bait and switch is legally disallowed, even when technically possible.
Exactly. Bait and switch is legally disallowed, even when technically possible.
Actually, it isn't bait and switch at all. Unless Tesla advertised the upgraded capacity explicitly after the service, you are not entitled to anything.
This is why things like consumer CPUs and GPUs do not advertise a guaranteed level of performance (they only state things like clock speeds, core counts, memory etc.) -- they are not liable if performance gets better or worse down the line. There is no distinction between, say, "games moved to a new API and now old cards are slow" and "we made our new drivers make old cards slow on purpose because we want to sell more new cards". Companies don't do this because it's bad press if found out (which is why there's this whole Twitter thread), not because they are legally required to (at least in the US).
This is why things like consumer CPUs and GPUs do not advertise a guaranteed level of performance (they only state things like clock speeds, core counts, memory etc.) -- they are not liable if performance gets better or worse down the line. There is no distinction between, say, "games moved to a new API and now old cards are slow" and "we made our new drivers make old cards slow on purpose because we want to sell more new cards". Companies don't do this because it's bad press if found out (which is why there's this whole Twitter thread), not because they are legally required to (at least in the US).
The problem is it's not just a software tweak, you're also lugging around 30kWh of batteries. They are useful when they add range; less so when they're just dead mass.
The response to this would be, fine reduce my range, but also swap out the battery for the proper size.
The response to this would be, fine reduce my range, but also swap out the battery for the proper size.
IIRC some (?) of their lower capacity cars come out of the factory with higher capacity batteries + a software lock and you can pay to enable the extra capacity ($4500 according to this post apparently).
So, the dead mass is there even in brand new cars. I'm guessing the 60 -> 90 swap is because they're not making 60 anymore and it's just all 90 with a software cap... The OP thread even mentions that essentially Tesla forgot to lock the capacity and just left it with the full 90.
Basically it's the whole issue about takebacks of physical features via digital un-licensing. There is no direct parallel in the past. A dealership removing accidentally installed physical components after an unrelated service is unacceptable. A digital provider revoking accidentally provided licenses seems pretty common (I still remember Dropbox giving free storage in very early on promos and later going "oops, that actually expires!"). So this is kind of in the middle. A digital license that controls access to a physical good.
So, the dead mass is there even in brand new cars. I'm guessing the 60 -> 90 swap is because they're not making 60 anymore and it's just all 90 with a software cap... The OP thread even mentions that essentially Tesla forgot to lock the capacity and just left it with the full 90.
Basically it's the whole issue about takebacks of physical features via digital un-licensing. There is no direct parallel in the past. A dealership removing accidentally installed physical components after an unrelated service is unacceptable. A digital provider revoking accidentally provided licenses seems pretty common (I still remember Dropbox giving free storage in very early on promos and later going "oops, that actually expires!"). So this is kind of in the middle. A digital license that controls access to a physical good.
I feel like digital licenses that control access to physical goods should just be banned. Putting a 90kwh battery in a car and not letting people use it is incredibly wasteful in a world where battery supply is a key limiting factor on EV production.
I had a free sub-domain name go.to/blah offer for life, they started charging, and still went under. Bought by another company, I can't even get that subdomain name any more.
All large silicon chips (dram, CPU, GPU, FPGA, SSD, etc) are built with spare sections to replace non-functional ones. A 6 core CPU could be really only 6 but could also be a disabled 8 core when not enough people buy the more expensive 8 core, and they built too many of them. GPUs can be the same, but there are a dozen different functions that could be broken, so they sell it as the next lower SKU. For example, mining chips don't need HDMI, so if HDMI is broken, normally you would toss a 99% good chip. Contracts for digitally controlled goods need proper consumer protection. Tesla just happens to use the feature a lot. Much cheaper to lose 30kWh worth of raw material that might not have passed qualification, and sell it as a 60, than pay for inventory, scheduling, and swap/configuration stations on your assembly line.
Also, if rumors get out that SKU xyz CAN be overclocked or unlocked 10% of the time when a higher chip is used, people will buy and return 9 cards before getting the bonus, causing lots of grief to the entire supply chain and 9x packaging/refurb costs, and then have to sell as open box at a lower profit. Not gonna happen. These locks are heavily encrypted, or physically unaccessible.
All large silicon chips (dram, CPU, GPU, FPGA, SSD, etc) are built with spare sections to replace non-functional ones. A 6 core CPU could be really only 6 but could also be a disabled 8 core when not enough people buy the more expensive 8 core, and they built too many of them. GPUs can be the same, but there are a dozen different functions that could be broken, so they sell it as the next lower SKU. For example, mining chips don't need HDMI, so if HDMI is broken, normally you would toss a 99% good chip. Contracts for digitally controlled goods need proper consumer protection. Tesla just happens to use the feature a lot. Much cheaper to lose 30kWh worth of raw material that might not have passed qualification, and sell it as a 60, than pay for inventory, scheduling, and swap/configuration stations on your assembly line.
Also, if rumors get out that SKU xyz CAN be overclocked or unlocked 10% of the time when a higher chip is used, people will buy and return 9 cards before getting the bonus, causing lots of grief to the entire supply chain and 9x packaging/refurb costs, and then have to sell as open box at a lower profit. Not gonna happen. These locks are heavily encrypted, or physically unaccessible.
Although I agree with you in some ways, there are things like SSDs that are overprovisioned so they have a bit of extra space that they can use as the flash degrades.
Not having that extra space will dramatically lower the lifespan and reliability of the drive. Same with these batteries.
They just need to be honest about what they're selling.
Not having that extra space will dramatically lower the lifespan and reliability of the drive. Same with these batteries.
They just need to be honest about what they're selling.
Aye but with my samsung SSD it's up to me how much overprovisioning there is and I can choose to disable it like
I'd rather have the manufacturer decide. They should know more about the reliability of their own device than a consumer possibly could.
I have a Samsung SSD. How do I know how much to overprovision? 100Mb? 200Mb? 1000Mb?? How would I know?
When they sell an SSD as, say, 2Tb but then I'm expected to assign 20Gb of that just for reliability, that's materially worse than a drive that advertises 2Tb but doesn't count the overprovisioning. But they're both advertised as 2Tb.
If they're selling a 2Tb drive, it should work as a (reliable) 2Tb drive.
Just like hard drives that manage bad blocks themselves.
I have a Samsung SSD. How do I know how much to overprovision? 100Mb? 200Mb? 1000Mb?? How would I know?
When they sell an SSD as, say, 2Tb but then I'm expected to assign 20Gb of that just for reliability, that's materially worse than a drive that advertises 2Tb but doesn't count the overprovisioning. But they're both advertised as 2Tb.
If they're selling a 2Tb drive, it should work as a (reliable) 2Tb drive.
Just like hard drives that manage bad blocks themselves.
Unless they use different types of batteries for 60kWh that don't have the same energy density.
And assuming the software change didn't account for that by giving a bit more capacity.
And assuming the software change didn't account for that by giving a bit more capacity.
Did you read the post? It said it was a 90.
Actually it didn't. The post said the battery had a 90 badge and the car reported capacity as if it were 90.
Neither of these are direct claims by Tesla that an "upgrade" happened.
Some 2060s also have dies marked for 2080s that are then fused (re: badging doesn't imply performance). Similarly, you could potentially overclock a GPU and end up having measured performance that matched a higher model (re: car reported capacity). In order for the upgrade to have legally applied, they'd actually need to have stated that it was indeed intended as an upgrade and came with new guarantees that matched the higher performing model. Based on reading the post, this never happened thus the whole problem.
If this did happen, the new owned could just produce the documentation for the upgrade and it would be open-and-shut resolved.
Neither of these are direct claims by Tesla that an "upgrade" happened.
Some 2060s also have dies marked for 2080s that are then fused (re: badging doesn't imply performance). Similarly, you could potentially overclock a GPU and end up having measured performance that matched a higher model (re: car reported capacity). In order for the upgrade to have legally applied, they'd actually need to have stated that it was indeed intended as an upgrade and came with new guarantees that matched the higher performing model. Based on reading the post, this never happened thus the whole problem.
If this did happen, the new owned could just produce the documentation for the upgrade and it would be open-and-shut resolved.
No I don't think I agree.
To use a different example someone brought up - imagine your CPU breaks in your laptop. You send it to the manufacturer, and they replace it with a higher model CPU because <reasons> - cool, right? You sell it advertised with that better CPU, then the next owner has to send it in for another, completely unrelated repair, and the manufacturer then says "oh we noticed the last repair fitted more powerful CPU than intended, so we removed it and fitted the original spec CPU".
That wouldn't be just immoral, that would be actual theft.
The matter of fact is, after the warranty repair the guy was given a car with a bigger battery and the bigger capacity enabled in software. Whether Tesla intended to do this or not, is completely and utterly irrelevant - it was his to keep and sell. Now Tesla taking this away should be(but probably isn't) illegal. You have a product with a feature X, Tesla removed that feature and in fact holds it ransom for payment - the fact that they never intended to install it is irrelevant.
To use a different example again - imagine you buy a new car and the factory made a mistake and fitted an extra option that you didn't order. Is the manufacturer in the right to remove that part during your next service?
To use a different example someone brought up - imagine your CPU breaks in your laptop. You send it to the manufacturer, and they replace it with a higher model CPU because <reasons> - cool, right? You sell it advertised with that better CPU, then the next owner has to send it in for another, completely unrelated repair, and the manufacturer then says "oh we noticed the last repair fitted more powerful CPU than intended, so we removed it and fitted the original spec CPU".
That wouldn't be just immoral, that would be actual theft.
The matter of fact is, after the warranty repair the guy was given a car with a bigger battery and the bigger capacity enabled in software. Whether Tesla intended to do this or not, is completely and utterly irrelevant - it was his to keep and sell. Now Tesla taking this away should be(but probably isn't) illegal. You have a product with a feature X, Tesla removed that feature and in fact holds it ransom for payment - the fact that they never intended to install it is irrelevant.
To use a different example again - imagine you buy a new car and the factory made a mistake and fitted an extra option that you didn't order. Is the manufacturer in the right to remove that part during your next service?
I think there is a difference with Tesla though, because they do segment based on software. So some of their actual 60 level cars are sold with 90 batteries limited in software.
This is more akin motherboard manufacturers who would unofficially unlock overclocking on unsupported chipsets in first version firmware. If someone bought such a board, overclocked the CPU, sold it, and then the next owner sent the board back to the manufacturer for unrelated repairs, and as part of fixing the other problem the board manufacturer needed to do a BIOS update, resulting in the overclocking feature being lost.
This is more akin motherboard manufacturers who would unofficially unlock overclocking on unsupported chipsets in first version firmware. If someone bought such a board, overclocked the CPU, sold it, and then the next owner sent the board back to the manufacturer for unrelated repairs, and as part of fixing the other problem the board manufacturer needed to do a BIOS update, resulting in the overclocking feature being lost.
The segmentation being purely in software makes no difference in the principal. Software segmentation merely makes the effects technically achievable (whereas it'd be hard or impossible via physical means).
But the principle that a consumer's product shouldn't be modified without asking for explicit permission from the owner still stands regardless of segmentation methods.
But the principle that a consumer's product shouldn't be modified without asking for explicit permission from the owner still stands regardless of segmentation methods.
> the factory made a mistake and fitted an extra option that you didn't order. Is the manufacturer in the right to remove that part during your next service?
Your bank makes a mistake and adds a million dollars to your account balance when you tried to deposit $100. Is the bank in the right to remove that when they discover the mistake?
Your bank makes a mistake and adds a million dollars to your account balance when you tried to deposit $100. Is the bank in the right to remove that when they discover the mistake?
Yes, because it's their account and their system - that does happen in fact, plenty of stories like that. If you take the money out, or move it elsewhere, they cannot just break into your house and take the cash however - they would need a court order to recover it, and the court would need to agree that it was a reasonable mistake(and that's not always the case! plenty of cases where people/companies send money to the wrong account by mistake and the courts rule that you can't force the other side to return the money)
Also you haven't answered my question, which I think compares better to this situation than a random million dollars deposited into my account. No one randomly gave this guy an upgrade - it was a warranty replacement with a better item, that happens literally all the time in all kinds of industries. What doesn't happen is the manufacturer turning around few years later and taking the item back.
Also you haven't answered my question, which I think compares better to this situation than a random million dollars deposited into my account. No one randomly gave this guy an upgrade - it was a warranty replacement with a better item, that happens literally all the time in all kinds of industries. What doesn't happen is the manufacturer turning around few years later and taking the item back.
> If you take the money out, or move it elsewhere, they cannot just break into your house and take the cash however
That’s because they don’t have the technical means to extract that money from your house without entering it. I’m sure they would gladly do it if they could.
> Also you haven't answered my question, which I think compares better to this situation than a random million dollars deposited into my account.
In your “car with unpaid option” example I think the manufacturer is in the right to remove it if they didn’t explicitly say you can keep it.
> No one randomly gave this guy an upgrade - it was a warranty replacement with a better item, that happens literally all the time in all kinds of industries. What doesn't happen is the manufacturer turning around few years later and taking the item back.
It’s not clear from the tweet thread if Tesla actually said “sure, you can keep the larger battery”. It seems it was an assumption made by the original owner based on… passage of time and Tesla’s inaction I guess?
That’s because they don’t have the technical means to extract that money from your house without entering it. I’m sure they would gladly do it if they could.
> Also you haven't answered my question, which I think compares better to this situation than a random million dollars deposited into my account.
In your “car with unpaid option” example I think the manufacturer is in the right to remove it if they didn’t explicitly say you can keep it.
> No one randomly gave this guy an upgrade - it was a warranty replacement with a better item, that happens literally all the time in all kinds of industries. What doesn't happen is the manufacturer turning around few years later and taking the item back.
It’s not clear from the tweet thread if Tesla actually said “sure, you can keep the larger battery”. It seems it was an assumption made by the original owner based on… passage of time and Tesla’s inaction I guess?
>>In your “car with unpaid option” example I think the manufacturer is in the right to remove it if they didn’t explicitly say you can keep it.
See, this is where we're going to disagree. Manufacturer's control over an item ends when the item is sold. If they have an issue with how the car was released from warranty repair, then they can go after the service centre that did the repair, not the owner. Or even if they want to go after the owner, they should do it through legal means, not just modify your product without asking.
>>It’s not clear from the tweet thread if Tesla actually said “sure, you can keep the larger battery”.
Tesla doesn't need to say that. It literally doesn't work like this anywhere, ever. The car was released after the warranty repair, documents were signed for that I'm sure, and after that point the car is what it is. If they installed a larger battery(and enabled it), whether intentionally or by accident, then it belongs to you at that point. Manufacturer should not be able to modify a product you own without your explicit permission, full stop.
I'll use one other analogy and then will give analogies a rest I think.
Imagine picking up a brand new car from the dealer, the car is advertised as having CarPlay support. You buy it, drive it around, then after a year bring it in for its first service - during which the manufacturer goes "oh, but this car was never actually speced with CarPlay support, it must have been a mistake at the factory, we'll remove it now". They might be technically correct, but it literally should be illegal for them to remove it. It's not different than them saying "oh the car was built with 7 seats but we can see that it was ordered with 5, so we removed the 2 extra seats during service" - again, that would be just theft. The car was released from their ownership as-is, and if they have an issue they can pursue it through courts, not just remove an item they think doesn't belong to you.
Like, what if they got it wrong? What if the battery upgrade was actually paid for and Tesla says it wasn't? Do we want them to have unlimited right to modify a product that YOU OWN, just because their database says something? Or should they go through the legal system if they think something is wrong? Because I'm very sure I know what the answer to this one is.
See, this is where we're going to disagree. Manufacturer's control over an item ends when the item is sold. If they have an issue with how the car was released from warranty repair, then they can go after the service centre that did the repair, not the owner. Or even if they want to go after the owner, they should do it through legal means, not just modify your product without asking.
>>It’s not clear from the tweet thread if Tesla actually said “sure, you can keep the larger battery”.
Tesla doesn't need to say that. It literally doesn't work like this anywhere, ever. The car was released after the warranty repair, documents were signed for that I'm sure, and after that point the car is what it is. If they installed a larger battery(and enabled it), whether intentionally or by accident, then it belongs to you at that point. Manufacturer should not be able to modify a product you own without your explicit permission, full stop.
I'll use one other analogy and then will give analogies a rest I think.
Imagine picking up a brand new car from the dealer, the car is advertised as having CarPlay support. You buy it, drive it around, then after a year bring it in for its first service - during which the manufacturer goes "oh, but this car was never actually speced with CarPlay support, it must have been a mistake at the factory, we'll remove it now". They might be technically correct, but it literally should be illegal for them to remove it. It's not different than them saying "oh the car was built with 7 seats but we can see that it was ordered with 5, so we removed the 2 extra seats during service" - again, that would be just theft. The car was released from their ownership as-is, and if they have an issue they can pursue it through courts, not just remove an item they think doesn't belong to you.
Like, what if they got it wrong? What if the battery upgrade was actually paid for and Tesla says it wasn't? Do we want them to have unlimited right to modify a product that YOU OWN, just because their database says something? Or should they go through the legal system if they think something is wrong? Because I'm very sure I know what the answer to this one is.
Your bank makes a mistake and adds a million dollars to your account balance when you tried to deposit $100.
In this scenario, the bank also tells you: “we are giving you a million dollars, it’s yours”. Then, 3 years later, someone else at the same bank says: “oopsies, we actually made a mistake, so we withdrew that million from your account”.
It’s even worse, imagine you actually received that million, as a payment for something, from someone else who originally received it from the bank.
In this scenario, the bank also tells you: “we are giving you a million dollars, it’s yours”. Then, 3 years later, someone else at the same bank says: “oopsies, we actually made a mistake, so we withdrew that million from your account”.
It’s even worse, imagine you actually received that million, as a payment for something, from someone else who originally received it from the bank.
> the bank also tells you: “we are giving you a million dollars, it’s yours”.
This doesn’t seem to be the case with the larger battery though? Nothing in the tweet thread indicates that Tesla explicitly stated the car is now a 90 and the original owner can keep it forever.
This doesn’t seem to be the case with the larger battery though? Nothing in the tweet thread indicates that Tesla explicitly stated the car is now a 90 and the original owner can keep it forever.
The answer in the UK is "No."
Misdirected payments can be disputed by the reciever in which case it gets settled with legal action by the sender.
Misdirected payments can be disputed by the reciever in which case it gets settled with legal action by the sender.
There must be a difference between “misdirected” payments vs “they accidentally added a few extra zeros at the end” though. Surely the receiver has no recourse for the latter.
It's the same situation. The money doesn't legally belong to the reciever, but there is little you can do outside of the courts if they want to be a dick about it.
I’m sorry, in what world is having an actual 90 physically installed by Tesla, and enabled physically by Tesla, able to be used and reported as such in the Tesla UI less relevant than some row in the Tesla sales db? Tesla did put in the 90 and enable it!
The fact that there isn’t a receipt proving that anybody paid for it is irrelevant. It could have been a gift, a reward, a thank you, a bribe, a reasonable business decision given the parts on hand, or an accident. Regardless, that’s on Tesla.
Am I required to ask the manufacturer if they will take back the Chrome wheels when I buy a used car just to make sure they didn’t put them on accidentally?
The fact that there isn’t a receipt proving that anybody paid for it is irrelevant. It could have been a gift, a reward, a thank you, a bribe, a reasonable business decision given the parts on hand, or an accident. Regardless, that’s on Tesla.
Am I required to ask the manufacturer if they will take back the Chrome wheels when I buy a used car just to make sure they didn’t put them on accidentally?
> in what world
In our world? Based on the thread, Tesla did a battery service on a model of car with a 60 battery. Unless it was stated as upgraded, after the service it is still a 60 car to the manufacturer. A 60 car that just happened to be able to run at the performance level of a 90 version. They then state this is a bug and fixed it.
It's immoral on Tesla's side, for sure, but the previous owner selling it as an "upgraded" car without documentation is the real problem. We all know that Tesla does this market segmentation using software, so this should mean that just because the hardware's badge states something does not mean the thing will be guaranteed available.
> Am I required to ask the manufacturer if they will take back the Chrome wheels when I buy a used car just to make sure they didn’t put them on accidentally?
No, but if it turns out you mistook plastic for Chrome, it's on you (or on the seller if they misrepresented it knowingly). Just because you can't see lack of software license, doesn't mean it's there.
If you buy a laptop with a pirated copy of Windows, and later after a couple of updates the OS detects this asks for activation, do you go to Microsoft to ask them to enable your pirated software or do you go to the seller of the laptop?
In our world? Based on the thread, Tesla did a battery service on a model of car with a 60 battery. Unless it was stated as upgraded, after the service it is still a 60 car to the manufacturer. A 60 car that just happened to be able to run at the performance level of a 90 version. They then state this is a bug and fixed it.
It's immoral on Tesla's side, for sure, but the previous owner selling it as an "upgraded" car without documentation is the real problem. We all know that Tesla does this market segmentation using software, so this should mean that just because the hardware's badge states something does not mean the thing will be guaranteed available.
> Am I required to ask the manufacturer if they will take back the Chrome wheels when I buy a used car just to make sure they didn’t put them on accidentally?
No, but if it turns out you mistook plastic for Chrome, it's on you (or on the seller if they misrepresented it knowingly). Just because you can't see lack of software license, doesn't mean it's there.
If you buy a laptop with a pirated copy of Windows, and later after a couple of updates the OS detects this asks for activation, do you go to Microsoft to ask them to enable your pirated software or do you go to the seller of the laptop?
>If you buy a laptop with a pirated copy of Windows, and later after a couple of updates the OS detects this asks for activation, do you go to Microsoft to ask them to enable your pirated software or do you go to the seller of the laptop?
Except in this scenario, it wasn't pirated by the owner, it was literally installed by Microsoft
Except in this scenario, it wasn't pirated by the owner, it was literally installed by Microsoft
> > in what world
> In our world? Based on the thread, Tesla did a battery service on a model of car with a 60 battery. Unless it was stated as upgraded, after the service it is still a 60 car to the manufacturer. A 60 car that just happened to be able to run at the performance level of a 90 version. They then state this is a bug and fixed it.
It is completely irrelevant what type of car it is, they installed a 90 battery and enabled it. This is not a software licence. Are you saying it would also have been OK for Tesla at the next service to take out the battery and reinstall a 60 because they made a mistake 3 years ago? That's exactly what they did here. I also doubt that it is legal, there are implicit contracts in the warranty service and when they put in the 90 battery, you can't just renegade on those things. I have the suspicion that way too many people here have been working for too long in software, which has always been in a grey zone between purchase and licence and thus got away with things that hardware people never did.
> In our world? Based on the thread, Tesla did a battery service on a model of car with a 60 battery. Unless it was stated as upgraded, after the service it is still a 60 car to the manufacturer. A 60 car that just happened to be able to run at the performance level of a 90 version. They then state this is a bug and fixed it.
It is completely irrelevant what type of car it is, they installed a 90 battery and enabled it. This is not a software licence. Are you saying it would also have been OK for Tesla at the next service to take out the battery and reinstall a 60 because they made a mistake 3 years ago? That's exactly what they did here. I also doubt that it is legal, there are implicit contracts in the warranty service and when they put in the 90 battery, you can't just renegade on those things. I have the suspicion that way too many people here have been working for too long in software, which has always been in a grey zone between purchase and licence and thus got away with things that hardware people never did.
> and enabled it
Did they though...? If they did you'd think there'd be documentation of that provided as a part of the service.
The problem with this is that there is no direct comparable parallel. Physical removal is not allowed, and that most agree with. But this is not the same, there was no physical change, only a software lock. You and I would maybe like it to be treated the same, but it isn't yet.
Software licenses are revoked quite frequently. Game console vendors can blacklist serials bricking essential features of a game console, Steam blacklists stolen activation keys, storage providers can "expire" free space from promos that never included a time limit. Porting the law naively would mean all of these are not allowed either.
Did they though...? If they did you'd think there'd be documentation of that provided as a part of the service.
The problem with this is that there is no direct comparable parallel. Physical removal is not allowed, and that most agree with. But this is not the same, there was no physical change, only a software lock. You and I would maybe like it to be treated the same, but it isn't yet.
Software licenses are revoked quite frequently. Game console vendors can blacklist serials bricking essential features of a game console, Steam blacklists stolen activation keys, storage providers can "expire" free space from promos that never included a time limit. Porting the law naively would mean all of these are not allowed either.
[deleted]
Did they enable it? Yes. They did. Or it wouldn't have worked. And they wouldn't have been able to disable it.
Who installed the pirated copy in this hypothetical? If it was Microsoft itself for whatever reason, then yeah - it’s on them to make the customer whole.
If I sell a base package of software, and the same codebase has advanced functionality sold as an option/upgrade, with the only difference being the software key used to activate the software, and a version of my software fails the key validation and gives you everything, am I now required to upgrade you to the full version forever?
No one is suggesting that Tesla ought to be obligated to replace the battery for free whenever the new owner wants.
It amazing the hoops that people have been trained to jump through with respect to Tesla. This is a company that has sold vaporware “full self drive” systems for $10k.
Tesla as the sole provider or parts and labor provided a product as a replacement and through their own incompetence failed to install it correctly.
Tesla as the sole provider or parts and labor provided a product as a replacement and through their own incompetence failed to install it correctly.
>Yeah, morally, but we need to start working to make this guaranteed legally.
Good luck with that. The main reason it isn't illegal is the people who have been in charge of the Federal government are too old to understand computers. They've never updated most laws for the computer age, which is why it's legal to eavesdrop on someone's e-mail but not their paper mail, why corporations aggregating huge amounts of data together to know more about their customers than the customers know is legal, and why it's legal for Tesla to do what they did here.
Get the money, geriatrics and religion out of the US government and make it functional again, then we can fix things like this. Until then, lotsa luck.
Good luck with that. The main reason it isn't illegal is the people who have been in charge of the Federal government are too old to understand computers. They've never updated most laws for the computer age, which is why it's legal to eavesdrop on someone's e-mail but not their paper mail, why corporations aggregating huge amounts of data together to know more about their customers than the customers know is legal, and why it's legal for Tesla to do what they did here.
Get the money, geriatrics and religion out of the US government and make it functional again, then we can fix things like this. Until then, lotsa luck.
Even still, who in their right mind is going to pay a lawyer $10k+ to present a case over a $2k GFX card? Or even do a class action suit just to be mailed a $3 check after the legal fees are worked out... It's all impossibly far from functional.
> The main reason it isn't illegal is the people who have been in charge of the Federal government are too old to understand computers.
But this is a self-resolving problem. Eventually the older generation will just... you know... die off...
The more problematic thing is the whole lobbying situation where money is doing the talking. Consumers in general don't have nearly enough money to be viable as political pressure.
What really needs to happen is for consumers to be on comparable footing with industry lobbies in terms of political say, and clearly just relying on voting is not cutting it, since you often have cases where all the candidates are different kinds of bad just backed by different lobbies...
But this is a self-resolving problem. Eventually the older generation will just... you know... die off...
The more problematic thing is the whole lobbying situation where money is doing the talking. Consumers in general don't have nearly enough money to be viable as political pressure.
What really needs to happen is for consumers to be on comparable footing with industry lobbies in terms of political say, and clearly just relying on voting is not cutting it, since you often have cases where all the candidates are different kinds of bad just backed by different lobbies...
Indeed. This is recapitulation of the old fight Intel got themselves into trying to implement market discrimination via selling chips that could be overclocked but setting them to underclock because it was cheaper to sell all the same chip and then underclock the ones that didn't pass their performance tests in the warehouse (or even that did, but they didn't have enough low-end chips in the pipeline) then it was to physically make multiple different dies of high and low clock chips.
Tesla installed a 90 battery because it was easier and faster to do that than wait around for a 60 battery to show up in the distribution pipeline. They then let the customer take advantage of the fact that they had given them an "overclocked" battery. Trying to force price discrimination at this point is at the very least a bad look and may actually be a violation of the law regarding principle of second sale.
Tesla installed a 90 battery because it was easier and faster to do that than wait around for a 60 battery to show up in the distribution pipeline. They then let the customer take advantage of the fact that they had given them an "overclocked" battery. Trying to force price discrimination at this point is at the very least a bad look and may actually be a violation of the law regarding principle of second sale.
Yeah. It does remind me of things like heated seat subscriptions for some other brands.
IIRC there you had 2 models, both with the same heated seat hardware, but if you paid for the feature outright during purchase, it will be enabled perpetually even after any resale. But the subscription model would require the subscription be re-applied by the new buyer. And, possibly, if you resold the remaining subscription time would not transfer (?).
IIRC there you had 2 models, both with the same heated seat hardware, but if you paid for the feature outright during purchase, it will be enabled perpetually even after any resale. But the subscription model would require the subscription be re-applied by the new buyer. And, possibly, if you resold the remaining subscription time would not transfer (?).
Three types:
The person you're responding to meant "can't" as is "socially disallowed".
The person you're responding to meant "can't" as is "socially disallowed".
"Socially disallowed" is not a thing that can be implied through "can't" though, as that's just a convention and courtesy.
OP probably would like to have the legal guarantee, but it's a fight that's still in-progress.
OP probably would like to have the legal guarantee, but it's a fight that's still in-progress.
> "Socially disallowed" is not a thing that can be implied through "can't" though ….
You are actually implicitly doing it right there! A slight re-wording of your post is "'Socially disallowed' can't be implied through 'can't'" … meaning that it is socially/linguistically unable to be so implied (though I disagree), not legally or technically so.
And of course there are tons of other examples—when I say that "you can't just [do that thing]", I very often mean it is socially unacceptable to do it, not that it is illegal or technically impossible to do it.
You are actually implicitly doing it right there! A slight re-wording of your post is "'Socially disallowed' can't be implied through 'can't'" … meaning that it is socially/linguistically unable to be so implied (though I disagree), not legally or technically so.
And of course there are tons of other examples—when I say that "you can't just [do that thing]", I very often mean it is socially unacceptable to do it, not that it is illegal or technically impossible to do it.
I mean if the goal is "Socially disallowed" it should be "shouldn't".
"Can't" implies some kind of enforcement/compelling force preventing that, either from nature, or some authority (a nation state, a workplace superior, a parent of a child etc.). As much as we might want it, society doesn't act as an authority for this kind of stuff...
"Can't" implies some kind of enforcement/compelling force preventing that, either from nature, or some authority (a nation state, a workplace superior, a parent of a child etc.). As much as we might want it, society doesn't act as an authority for this kind of stuff...
Social sanction is an enforcement mechanism.
> Yeah, morally, but we need to start working to make this guaranteed legally.
I'm not sure I disagree with you, but the invocation of the word "morally" here really reminds me of the software licensing debates from twenty-something years ago. Twenty years later most people seem resigned on the software licensing issue (although I doubt their opinion has changed), and they seemed resigned on limiting their ability to run custom software on hardware they paid for (jailbreaking an Apple phone), but there is still plenty of grumbling for software that limits access to hardware features. Tesla limiting the battery capacity is not really different from Apple limiting which OS's you can install on their hardware. Unless I'm missing something?
I'm not sure I disagree with you, but the invocation of the word "morally" here really reminds me of the software licensing debates from twenty-something years ago. Twenty years later most people seem resigned on the software licensing issue (although I doubt their opinion has changed), and they seemed resigned on limiting their ability to run custom software on hardware they paid for (jailbreaking an Apple phone), but there is still plenty of grumbling for software that limits access to hardware features. Tesla limiting the battery capacity is not really different from Apple limiting which OS's you can install on their hardware. Unless I'm missing something?
Yeah, there's no logical distinction, only a moral one.
Imagine 3 scenarios:
Company A rolls out a new mandatory update to a phone that addresses a CPU vulnerability, and to compensate for the reduced performance, overclocks the CPU so now your battery life is 20% shorter.
Company B rolls out a new mandatory update to a phone that improves the battery management so phones do not shut down unexpectedly. However, due to lack of hardware battery reporting when the device was built, they could only estimate the capacity based on the phone's age and natural battery degradation. This causes older phones to have 20% shorter battery life, even though some batteries that were not used as hard could have supported longer.
Company C rolls out a new mandatory update to a phone that detects the phones age and reserves 20% battery capacity on older phones, forcing them to have 20% shorter battery life so users are incentivized to upgrade.
The end result is the same, a phone with worse battery life, but we don't see all of them to be morally the same. The only real difference is the human intent behind it, which is why we probably eventually need regulations that make sure companies should justify that they have a reasonably good intent if challenged. Getting this right is very hard -- you don't want to overburden companies from frivolous cases, but you also want regulations to be effective so they can't just handwave them away.
Imagine 3 scenarios:
Company A rolls out a new mandatory update to a phone that addresses a CPU vulnerability, and to compensate for the reduced performance, overclocks the CPU so now your battery life is 20% shorter.
Company B rolls out a new mandatory update to a phone that improves the battery management so phones do not shut down unexpectedly. However, due to lack of hardware battery reporting when the device was built, they could only estimate the capacity based on the phone's age and natural battery degradation. This causes older phones to have 20% shorter battery life, even though some batteries that were not used as hard could have supported longer.
Company C rolls out a new mandatory update to a phone that detects the phones age and reserves 20% battery capacity on older phones, forcing them to have 20% shorter battery life so users are incentivized to upgrade.
The end result is the same, a phone with worse battery life, but we don't see all of them to be morally the same. The only real difference is the human intent behind it, which is why we probably eventually need regulations that make sure companies should justify that they have a reasonably good intent if challenged. Getting this right is very hard -- you don't want to overburden companies from frivolous cases, but you also want regulations to be effective so they can't just handwave them away.
Too much pedantry. If it doesn't benefit the consumer unequivocally, don't fucking do it.
Better still, tell me what the update does, then offer me the choice.
Obviously that's easier said than done for a complex product, but don't expect sympathy when you screw up. Moving away from monolithic all-or-nothing OS updates would certainly help.
Obviously that's easier said than done for a complex product, but don't expect sympathy when you screw up. Moving away from monolithic all-or-nothing OS updates would certainly help.
Offering a choice is tricky here.
Since failures are significantly affected by the software ability to properly manage the device (and needs to be updated periodically to keep that up to date).
So yeah you can choose to keep the old version and loose warranty, cheers!
Im not sure what the legal side of warranty conditions is. But outdated software is potentially a very real cost to the manufacturer in therms of extra warranty work.
So yeah you can choose to keep the old version and loose warranty, cheers!
Im not sure what the legal side of warranty conditions is. But outdated software is potentially a very real cost to the manufacturer in therms of extra warranty work.
> If my RTX3080 breaks, and Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement(because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update. And yes, I'm allowed to sell it on as a 3080Ti, because....that's what it is.
What if it's a 3080Ti PCB but inside a RTX3080 card? Is it ethical to sell it as a 3080Ti?
What about an RTX3080 Card that Nvidia drivers mistakenly identify as a 3080Ti and enable additional 3080Ti cores (ignore how technically innaccurate that may be)?
Reminds me of this video from LTT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZ32mqmsrg
What if it's a 3080Ti PCB but inside a RTX3080 card? Is it ethical to sell it as a 3080Ti?
What about an RTX3080 Card that Nvidia drivers mistakenly identify as a 3080Ti and enable additional 3080Ti cores (ignore how technically innaccurate that may be)?
Reminds me of this video from LTT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZ32mqmsrg
I think the main issue as a consumer is, do I trust Tesla to try to provide me with the best experience? Or are they going to squeeze me and hit me with "aha, gotcha! you should have read the fine print!" every time there's an issue?
As a consumer, it's extremely expensive to remain well informed. I want to purchase from brands where I feel that the company wants me to be happy, ESPECIALLY with such a premium brand as Tesla. I certainly don't want to need a lawyer on hand to figure out if I'm going to buy a lemon or not.
If Tesla makes an error, it should be resolved in the Customer's favor, period. Why would anyone buy a Premium (read: highly expensive) product if they know the company is going to try to hit them with monkeys-paw customer service terms?
As a consumer, it's extremely expensive to remain well informed. I want to purchase from brands where I feel that the company wants me to be happy, ESPECIALLY with such a premium brand as Tesla. I certainly don't want to need a lawyer on hand to figure out if I'm going to buy a lemon or not.
If Tesla makes an error, it should be resolved in the Customer's favor, period. Why would anyone buy a Premium (read: highly expensive) product if they know the company is going to try to hit them with monkeys-paw customer service terms?
Then stick to buying Hondas and BMWs. There is a great ad about a farmer bringing in his 100 year-old Porsche tractor to a current Porsche car dealer for service. That is true to life. Those who want a multi-decade relationship with a manufacturer don't buy from the likes of Tesla. They have not yet earned access to that customer base. Ask Tesla to fix your classic Tesla from decades past and they would probably laugh in your face.
https://youtu.be/R8-9oIq1hxw
Note how the dealer shows the customer the new part before it is installed. Note how the customer doesn't hand over the keys until fully knowing what is going to be done. Note that this old customer then decided to double down by buying a new car from the company fixing his tractor. Tesla has no respect for such concepts.
https://youtu.be/R8-9oIq1hxw
Note how the dealer shows the customer the new part before it is installed. Note how the customer doesn't hand over the keys until fully knowing what is going to be done. Note that this old customer then decided to double down by buying a new car from the company fixing his tractor. Tesla has no respect for such concepts.
> Then stick to buying Hondas and BMWs...
> Tesla has no respect for such concepts.
Agreed. But it doesn't help that consumers have accepted faux-trust (i.e., marketing) for real Trust.
The key to real Trust is simple: It's earn. It can't be ordered. Demanded. Come from nothing. Be bought. Etc.
The irony here is, trust for Tesla is based on trust for other like (read: premium) auto brands. But in the end, it hasn't been earned. And it shows.
> Tesla has no respect for such concepts.
Agreed. But it doesn't help that consumers have accepted faux-trust (i.e., marketing) for real Trust.
The key to real Trust is simple: It's earn. It can't be ordered. Demanded. Come from nothing. Be bought. Etc.
The irony here is, trust for Tesla is based on trust for other like (read: premium) auto brands. But in the end, it hasn't been earned. And it shows.
Premium brand? Tesla build quality is right up there with a 1940s hand built one-off car from any of the manufacturers of the time (no down-voters, I'm not exaggerating).
Shit doesn't line up so they push on it real hard while the glue dries.
Shit doesn't line up so they push on it real hard while the glue dries.
As a 2021 Model 3 owner who is mechanically inclined, this resonates :(
The proper analogy is that your Alienware breaks, and Alienware replaces your RTX3080 with a 3080Ti. When you resell it, you can and should identify it as an Alienware with a 3080Ti.
Upon closer analysis, all analogies will break down. I'd argue the car in the sumtotal of all the parts in it.
So rather your analogy about Alienware is: You own a dell gaming pc. Under warranty repair, Dell replaces some of the parts with parts from an Alienware build.
Are you allowed to put on Alienware decals on your Dell desktop and re-sell it as an Alienware?
So rather your analogy about Alienware is: You own a dell gaming pc. Under warranty repair, Dell replaces some of the parts with parts from an Alienware build.
Are you allowed to put on Alienware decals on your Dell desktop and re-sell it as an Alienware?
Why use analogies at all?
Tesla replaced a 60 with a 90, the owner now has a 90.
They list it as a 90 when selling it.
The new owner gets hit with the update to turn it back into a 60.
New owner is pissed at old owner, when they should be pissed at tesla.
Tesla replaced a 60 with a 90, the owner now has a 90.
They list it as a 90 when selling it.
The new owner gets hit with the update to turn it back into a 60.
New owner is pissed at old owner, when they should be pissed at tesla.
It is endlessly baffling to me that people love making analogies (and arguing about analogies!) when the situation is fairly simple to explain.
Like another comment suggested, this is a small error in the customer's favor, and companies who care about customer satisfaction should really just eat the minimal cost when stuff like this happens instead of getting bogged down in technicalities.
Like another comment suggested, this is a small error in the customer's favor, and companies who care about customer satisfaction should really just eat the minimal cost when stuff like this happens instead of getting bogged down in technicalities.
I understand it entirely (analogy is the core of cognition, after all) but I do find it very troublesome when simple concepts are mystified into religious debates because someone or a small group of people feel the need to flex how ULTIMATELY UNDERSTANDING they are.
Like, no, if you can't use simple words to explain things and you have to rely on extended metaphors to explain things, you probably don't have the holistic understanding you believe you have.
Like, no, if you can't use simple words to explain things and you have to rely on extended metaphors to explain things, you probably don't have the holistic understanding you believe you have.
If you take your previous comment, you wrote:
> New owner is pissed at old owner, when they should be pissed at tesla.
The analogies are trying to explain why or why not the owner should be pissed at Tesla, which if I understand your argument is because it was Tesla who made the change.
> New owner is pissed at old owner, when they should be pissed at tesla.
The analogies are trying to explain why or why not the owner should be pissed at Tesla, which if I understand your argument is because it was Tesla who made the change.
Tesla replaces a 60 with a 90, HQ says 'set this to be 60', service center doesn't do it. Years later another center looks at the config and fixes the mistake, probably because there's a big warning and the technicians before them ignored it out of goodwill.
The OP is right in that Tesla should codify in the goodwill of free upgrades when logistics doesn't allow it, but they didn't, so the car being rebadged by the owner as a 90 is an issue.
This is the same argument as the Tesla heated seats microtransaction: Tesla actually loses money on cars without rear heated seats if they have to separate "heated rear seats" and "non-heated rear seats" into a new configuration, as it increases manufacturing complexity and logistics (ie. the ability to reassign same-spec cars to new owners if the existing owner backs out of their reservation at the last minute). It makes everything simpler to not make a M3 SR+ customer pay for the heated rear sets and allow them to opt for it later.
The OP is right in that Tesla should codify in the goodwill of free upgrades when logistics doesn't allow it, but they didn't, so the car being rebadged by the owner as a 90 is an issue.
This is the same argument as the Tesla heated seats microtransaction: Tesla actually loses money on cars without rear heated seats if they have to separate "heated rear seats" and "non-heated rear seats" into a new configuration, as it increases manufacturing complexity and logistics (ie. the ability to reassign same-spec cars to new owners if the existing owner backs out of their reservation at the last minute). It makes everything simpler to not make a M3 SR+ customer pay for the heated rear sets and allow them to opt for it later.
> Tesla actually loses money...
Tough shit? Why are we responsible for the success of Tesla's business model?
The bottom line here is that Tesla screwed up. If you accidentally give a customer a feature, you don't take it back years later (especially if, as in this case, the product has changed hands to a new customer). You eat your mistake, and consider it a goodwill expense.
I guarantee you this Twitter thread has cost Tesla more than the $4500 they charge for someone to click a couple times in a UI to turn a 60 into a 90.
Tough shit? Why are we responsible for the success of Tesla's business model?
The bottom line here is that Tesla screwed up. If you accidentally give a customer a feature, you don't take it back years later (especially if, as in this case, the product has changed hands to a new customer). You eat your mistake, and consider it a goodwill expense.
I guarantee you this Twitter thread has cost Tesla more than the $4500 they charge for someone to click a couple times in a UI to turn a 60 into a 90.
> Tough shit? Why are we responsible for the success of Tesla's business model?
If you don't want Tesla to succeed, you shouldn't be purchasing the product. In the same vein, you shouldn't be purchasing Apple products if you think their business model of taking 30% of app-based iOS transactions is too much profit for your liking.
If you don't want Tesla to succeed, you shouldn't be purchasing the product. In the same vein, you shouldn't be purchasing Apple products if you think their business model of taking 30% of app-based iOS transactions is too much profit for your liking.
Except that 30kWh of batteries cost several thousand $ wholesale, whereas heated seats cost pennies.
But the costs are abstract. What if it costs more than $4500 per unit to pay people to catalog, build, and inventory these huge 60kw packs compared to 90kw packs? This is especially likely with how they're probably only making a few dozen of these a year (given the % of the existing packs that fail under warranty) compared to the hundreds of 90s that need replacement every year.
I think they could sue both, but any lawyer would go after the entity with the larger resources aka Tesla. (IANAL)
Upon closer analysis, all analogies will break down.
Let's say a technician loaded a more recent map of Europe than the one you bought by mistake. Now you your navigation computer breaks, and you have it replaced by another technician at another authorized service center.
They load the map they had on record for you into the new car nav computer, which to you is the "older" version, but the "newer" one was never one you had a license for.
I'm pretty sure things like this have been happening for at least a couple of decades with some manufacturers, it's just that the "features" have become more major as more things are software-driven, in this case the battery capacity.
Ironically, most analogies that I've seen compare other things to cars. This is one of those cases where it's the other way around.
> Upon closer analysis, all analogies will break down
so how about you just explain your position so that other people who don't know the difference between an RTX3080 and a 3080ti can also participate
so how about you just explain your position so that other people who don't know the difference between an RTX3080 and a 3080ti can also participate
The difference is irrelevant. It could be any part replaced under warranty. The point is they both fulfill the same function (graphics card), take the same slot on the motherboard and the 3080Ti is better.
> so how about you just explain your position so that other people who don't know the difference between an RTX3080 and a 3080ti can also participate
GP used RTX3080 and 8080Ti, my reply furthers that discussion.
GP used RTX3080 and 8080Ti, my reply furthers that discussion.
Well, I own a Dell gaming PC. It came with the "Alienware Command Center" installed.
I suspect it may be an Alienware PC. If so, why wouldn't we call it that?
I suspect it may be an Alienware PC. If so, why wouldn't we call it that?
> I suspect it may be an Alienware PC. If so, why wouldn't we call it that?
You could call it an Alienware PC.
My question: Would it be ethical for you to represent it as an Alienware PC, and sell it as an Alienware PC by purposefully attempt pass it off by changing the appearance to make it look like an Alienware PC?
To add to the gray area:
Say DELL XPS 1000 and Alienware 90210 are essentially the same machine, save for custom tuning, drivers, and cosmetics. Alienware gets a 25% markup.
You have the XPS 1000, apply the custom tuning and drivers to get the performance of the XPS to that of it's Alienware's counterpart.
Could you sell it for more than the market rate for a use XPS1000? Yes. I'd argue you have added value by custom tuning the PC. But I believe responsible to disclose that it was an XPS that had been modified.
Taking this back to cars. If an when I sell my Golf R, I will disclose it has received a Stage 1 Turbo upgrade (and hopefully use that to increase the resale value--though it typically does not except to other enthusiasts).
You could call it an Alienware PC.
My question: Would it be ethical for you to represent it as an Alienware PC, and sell it as an Alienware PC by purposefully attempt pass it off by changing the appearance to make it look like an Alienware PC?
To add to the gray area:
Say DELL XPS 1000 and Alienware 90210 are essentially the same machine, save for custom tuning, drivers, and cosmetics. Alienware gets a 25% markup.
You have the XPS 1000, apply the custom tuning and drivers to get the performance of the XPS to that of it's Alienware's counterpart.
Could you sell it for more than the market rate for a use XPS1000? Yes. I'd argue you have added value by custom tuning the PC. But I believe responsible to disclose that it was an XPS that had been modified.
Taking this back to cars. If an when I sell my Golf R, I will disclose it has received a Stage 1 Turbo upgrade (and hopefully use that to increase the resale value--though it typically does not except to other enthusiasts).
> Taking this back to cars. If an when I sell my Golf R, I will disclose it has received a Stage 1 Turbo upgrade (and hopefully use that to increase the resale value--though it typically does not except to other enthusiasts).
But you're only doing this because it benefits you. If the upgrade reduced your resale value, would you still disclose it? Did you disclose it to insurance companies when you had it done, since it could impact your rates?
When I traded in my GTI for my Tesla I didn't mention the aftermarket headlights I had installed nor the Stage 1. I don't lose sleep over my decision, not that it would have changed the number either way.
But you're only doing this because it benefits you. If the upgrade reduced your resale value, would you still disclose it? Did you disclose it to insurance companies when you had it done, since it could impact your rates?
When I traded in my GTI for my Tesla I didn't mention the aftermarket headlights I had installed nor the Stage 1. I don't lose sleep over my decision, not that it would have changed the number either way.
> If the upgrade reduced your resale value, would you still disclose it? Did you disclose it to insurance companies when you had it done, since it could impact your rates?
Yes and No.
Yes--simply because I'd rather cover my ass from a lawsuit down the line if the new owner discovered the aftermarket tune.
No, as to my knowledge the insurance company doesn't care about street legal aftermarket upgrades.
Yes and No.
Yes--simply because I'd rather cover my ass from a lawsuit down the line if the new owner discovered the aftermarket tune.
No, as to my knowledge the insurance company doesn't care about street legal aftermarket upgrades.
You are technically supposed to inform the insurance company of any and all upgrades you make, street legal or not. They are insuring the car as it came from the factory, and while most upgrades won't change things substantially, there could be increased wear and tear, for instance, depending on the tune.
You may not be legally required to, but the insurance company will pretend the upgrade doesn't exist at best, and actively claim it caused the damage, depending on the upgrade.
https://www.valuepenguin.com/special-auto-insurance-coverage...
https://www.askadamskutner.com/auto-accident/insurance-for-a...
You may not be legally required to, but the insurance company will pretend the upgrade doesn't exist at best, and actively claim it caused the damage, depending on the upgrade.
https://www.valuepenguin.com/special-auto-insurance-coverage...
https://www.askadamskutner.com/auto-accident/insurance-for-a...
Good idea. Tesla should make the badges out of little screens.
> I'd argue the car in the sumtotal of all the parts in it.
It seems like you're agreeing with me and creating a less appropriate analogy at the same time.
It seems like you're agreeing with me and creating a less appropriate analogy at the same time.
[deleted]
If it has Alienware parts, then: yes.
Do you think that Dell should remotely access you computer and artificially nobble it?
Do you think that Dell should remotely access you computer and artificially nobble it?
> Do you think that Dell should remotely access you computer and artificially nobble it?
No. Just like I disagreed when Sony disabled Linux support in the PS3 via Firmware update (they were hit with a Class-Action for that).
To my knowledge, on of the features of Tesla is that it supports upgrades via OTA software updates. As another commenter pointed it, by treating a Tesla vehicle as a software platform, it allows Tesla to engage in behavior which is quasi normal for say a smartphone, but causes cognitive dissonance when you think of it as a car.
E.g. Apple mistakenly allowing an unsupported feature on an iphone SE, then removing that ability in a future IOS update vs Toyota disabling AWD support on what should have been a FWD vehicle SKU.
No. Just like I disagreed when Sony disabled Linux support in the PS3 via Firmware update (they were hit with a Class-Action for that).
To my knowledge, on of the features of Tesla is that it supports upgrades via OTA software updates. As another commenter pointed it, by treating a Tesla vehicle as a software platform, it allows Tesla to engage in behavior which is quasi normal for say a smartphone, but causes cognitive dissonance when you think of it as a car.
E.g. Apple mistakenly allowing an unsupported feature on an iphone SE, then removing that ability in a future IOS update vs Toyota disabling AWD support on what should have been a FWD vehicle SKU.
There were some very powerful software upgrades you could preform on GPUs... https://verrytechnical.info/safely-unlocking-extra-shaders-i...
Would AMD have been in the right to force a bios downgrade in the next driver release?
Also that LTT and a related Gamers Nexus video convinced me to buy an obviously counterfeit "Nvidia GTX 970" from ebay, report the seller for the sale, I got to keep it, I got refunded, and then with the money I bought a bios writer and flashed the card back to a "Nvidia GTX 550 Ti".
Would AMD have been in the right to force a bios downgrade in the next driver release?
Also that LTT and a related Gamers Nexus video convinced me to buy an obviously counterfeit "Nvidia GTX 970" from ebay, report the seller for the sale, I got to keep it, I got refunded, and then with the money I bought a bios writer and flashed the card back to a "Nvidia GTX 550 Ti".
> Also that LTT and a related Gamers Nexus video convinced me to buy an obviously counterfeit "Nvidia GTX 970" from ebay, report the seller for the sale, I got to keep it, I got refunded, and then with the money I bought a bios writer and flashed the card back to a "Nvidia GTX 550 Ti".
So you defrauded someone and are proud of it? That they were themselves a fraudster does not make your actions right and you SHOULD return the card.
So you defrauded someone and are proud of it? That they were themselves a fraudster does not make your actions right and you SHOULD return the card.
They defrauded me! I didn't know I was buying a Nvidia GTX 550 Ti 1GB with only 1 of 3 working outputs. The bios they flashed even caused crashes because it reported the card had 2 GB of VRAM which the OS would actually try to use.
My ASUS Zephyrus received a BIOS update from ASUS that downgraded the video card memory overclocking ability and mining hash rate of the 3070.
While it doesn't apply to the Tesla case, this does bring up an interesting question: if both cards share the same PCB with differing QA standards, the card you got failed those standards but was accidentally given a TI bios anyway, and doesn't seem to crash in everyday workloads, is it ethical to still sell it on as a TI, not knowing how stable it is at extreme workloads?
This is not relevant, but this statement is all kinds of weird:
> What if it's a 3080Ti PCB but inside a RTX3080 card? Is it ethical to sell it as a 3080Ti?
The PCB (with the components on it) IS the card, what do you mean they would swap? The cooler? The plastic bit in front? Do you mean a 3080 card with a 3080TI Chip?
> What if it's a 3080Ti PCB but inside a RTX3080 card? Is it ethical to sell it as a 3080Ti?
The PCB (with the components on it) IS the card, what do you mean they would swap? The cooler? The plastic bit in front? Do you mean a 3080 card with a 3080TI Chip?
Exactly this. Warranty replacements aren’t a new concept, and I have a feeling if this were any other brand HN wouldn’t be so insistent on taking a step back and thinking about who else besides Tesla can be blamed when customers get the short end of the stick.
Yep, if it were John Deere or god-forbid, Google, HN would be up in arms.
With most brands, if I get screwed as a consumer I can generally expect other consumers to at least sympathize with my plight. With Tesla and Apple, I fully expect for other Tesla or Apple consumers to blame me for everything wrong and defend the company blindly against all common reason.
Good brands to avoid for this reason, even if they do make enviable hardware sometimes.
Good brands to avoid for this reason, even if they do make enviable hardware sometimes.
A decade or so ago you used to be able to unlock cores on certain AMD CPU's; there was no guarantee that the core would be stable though. The core could be fine without heavy load and have errors when pushed closer to 100%.
If there was a similar level of binning done for Tesla batteries they should be able to limit the battery especially if there are safety concerns; sounds like that's not the case here though.
If there was a similar level of binning done for Tesla batteries they should be able to limit the battery especially if there are safety concerns; sounds like that's not the case here though.
> A decade or so ago you used to be able to unlock cores on certain AMD CPU's; there was no guarantee that the core would be stable though. The core could be fine without heavy load and have errors when pushed closer to 100%.
That also used to happen a lot with Intel CPUs, especially late in a product cycle: after refining fab their yields would be so good there wasn't any "bad" part to bin down, so they'd just soft-disable cores on high-end parts (I think after a while manufacturers started fusing the cores).
That also used to happen a lot with Intel CPUs, especially late in a product cycle: after refining fab their yields would be so good there wasn't any "bad" part to bin down, so they'd just soft-disable cores on high-end parts (I think after a while manufacturers started fusing the cores).
That sort of thing has been going on for a long time. The 32K TRS-80 Color Computer often had 64K RAM chips installed. Early on they were populated with "half bad" 64k RAM chips, with a jumper set to which half contained the bad memory. Later in the product cycle, half bad chips really didn't exist anymore, but Radio Shack still wanted to be able to charge more for 64K models, so they still jumper disabled one of the banks of memory on models sold as 32K. Lots of people figured out they could remove the jumper to get a free upgrade of double the memory.
At least as early as the late 90s, servers were sometimes sold with parts—disks, controller cards, CPUs (in the days when multi-socket was more common), et c—disabled in software, unlockable if you paid for an upgrade.
This is true of test bench equipment today. They use this for vertical marketing. I'm fine with it since it's mostly just software anyway.
Yes you can hack it, and people do, but if you're going to use it for proper validation and certification, you're going to pay for those features anyway.
Yes you can hack it, and people do, but if you're going to use it for proper validation and certification, you're going to pay for those features anyway.
I would hope for a safety critical and potentially hazardous part like the battery they would do more than toggle a license bit in the software.
More than a decade ago. ATi 9800SE could also be modded to 9800pro which was probably the best card at the time.
A TON of hardware related things are hobbled and even retired by manufacturers in driver updates and the lack thereof now. Entire pre built computers can easily be rendered obsolete by dropping support for network cards, peripherals, video drivers, almost anything when OS updates, software upgrades, or other dependencies are issued...
Non-Technical people suffer the most from this game... The person who doesn't know how to look up and install drivers (Your Dad or Grandma) usually then needs to go out an buy a brand new computer every 2-3 years, simply because the device stops working.. A relatively easy fix to us generates billions of dollars for companies that know the system is broken, and they conveniently don't want to fix that system because it would cut their revenue.
As software permeates the car making industry, they actually wouldn't mind making all cars leased and/or disposable like computer devices, they run online campaigns on reddit against car ownership, and brigade endlessly about the environmental benefits of EVs, which still to this day use tons of toxic materials in batteries and non-bio-degradable plastics as well.
Even the madness over each new minorly adjusted variation of video card that comes out is driven by this drive to maximize company profit is quite harmful to the environment and our health, without any sense of responsibility held by the companies that drive this consumerism.
We pay a lor for these products, we need to all be better at demanding proper product support and quality, and we need to stop continually and carelessly renewing everything tech that we buy, even if we have the extra money burning a hole in our pocket... Because ultimately it's destroying us all.
Non-Technical people suffer the most from this game... The person who doesn't know how to look up and install drivers (Your Dad or Grandma) usually then needs to go out an buy a brand new computer every 2-3 years, simply because the device stops working.. A relatively easy fix to us generates billions of dollars for companies that know the system is broken, and they conveniently don't want to fix that system because it would cut their revenue.
As software permeates the car making industry, they actually wouldn't mind making all cars leased and/or disposable like computer devices, they run online campaigns on reddit against car ownership, and brigade endlessly about the environmental benefits of EVs, which still to this day use tons of toxic materials in batteries and non-bio-degradable plastics as well.
Even the madness over each new minorly adjusted variation of video card that comes out is driven by this drive to maximize company profit is quite harmful to the environment and our health, without any sense of responsibility held by the companies that drive this consumerism.
We pay a lor for these products, we need to all be better at demanding proper product support and quality, and we need to stop continually and carelessly renewing everything tech that we buy, even if we have the extra money burning a hole in our pocket... Because ultimately it's destroying us all.
> If my RTX3080 breaks, and Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement(because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080
You underestimate the potential for straight up evil in $BIGCORP, nvidia treating video cards like HP treats consumer inkjet printers in the future is something I would be totally unsurprised by.
You underestimate the potential for straight up evil in $BIGCORP, nvidia treating video cards like HP treats consumer inkjet printers in the future is something I would be totally unsurprised by.
Intel literally did this last month. Seems that some motherboard manufacturers were selling systems that allowed the Alder Lake CPUs to user AVX512, which is not a feature advertised on those CPUs. Intel released a new microcode that disables it.
Again...I don't know why people willingly buy from companies like Tesla or BMW when they treat customers so poorly.
Except that with something like a Tesla, you are not buying the car. You are buying a piece of paper that grants you specific use of a car.
This means that in the future, everyone will need to retain a lawyer conversant in contract law when making any sort of purchase, as what is being purchased may have little to do with the thing you think you have bought, and everything to do with the abstract contract that the lawyer can understand.
The World Economic Forum thinks this is a great idea. I can't wait til those guys are run out of town.
This means that in the future, everyone will need to retain a lawyer conversant in contract law when making any sort of purchase, as what is being purchased may have little to do with the thing you think you have bought, and everything to do with the abstract contract that the lawyer can understand.
The World Economic Forum thinks this is a great idea. I can't wait til those guys are run out of town.
So kind of a NFT for a car then?
The general concept of software and hardware impaired by the maker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crippleware
Relevantly,
> ==Automobiles==
> Tesla limits the range on lower-end versions of the Model S in software, as well as disabling Autopilot functions if those functions weren't purchased.
> Some high-end BMW cars in [list of countries] have the option to pay a subscription fee for features such as heated seats, advanced cruise control, and automatic beam switching. The components and functionality already exist within the vehicle, but BMW has a software block that prevent them from being used without paying.
(#2 was recently on HN)
Relevantly,
> ==Automobiles==
> Tesla limits the range on lower-end versions of the Model S in software, as well as disabling Autopilot functions if those functions weren't purchased.
> Some high-end BMW cars in [list of countries] have the option to pay a subscription fee for features such as heated seats, advanced cruise control, and automatic beam switching. The components and functionality already exist within the vehicle, but BMW has a software block that prevent them from being used without paying.
(#2 was recently on HN)
We are going to be seeing this more frequently in cars, and probably hardware overall. Having a single hardware spec that is license-limited to various levels is just cheaper for the manufacturer in how it simplifies their logistics. It also provides additional revenue options from existing customers that might want to "upgrade" at a later date.
On the plus side, if you can figure out how to sideload your car you get a free range extension on your battery.
On the plus side, if you can figure out how to sideload your car you get a free range extension on your battery.
The customers enforce this. IANAL, but afaik there's no law (in the US) that enforces this.
The only place I know of that may have a relevant law to enforce this is Norway and their Norwegian Marketing Control Act that prohibits withdrawing a key feature after sale. Accidental upgrade after a repair under warranty may or may not be included in this.
The only place I know of that may have a relevant law to enforce this is Norway and their Norwegian Marketing Control Act that prohibits withdrawing a key feature after sale. Accidental upgrade after a repair under warranty may or may not be included in this.
I agree with the parent poster that the seller carries some of the blame, here, but that sounds like a good law.
> Maybe, but again, I don't see why that should be necessary. Tesla should not have been able to do this, period.
Maybe you're right. However, much of the modern hardware business operates this way. At least Nvidia and Intel have been known to sell the same chips as different models, but just some part of the chip disabled via firmware.
Maybe you're right. However, much of the modern hardware business operates this way. At least Nvidia and Intel have been known to sell the same chips as different models, but just some part of the chip disabled via firmware.
Interesting comparision given didn't Nvidia sell people some 30xx series graphics cards and then limit their has rate with a driver update! Giving a situation were some people brought a card for X ability of the card for an update to artificially limit it?
They started selling LHR cards with a nerfed hash rate but it was clear up front that that is what you were buying.
"because....that's what it is"
I think this is the key problem here. Tesla is asserting the right to decide for the owner what the car "is". Kinda brings into question who the "owner" "is"...
I think this is the key problem here. Tesla is asserting the right to decide for the owner what the car "is". Kinda brings into question who the "owner" "is"...
If something runs software that either isn't air gapped, eg. cars, or that can recwived forced updates, e.g. OTA updates, obviously the person buying the device is not the owner. Legally for sure you are the owner, in oractical terms less so. And in case of cars, even if the embedded software is air-gaped, if you cannot choose your garage (liscensed garages may perform software uodates wothout you knowing) you kind of loose some "ownership" as well.
What if the story above is the same but they locked it down as 3080 on return?
This is my understanding as well.
> The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90"
I'm not as sure about this take. Imagine if this were something not connected to The Cloud; the seller sells the car they have, its not their responsibility, nor should it be, nor has it ever been, to know that this is a component that's Cloud Connected and Tesla can just take it away with no notice. No other car operates like that; even the new BMW shit isn't like that, its pretty clear "this is a subscription which is bound to your account, not the car".
Very few consumer physical goods operate like that. Here's a correlate: Intel bins chips. Imagine you buy a computer, you get an i5, years later its upgraded to an i7, years later Intel rolls around a software update and says "your desktop only shipped with an i5, we're disabling two of the cores". That's theoretically totally possible with Intel & partners control over microcode & chipset updates; but it would be wild to happen.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of someone selling that desktop: you sell the computer you have, it has an i7, "two years ago the chip was upgraded", that's it. Let's say the price difference between these two chips is, like, 20% of the total cost of the machine. Would you, the seller, accept 20% less; in other words, selling the laptop Intel may or may not create for the buyer, in the unknowable future? Would you, the buyer, be willing to pay 20% more, even knowing (or, more likely, not knowing) that Intel could nerf the performance at any time?
I'm not as sure about this take. Imagine if this were something not connected to The Cloud; the seller sells the car they have, its not their responsibility, nor should it be, nor has it ever been, to know that this is a component that's Cloud Connected and Tesla can just take it away with no notice. No other car operates like that; even the new BMW shit isn't like that, its pretty clear "this is a subscription which is bound to your account, not the car".
Very few consumer physical goods operate like that. Here's a correlate: Intel bins chips. Imagine you buy a computer, you get an i5, years later its upgraded to an i7, years later Intel rolls around a software update and says "your desktop only shipped with an i5, we're disabling two of the cores". That's theoretically totally possible with Intel & partners control over microcode & chipset updates; but it would be wild to happen.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of someone selling that desktop: you sell the computer you have, it has an i7, "two years ago the chip was upgraded", that's it. Let's say the price difference between these two chips is, like, 20% of the total cost of the machine. Would you, the seller, accept 20% less; in other words, selling the laptop Intel may or may not create for the buyer, in the unknowable future? Would you, the buyer, be willing to pay 20% more, even knowing (or, more likely, not knowing) that Intel could nerf the performance at any time?
Isn't it a bit akin to disclosing hidden defects for a house? If you have known about those defects, or they were properly disclosed to you when you bought the house, in many jurisdictions you're responsible to disclose them to the next buyer, are you not?
I'm not on Tesla's side here: I have an expectation of reasonability that they're not meeting, and I feel that they've forfeited their "rights" to locking this configuration down, a long time ago.
But in parallel, it seems that strictly speaking the new owner may also have some reasonable expectation that the history of the care is relayed to them upon purchase. I say "strictly" because I also understand that's not how it goes in the real world. But since were hypothesizing here...
I'm not on Tesla's side here: I have an expectation of reasonability that they're not meeting, and I feel that they've forfeited their "rights" to locking this configuration down, a long time ago.
But in parallel, it seems that strictly speaking the new owner may also have some reasonable expectation that the history of the care is relayed to them upon purchase. I say "strictly" because I also understand that's not how it goes in the real world. But since were hypothesizing here...
Well, I think the issue is, no reasonable person would consider "Tesla upgraded something under warranty" as a defect.
Here's another example: many car brands sell larger tires as a feature of upper trim models. Hypothetically, I take my car to the dealer to get new 17" wheels, but they're out; so they do the insane thing of saying "but we've got 19" wheels here, we'll throw those on free of charge". Four years later the next owner gets a knock on their door: "we got a crew out in the driveway swapping your wheels, you didn't pay for those".
This sounds insane, but I think it only sounds insane because we're talking about software vs hardware. Since its invention, humanity has had a weird stance with software; we tolerate a lot more shit, and that toleration has allowed companies to basically get away with highway robbery. Whether that's Amazon selling eBooks then revoking them years later, game companies releasing unfinished games then promising patches months later, or Tesla issuing OTA updates, it all factors down to a really similar issue in that: software has enabled companies project greed in previously impossible ways.
Maybe the previous owner misrepresented the car; or maybe they didn't, because what reasonable person would have guessed that Tesla would do this? The statement "you didn't pay for those wheels" isn't even accurate; the new buyer probably did pay for them; maybe not in this case, but hypothetically: if it looks like a P90 and quacks like a P90, its a P90, and that's the resale value. If it looks like its got 19" wheels, and it quacks like its got 19" wheels, its priced like its got 19" wheels. The buyer just didn't pay the right person.
Here's another example: many car brands sell larger tires as a feature of upper trim models. Hypothetically, I take my car to the dealer to get new 17" wheels, but they're out; so they do the insane thing of saying "but we've got 19" wheels here, we'll throw those on free of charge". Four years later the next owner gets a knock on their door: "we got a crew out in the driveway swapping your wheels, you didn't pay for those".
This sounds insane, but I think it only sounds insane because we're talking about software vs hardware. Since its invention, humanity has had a weird stance with software; we tolerate a lot more shit, and that toleration has allowed companies to basically get away with highway robbery. Whether that's Amazon selling eBooks then revoking them years later, game companies releasing unfinished games then promising patches months later, or Tesla issuing OTA updates, it all factors down to a really similar issue in that: software has enabled companies project greed in previously impossible ways.
Maybe the previous owner misrepresented the car; or maybe they didn't, because what reasonable person would have guessed that Tesla would do this? The statement "you didn't pay for those wheels" isn't even accurate; the new buyer probably did pay for them; maybe not in this case, but hypothetically: if it looks like a P90 and quacks like a P90, its a P90, and that's the resale value. If it looks like its got 19" wheels, and it quacks like its got 19" wheels, its priced like its got 19" wheels. The buyer just didn't pay the right person.
The thing is this isn't a defect. Say my brand new house came with a 40 gallon water tank and it failed (didn't flood, just stopped heating). The home warranty company provided a 45 gallon replacement. Nobody would expect that to be disclosed years down the line.
I think the difference is more in how you (or in this case the previous owner) sells it.
To stay with the water heater analogy - what if when the water heater needs to be replaced under warranty and the company says oh hey we have 40s in stock again so we're sending you what you should have had?
To stay with the water heater analogy - what if when the water heater needs to be replaced under warranty and the company says oh hey we have 40s in stock again so we're sending you what you should have had?
Whether or not they get the smaller units in stock, I don't have to let them into my house to install it, nor will a new owner of the home be expected to pay the difference between the 40 and 45. It's a permanent fixture. As is a battery in an electric car.
The previous owner could have signed a rental agreement for the interim tank. If so, it wasn’t legally sold to the new house owner.
(And with that comment I get voted down. Odd.)
(And with that comment I get voted down. Odd.)
>Isn't it a bit akin to disclosing hidden defects for a house? If you have known about those defects, or they were properly disclosed to you when you bought the house, in many jurisdictions you're responsible to disclose them to the next buyer, are you not?
"If" is the operative word there. The first tweet says that this is the "~3rd owner of a 2013 Model S 60. At some point years ago the battery pack was swapped under warranty with a 90 pack." If the change occurred with the first owner, it's possible that the second owner didn't realize the magnitude of what they were told, or weren't even told at all, before they sold it to the next person.
It's also entirely possible that whoever had the battery replaced just had absolutely no idea what had been done to it.
"If" is the operative word there. The first tweet says that this is the "~3rd owner of a 2013 Model S 60. At some point years ago the battery pack was swapped under warranty with a 90 pack." If the change occurred with the first owner, it's possible that the second owner didn't realize the magnitude of what they were told, or weren't even told at all, before they sold it to the next person.
It's also entirely possible that whoever had the battery replaced just had absolutely no idea what had been done to it.
Yep! If the buyer really wanted to go for someone, and assuming Tesla didn't cave re-enable the upgrade, their best bet is to go after the previous seller for misrepresentation of a 60 model for a 90. This also happens for cars sold as-is but where the dealer knows of defects and does not disclose. To quote someone else, "as-is does not cover fraud".
All in all, it probably wouldn't be worth the time and effort to actually do that though. And because the current buyer is two steps removed from the actual person who was around for the swap, they probably wouldn't actually get anything back for that effort since the middle person is also protected as they bought and sold in good faith.
All in all, it probably wouldn't be worth the time and effort to actually do that though. And because the current buyer is two steps removed from the actual person who was around for the swap, they probably wouldn't actually get anything back for that effort since the middle person is also protected as they bought and sold in good faith.
Not quite, a software limited 90kWh battery is worse than a 60kWh battery pack due to weight. So, Tesla can’t fulfill their warranty obligations with a software locked higher capacity battery.
A full capacity battery on the other hand could reasonably qualify as an as good or better replacement which is fine. Therefore whoever did this change at Tesla is exposing them to liability.
Technically if car identified as having a 90kWh battery then Tesla also befitted from that deception by being able to claim higher resale value. Thus making this arguably fraud on their part, though that’s unlikely to stick.
A full capacity battery on the other hand could reasonably qualify as an as good or better replacement which is fine. Therefore whoever did this change at Tesla is exposing them to liability.
Technically if car identified as having a 90kWh battery then Tesla also befitted from that deception by being able to claim higher resale value. Thus making this arguably fraud on their part, though that’s unlikely to stick.
It’s worse because you carry more weight, but it’s also better because you can charge to 100% without risking much degradation. And you also have less/no degradation.
Not sure if that balances out.
Not sure if that balances out.
90kWh pack is not strictly better, so they should have asked for customers blessing to install a heavier, software-locked battery. Which they perhaps did, who knows.
One would hope that Tesla’s software lock gives users the middle 60 kWh of battery capacity by locking off both extremes. If so, you’d be correct and this would be a lot better than a “real” 60 kWh battery. Especially if the software limiter continues to guarantee 60 kWh as the battery ages/degrades.
Otoh a software limited battery will last longer.
The problem I have is Tesla even having the ability to do something like that. The idea of car manufacturers having remote access to my car to enable and disable features is a very scary proposition.
It’s adds another point of failure to something your life can sometimes depend on, imagine if you’re in a cyber truck on a backroad trail and Tesla finds out the last owner didn’t pay for 4WD, you could easily get stranded.
And I feel like with all this connectivity to the manufacturer, we will start to see “acceptable use cases” for your cars. For the vast majority of people they won’t notice but a gearhead will get in and head to the track to find out he can’t drive there because he doesn’t have the “track package subscription” or an off-roader realizing he can’t take his jeep off road because if didn’t come with an “off pavement subscription”. Your truck won’t be able to move when hooked up to a trailer because it doesn’t have a “tow package”. Eventually you’re going to be doing something and want to do something with your car and realize you can’t, not because it’s incapable, but because it was told not to by someone else.
I promise you there will be scams abound with hackers selling base model cars as fully loaded ones then reverting everything after the fact. A few are going to die in off-roading situations where the car just refused to move or had critical features disabled through software, and we’re going to relish the days where the only subscription was to your heated seats. And all these subscriptions are going to make Adobe look like a saint with their subscriptions.
It’s adds another point of failure to something your life can sometimes depend on, imagine if you’re in a cyber truck on a backroad trail and Tesla finds out the last owner didn’t pay for 4WD, you could easily get stranded.
And I feel like with all this connectivity to the manufacturer, we will start to see “acceptable use cases” for your cars. For the vast majority of people they won’t notice but a gearhead will get in and head to the track to find out he can’t drive there because he doesn’t have the “track package subscription” or an off-roader realizing he can’t take his jeep off road because if didn’t come with an “off pavement subscription”. Your truck won’t be able to move when hooked up to a trailer because it doesn’t have a “tow package”. Eventually you’re going to be doing something and want to do something with your car and realize you can’t, not because it’s incapable, but because it was told not to by someone else.
I promise you there will be scams abound with hackers selling base model cars as fully loaded ones then reverting everything after the fact. A few are going to die in off-roading situations where the car just refused to move or had critical features disabled through software, and we’re going to relish the days where the only subscription was to your heated seats. And all these subscriptions are going to make Adobe look like a saint with their subscriptions.
> The idea of car manufacturers having remote access to my car to enable and disable features is a very scary proposition.
"BMW starts selling heated seat subscriptions for $18 a month" "The auto industry is racing towards a future full of microtransactions"
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscription...
"BMW starts selling heated seat subscriptions for $18 a month" "The auto industry is racing towards a future full of microtransactions"
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscription...
> "Hey sorry about your battery. We only had a 90 so we threw that in there. Enjoy. Tell everyone you know about how awesome Tesla was about fixing the problem and remember that next time you go to buy your next car"
That would be such a great solution
That would be such a great solution
Any rational marketer or PR officer would gladly give up that $4,500 to avoid this HN post.
They didn't even trade the bad PR for $4,500, they traded it for a chance at $4,500 since they don't know if the customer will pay it. This decision-making boggles my mind.
Either there are a ton of Tesla fanatics out there who will put up with a lot of dubious behavior, or Tesla is severely limiting its upside with all of their anti-customer service antics.
Either there are a ton of Tesla fanatics out there who will put up with a lot of dubious behavior, or Tesla is severely limiting its upside with all of their anti-customer service antics.
> Either there are a ton of Tesla fanatics out there who will put up with a lot of dubious behavior, or Tesla is severely limiting its upside with all of their anti-customer service antics.
I think it's both. There are a ton of Tesla fanatics who think Tesla can do no wrong. Some of them are commenting on this article here, others in the Twitter thread.
But there are also people like myself, who will probably never buy a Tesla due to current and past behavior like this. And there are probably at least a few people reading this who were on the fence, but for whom this battery kerfuffle pushed them over the edge.
I think it's both. There are a ton of Tesla fanatics who think Tesla can do no wrong. Some of them are commenting on this article here, others in the Twitter thread.
But there are also people like myself, who will probably never buy a Tesla due to current and past behavior like this. And there are probably at least a few people reading this who were on the fence, but for whom this battery kerfuffle pushed them over the edge.
Tesla doesn’t believe in having such folks (they famously eliminated their PR department).
And it was already a sunk cost for Tesla long before this became a story. Trying to recoup a few $thousand with such anti-consumer sentiment is bizarre.
Well, that's the downside of getting rid of said PR department...
Tesla saved $4,500 by firing their PR people, they’re one step ahead.
In other words, the Apple Solution, most of the time. Many things they do I don't agree with, but customer service is one of their stronger points. Friend of mine had a laptop go in for repair, they couldn't repair it, sent him a brand new current equivalent of his nearly three year old laptop. Now that's customer service. For the remainder of his life he's going to sing happy Apple praises to anyone who asks.
[deleted]
They actually did this with my tires on my Model X. I ordered mine with the standard tires, then they called me to say they had my exact order that someone cancelled, except it had the upgraded tire package. They originally said they were going to remove them when I picked it up, but they ended up just leaving them on and saying it was a free upgrade.
Reminds me of Office Space "We fixed the glitch".
> We, uh, we fixed the glitch. So he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it'll just work itself out naturally. We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem is solved from your end.
> We, uh, we fixed the glitch. So he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it'll just work itself out naturally. We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem is solved from your end.
The Bobs appreciate you noticing the reference ;)
I honestly want to see this taken to court, it would be an interesting case.
I mean I'm not convinced at all what Tesla did is even lawful. To me, it seems like Tesla and the owner came to a mutual agreement repairing warranty service years earlier, and Tesla's only real arguments is that that either the customer agreed to the downgrade happening eventually (probably not true) or that they didn't understand they were giving the customer all this capacity (maybe?), but I don't think that in turn gives them the right to sabotage a car arbitrarily without notice to remediate this. I think they have an obligation to restore the status quo before the sabotage.
I mean I'm not convinced at all what Tesla did is even lawful. To me, it seems like Tesla and the owner came to a mutual agreement repairing warranty service years earlier, and Tesla's only real arguments is that that either the customer agreed to the downgrade happening eventually (probably not true) or that they didn't understand they were giving the customer all this capacity (maybe?), but I don't think that in turn gives them the right to sabotage a car arbitrarily without notice to remediate this. I think they have an obligation to restore the status quo before the sabotage.
I wonder who the parties would be. Perhaps the current owner's claim should be against the person who sold it to them as a 90, and that person against their seller, and that original owner against Tesla?
The odd part is the OP said it was "badged as a 90" which to me implies Tesla also removed the physical badges on the car and replaced them to indicate it was a P90. That, to me, really implies they wanted to make this a P90 car.
Or one of the previous owners did it. I have known people who have modified the badges on their car.
There's no way Tesla themselves changed the badge to a 90, especially since the 90 appears to be some kind of mistake, given that they fixed the mistake years later.
It was probably one of the previous owners, and them changing the badge without disclosing that it's actually a 60 seems to put the bad-faith blame on them.
Having said that, if I was going to drop $40k on a used car, I would certainly have inspected everything... the carfax, title, stickers on the car, maintenance history, with Tesla themselves, etc. Surely one of those would've hinted to the current owner that it's actually a 60!?
It was probably one of the previous owners, and them changing the badge without disclosing that it's actually a 60 seems to put the bad-faith blame on them.
Having said that, if I was going to drop $40k on a used car, I would certainly have inspected everything... the carfax, title, stickers on the car, maintenance history, with Tesla themselves, etc. Surely one of those would've hinted to the current owner that it's actually a 60!?
> There's no way Tesla themselves changed the badge to a 90, especially since the 90 appears to be some kind of mistake, given that they fixed the mistake years later.
There is plenty of "way". Maybe they did mean to give it as a free upgrade bug did not properly document that. Maybe the person updating the badge did not realize that it was not supposed to be unlocked. Why are you jumping to conclusions like this just to give some corporation the benefit of the doubt especially when it in no way excuses them remotely downgrading the vehicle WITH NO WARNING.
There is plenty of "way". Maybe they did mean to give it as a free upgrade bug did not properly document that. Maybe the person updating the badge did not realize that it was not supposed to be unlocked. Why are you jumping to conclusions like this just to give some corporation the benefit of the doubt especially when it in no way excuses them remotely downgrading the vehicle WITH NO WARNING.
Maybe the tweeter misrepresented the situation for ragebait. Maybe this is a software bug. Maybe, maybe, maybe. If we’re going to dismiss every aspect of the situation to the point of meaninglessness or speculation, why bother? I’m not saying that the takebacksies by Tesla is right, but I’ve also never heard of a manufacturer changing the badges on a car, especially a used one, and in a situation where the tweeter clearly says Tesla made a mistake that they corrected years later - nothing "nefarious". Whereas it is not unheard of for owners to change badges on a car.
I believe they are referring to the battery and not the car.
[deleted]
> The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90".
Why not? Tesla not only replaced the battery, but REBADGED the car for him.
Putting this on the customer is asinine.
Why not? Tesla not only replaced the battery, but REBADGED the car for him.
Putting this on the customer is asinine.
The rebadging is what I find most confusing.
I tried getting a Tesla logo/badge replaced since mine had broken, and Tesla made it clear that getting one was going to be a much greater pain in the ass than just finding one made by a third party.
They claimed it was a supply chain thing, but it clearly had a lot less to do with that and a lot more to do with their techs not giving a damn.
I tried getting a Tesla logo/badge replaced since mine had broken, and Tesla made it clear that getting one was going to be a much greater pain in the ass than just finding one made by a third party.
They claimed it was a supply chain thing, but it clearly had a lot less to do with that and a lot more to do with their techs not giving a damn.
Doesn't really help the situation, but it's not clear who rebadged the car. It could have been the first owner, or the second owner, or Tesla.
Welcome to DRM hell.
Basically you're always going to want flexibility in hardware, but infinite limits in usage.
Tesla is in the wrong here. If your hardware allows greater range because it allows flexibility in warranty repairs, they need to eat it.
Basically you're always going to want flexibility in hardware, but infinite limits in usage.
Tesla is in the wrong here. If your hardware allows greater range because it allows flexibility in warranty repairs, they need to eat it.
I think, the decisive point is really in the warranty regulations, like "equal or better". You chose one (which may have been the most convenient to you at that time) and went with it. Anyways, this is how you chose to fulfil the contract. Are you really going to "fix" this years later by a withdrawal? Who has ownership of the car?
Don't forget the fact that he has to pay for the electricity cost of hauling around what is probably a hundred pounds of battery he can't use.
I agree it's a rat's nest of bad decisons.
But ultimately, all it reinforces to me is that there is no chance in hell I will ever give money to a company that can remotely perform this type of sanction on a product I own.
I will never buy a Tesla.
But ultimately, all it reinforces to me is that there is no chance in hell I will ever give money to a company that can remotely perform this type of sanction on a product I own.
I will never buy a Tesla.
> Sounds like all around bad decisions. The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90".
To be fair, for people not intimately familiar with the craziness of modern tech business, it's reasonable to assume that whatever capabilities the car has at the moment of purchase, are going to be there indefinitely. On the face of it, cutting car battery remotely via software patch sounds about as reasonable as remotely removing a room from a house you purchased.
To be fair, for people not intimately familiar with the craziness of modern tech business, it's reasonable to assume that whatever capabilities the car has at the moment of purchase, are going to be there indefinitely. On the face of it, cutting car battery remotely via software patch sounds about as reasonable as remotely removing a room from a house you purchased.
Imagine you purchased a home and it wasn’t disclosed that the shed out the back was actually on your neighbor’s land.
Even that doesn't let the neighbour just bulldoze the shed when you are using it without involving the legal system.
What the fuck, if I RMA something and they replace a component in it with a better one, and I happen to be informed of which one they replaced, I need to resell it as if it doesn't have the better component, because I just assume the worst case possible which I would have only imagined if I read this thread? (I don't think it was resold "as a 90", unless that was the sole differentiator, yeah I'm not an expert in meme cars)
inb4: Yes, I'm an expert at cucking myself to vaguely justifiable corporate laws and behavior.
inb4: Yes, I'm an expert at cucking myself to vaguely justifiable corporate laws and behavior.
> The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90".
I mean, it's actually is a 90, and it was configured as a 90 when sold, and we have no idea why that happened, nor what the original owner knew or (crucially) was told by Tesla.
> Why not get some good will out of it? "Hey sorry about your battery. We only had a 90 so we threw that in there. Enjoy. Tell everyone you know about how awesome Tesla was about fixing the problem and remember that next time you go to buy your next car"
We have zero reason to think that's not a literal transcript of what the original owner was told when their car was repaired under warranty.
Even if it wasn't, if you take a product in for a repair under warranty, you expect it to be returned in same or better configuration (that's actually a legal requirement), so if you drop off a broken Widget 500X, and then you pick it up and it's now a newer Widget 600X, the absolutely inevitable conclusion is "oh, I bet they were out of stock of the 500Xs, so they gave me a 600X, score", and then you think nothing of it, and years later you sell the 600X on Ebay when you upgrade to the latest Widget 800Z. That's just how it works, and I suspect most people here will have experienced that exact sequence of events.
(There's also a non-zero chance, given Tesla's general level of customer service, that it was locked to be a 60, a previous owner already paid to unlock it to a 90, and then they lost the records.)
The only way I can see we can blame the original owner is if they were told during the warranty process "hey, we're installing a 90, but we'll be locking it to a 60", then Tesla accidentally failed to do it. Which sure, could happen, but it really seems like the least likely result.
I certainly agree that Tesla today is handling this in the worst way possible.
I mean, it's actually is a 90, and it was configured as a 90 when sold, and we have no idea why that happened, nor what the original owner knew or (crucially) was told by Tesla.
> Why not get some good will out of it? "Hey sorry about your battery. We only had a 90 so we threw that in there. Enjoy. Tell everyone you know about how awesome Tesla was about fixing the problem and remember that next time you go to buy your next car"
We have zero reason to think that's not a literal transcript of what the original owner was told when their car was repaired under warranty.
Even if it wasn't, if you take a product in for a repair under warranty, you expect it to be returned in same or better configuration (that's actually a legal requirement), so if you drop off a broken Widget 500X, and then you pick it up and it's now a newer Widget 600X, the absolutely inevitable conclusion is "oh, I bet they were out of stock of the 500Xs, so they gave me a 600X, score", and then you think nothing of it, and years later you sell the 600X on Ebay when you upgrade to the latest Widget 800Z. That's just how it works, and I suspect most people here will have experienced that exact sequence of events.
(There's also a non-zero chance, given Tesla's general level of customer service, that it was locked to be a 60, a previous owner already paid to unlock it to a 90, and then they lost the records.)
The only way I can see we can blame the original owner is if they were told during the warranty process "hey, we're installing a 90, but we'll be locking it to a 60", then Tesla accidentally failed to do it. Which sure, could happen, but it really seems like the least likely result.
I certainly agree that Tesla today is handling this in the worst way possible.
>> Sounds like all around bad decisions.
Disagree.
>> The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90".
Yes, they should have said that and did. You agree with this decision when you say 'Why not get some good will out of it? "Hey sorry about your battery. We only had a 90 so we threw that in there. Enjoy.'
Tesla, being notified, should have just enabled the 90 and made the customer happy.
Tbey did. Not a bad decision.
The only "bad" decision was to revert it from a 60 to a 90 and stick to that. Hardly "all around bad decisions" but a very bad one at the end.
Disagree.
>> The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90".
Yes, they should have said that and did. You agree with this decision when you say 'Why not get some good will out of it? "Hey sorry about your battery. We only had a 90 so we threw that in there. Enjoy.'
Tesla, being notified, should have just enabled the 90 and made the customer happy.
Tbey did. Not a bad decision.
The only "bad" decision was to revert it from a 60 to a 90 and stick to that. Hardly "all around bad decisions" but a very bad one at the end.
> The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90".
This is a couple new owners downstream, though. The most recent owner to sell the car might not have known about this, or may not have remembered it or understood the implications of it.
And, regardless, while I think many of us here are very familiar with the idea of more-capable hardware being software-locked to be less capable, with monetary upgrade options, I think it's reasonable to assume that the average consumer would be very surprised that it would be even possible that they could drive a car into a service station for a completely unrelated issue, and then drive it out with a software-enforced "smaller" battery.
This is a couple new owners downstream, though. The most recent owner to sell the car might not have known about this, or may not have remembered it or understood the implications of it.
And, regardless, while I think many of us here are very familiar with the idea of more-capable hardware being software-locked to be less capable, with monetary upgrade options, I think it's reasonable to assume that the average consumer would be very surprised that it would be even possible that they could drive a car into a service station for a completely unrelated issue, and then drive it out with a software-enforced "smaller" battery.
And on top of that you will always have extra stuff to worry about when buy a Tesla, on top of all the risks of buying a used car you have the extra risks that Tesla will push an update and cripple your stuff , so in the end you don't own a functional car , you own some useless material stuff and a license to use it, Tesla pushes an software update and you are screwed. No wonder people prefer to buy very old cars that are simpler to own and fix.
This one of those really easy, Bank error in your favour, sorts of problems where all Telsa had to do is just leave the 90 alone and essentially tighten up it's internal processes.
I have a hard time with tech that has software kill switches. Like all those farm tractors out there, it just invites a culture of hacking and stealing and probably doing unsafe and risking things.
This is a space where we totally need to see proper regulation.
> Presumably this cost them a fortune to do it in the first place. Why not get some good will out of it? "Hey sorry about your battery. We only had a 90 so we threw that in there.
As I understand it, all batteries are the same size. They are just software locked. So no additional costs.
It's the same as how Tesla remote unlocked the battery life of people fleeing natural disasters. Which means not only is it there, it's charged.
As I understand it, all batteries are the same size. They are just software locked. So no additional costs.
It's the same as how Tesla remote unlocked the battery life of people fleeing natural disasters. Which means not only is it there, it's charged.
The batteries weigh different amounts so it isn’t just software locking at the factory. https://themotordigest.com/how-much-do-tesla-batteries-weigh...
It’s more likely they didn’t have a 60kWh battery at the time pack to do the replacement. Which brings up an interesting point, a 90kWh battery software locked to 60kWh is a defective part as the added weight takes more energy to move around, has worse acceleration, more tire and break ware etc.
It’s therefore likely Tesla failed to provide an equivalent replacement part and thus broke their warranty contract.
It’s more likely they didn’t have a 60kWh battery at the time pack to do the replacement. Which brings up an interesting point, a 90kWh battery software locked to 60kWh is a defective part as the added weight takes more energy to move around, has worse acceleration, more tire and break ware etc.
It’s therefore likely Tesla failed to provide an equivalent replacement part and thus broke their warranty contract.
That might be a new change that happened in the past few years ago. But it certainly was the way Tesla made cars in 2019:
https://insideevs.com/news/342746/more-on-the-return-of-tesl...
https://insideevs.com/news/342746/more-on-the-return-of-tesl...
It should not be legal for any car company to remotely stymie the mobility of a vehicle without the consent of the owner. I'm not saying Tesla shouldn't be allowed to gate range via software, but they should not be allowed to remotely hamstring a vehicle in such a manner, potentially stranding or endangering someone.
The worst thing about this is the idea that Tesla has the power to change whatever configuration they want on your car, rendering it totally unusable. Whether 90 or 60 was desired, such changes shouldn't have been able to be done remotely and without consent.
Yep, as soon as the car leaves the shop configured as 90, if Tesla discovers the error they should just laugh it off and move on. The most they should do is inform the customer of their error and be like "Bank error in your favor, keep your 90."
Just the fact that they can do this makes me not want to own a tesla.
I find it less concerning that they can do it, and more concerning that they do do it. If a company treats their customers like crap, they have more avenues to do so than OTAs.
Not only will Tesla do something like this, but it seems half their customers will defend Tesla for doing it. So there isn't even consumer pressure for reform. Tesla is going to keep doing shit like this because their fanboys will continue to defend it.
Well, I get your point. But, still, what I'm reading is that when you buy a tesla you down really own it. Just like a game on Steam, or a ebook on Kindle.
You nailed it by discussing goodwill.
Where has our goodwill gone? It isn't just Tesla, but they are a quite brutal offender.
Where has our goodwill gone? It isn't just Tesla, but they are a quite brutal offender.
>It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range.
Tweet author said it's badged 90
Tweet author said it's badged 90
Not sure how that matters if Tesla installed a 60 badge at the factory and a customer replaced it with an aftermarket 90 badge.
I’m not saying Tesla are in the right overall, but the question of the badge appears to be one of misrepresentation by a previous owner.
I’m not saying Tesla are in the right overall, but the question of the badge appears to be one of misrepresentation by a previous owner.
I'll spare the moral judgements against Tesla for this:
The real moral of the story here is that if your business plan and practices is creating occasional weird issues and huge cognitive dissonance in your customers, it's the wrong business plan. Also... the number of people this applies to is likely so low that Tesla really screwed up by not erring on the side of the customer. (They didn't buy from Tesla, but they're still a customer buying servicing from them.) If the bad publicity alone causes even a tiny fraction of the population to choose another manufacturer, the've lost their $4,500 and then some.
Harmony is a really underrated concept. When things are harmonious, you don't have problems like this, and you can still make money.
The real moral of the story here is that if your business plan and practices is creating occasional weird issues and huge cognitive dissonance in your customers, it's the wrong business plan. Also... the number of people this applies to is likely so low that Tesla really screwed up by not erring on the side of the customer. (They didn't buy from Tesla, but they're still a customer buying servicing from them.) If the bad publicity alone causes even a tiny fraction of the population to choose another manufacturer, the've lost their $4,500 and then some.
Harmony is a really underrated concept. When things are harmonious, you don't have problems like this, and you can still make money.
As one who bought TSLA when it was in the low double digits, I thought for sure that we'd one day own a Tesla (we sure made enough off TSLA to justify one). But this situation is but one of many little duck bites that have now put us off the brand. Sure, a duck doesn't bite all that hard, but enough of those little nibbles can cause some harm. And so "pedo guy", "taking TSLA private", "no, FSD does not transfer to the next owner" (EDIT: bad example, apparently it does), "FSD for realsies this year", yada, yada, yada, and eventually it adds up to "I'm not validating that bullshit with a $75K purchase."
At the end of the day, given that Hyundai/Kia, VW, Ford, et. al, are all sold out of EVs for the year, we decided we'd just rather do without a new car than buy a Tesla. Hang in there, l'il 2011 Leaf; you've served us well so far.
At the end of the day, given that Hyundai/Kia, VW, Ford, et. al, are all sold out of EVs for the year, we decided we'd just rather do without a new car than buy a Tesla. Hang in there, l'il 2011 Leaf; you've served us well so far.
Tesla is such an odd company. They apparently have a great product, hardware and software. But the rest of the company is just an absolute shitshow
Like, a friend recently received delivery of a Tesla. They went to the dealer 4 times before they got the car. Each time it was "Your car is available, come pick it up" and then when they got there the car wasn't actually there. By the last time they demanded that the person at the dealership actually walked out to the car and physically touched it, verified it was actually the correct vehicle, before they would go out again
It's not hard to find those kinds of stories. It is not a luxury experience.
Like, a friend recently received delivery of a Tesla. They went to the dealer 4 times before they got the car. Each time it was "Your car is available, come pick it up" and then when they got there the car wasn't actually there. By the last time they demanded that the person at the dealership actually walked out to the car and physically touched it, verified it was actually the correct vehicle, before they would go out again
It's not hard to find those kinds of stories. It is not a luxury experience.
martindbp(3)
FSD does transfer to next owner with any private sale.
If you sell it to Tesla, they often remove FSD and resell without it; but that's no different than anyone else modifying a vehicle they own and then selling it in its new state.
If you sell it to Tesla, they often remove FSD and resell without it; but that's no different than anyone else modifying a vehicle they own and then selling it in its new state.
There are documented cases of Tesla selling a pre-owned vehicle that was purchased with an optional feature, listing that optional feature in the sale ad, and then disabling the feature after the person they sold the car to has taken possession.
Yep, here's the article about it.
https://electrek.co/2020/02/07/tesla-takes-away-autopilot-us...
https://electrek.co/2020/02/07/tesla-takes-away-autopilot-us...
That sucks. Got a link by chance?
That's definitely not a standard practice, but I can see how that would happen by mistake (e.g. forget to remove FSD from the spec sheet) and then be difficult to get fixed. It's near-impossible to reach the right human at Tesla, so when things fall through the cracks, it's a nightmare. I suspect that's the issue OP is quoting, too -- there's likely a reasonable person at Tesla who can and would help if they knew about this story.
That's definitely not a standard practice, but I can see how that would happen by mistake (e.g. forget to remove FSD from the spec sheet) and then be difficult to get fixed. It's near-impossible to reach the right human at Tesla, so when things fall through the cracks, it's a nightmare. I suspect that's the issue OP is quoting, too -- there's likely a reasonable person at Tesla who can and would help if they knew about this story.
Link to one story is here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32244975
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32244975
My mistake, thanks for the correction; edited (leaving my error for prosperity, and so the replies make sense). I added another bullet point to make up for it. :-)
> no, FSD does not transfer to the next owner
It does transfer to a new owner in private sales.
I think you are referring to the point that you can buy it for one Tesla, and it doesn’t transfer if you upgrade to a new Tesla.
I have a model y, and I will say that all of the “little duck bites” are vastly overrated for my use case. I can imagine someone for whom these duck bites may be an issue, but I am not one of them, and none of my friends who own teslas are either.
I imagine that you will enjoy your new Tesla immensely, and you will wonder what all of the negativity was/is about. Imho, it’s just contrarian yipping against something trendy.
It does transfer to a new owner in private sales.
I think you are referring to the point that you can buy it for one Tesla, and it doesn’t transfer if you upgrade to a new Tesla.
I have a model y, and I will say that all of the “little duck bites” are vastly overrated for my use case. I can imagine someone for whom these duck bites may be an issue, but I am not one of them, and none of my friends who own teslas are either.
I imagine that you will enjoy your new Tesla immensely, and you will wonder what all of the negativity was/is about. Imho, it’s just contrarian yipping against something trendy.
> I imagine that you will enjoy your new Tesla immensely
And it better be a new Tesla, otherwise who knows what will happen with the features that were sold as is second hand. Tesla might just turn them off.
And it better be a new Tesla, otherwise who knows what will happen with the features that were sold as is second hand. Tesla might just turn them off.
There are some places starting to provide upgraded battery packs for old Nissan Leafs. I hope that gets more widespread.
I'm on my second Leaf. Was eyeing an EV 6 but that's an unnecessary expense.
I'm on my second Leaf. Was eyeing an EV 6 but that's an unnecessary expense.
My family is in the exact same boat. It's a very strange decision by Tesla.
Also, not buying a new car (EV or not) is the most environmentally friendly choice you can make.
That doesn't sound true.
Every car I've had was used, I DO like that the ecological "cost" of the car is paid by the previous owner.
However if you buy a new car and drive it for its entire life (15 years) that seems similar to buying a used car. Especially if by doing so you put your old ICE car off the road.
Better of course if you can live with less cars and use public transport instead.
Every car I've had was used, I DO like that the ecological "cost" of the car is paid by the previous owner.
However if you buy a new car and drive it for its entire life (15 years) that seems similar to buying a used car. Especially if by doing so you put your old ICE car off the road.
Better of course if you can live with less cars and use public transport instead.
A year ago, I would have chosen a new Tesla, hands down (disclosure: I am probably not gonna actually buy an EV for as many years as I can eke out of my trusty Subie).
Nowadays, I have chatted with numerous folks that have purchased alternative EVs.
The Tesla owners still seem the giddiest (There's a lot of 'em around here), but I have not heard one ounce of buyer's remorse from any of the other brands.
The one that brought the Rivian, is every bit as giddy as any Tesla owner I know.
I think that Tesla has managed to establish itself, and will last, but the free ride is over.
Nowadays, I have chatted with numerous folks that have purchased alternative EVs.
The Tesla owners still seem the giddiest (There's a lot of 'em around here), but I have not heard one ounce of buyer's remorse from any of the other brands.
The one that brought the Rivian, is every bit as giddy as any Tesla owner I know.
I think that Tesla has managed to establish itself, and will last, but the free ride is over.
I bought an EV earlier this year. I ended up with a LR Model 3 because the dealership model really sucks still. I called Hyundai and VW dealerships in the tri-state area around me, and none of them could say when I'd be able to actually get a car. Instead I went to Tesla's website, placed an order, and got an ETA. Super simple; loved that experience.
If it weren't for the crappy dealership model I probably would have bought the Hyundai Ioniq instead.
If it weren't for the crappy dealership model I probably would have bought the Hyundai Ioniq instead.
It's not just the ETAs that are pushing me away, but just the entire dealership process generally is annoying. I wanted to order a vehicle from GM and I have tried close at least 10 dealerships at this point in the PNW. No one is straight up on the process of either getting an order in or what pricing will look like or when they might get an allocation. Some just say "sure, you're on the list" but who knows what that even means. One dealership (Bellingham, WA) wanted 25K deposit to even take an order.
I basically gave up on that vehicle not because I can't wait or am not willing to play the price, but the BS process of going through one of these dealerships is too infuriating. Rivian I put my order in and at least I have an order date and understand that I'm in the queue and should be sometime MY24. If Cadillac came out with the exact same process as Rivian and it said I could get my vehicle ordered and enqueued for 12month deliver I would do it.
I basically gave up on that vehicle not because I can't wait or am not willing to play the price, but the BS process of going through one of these dealerships is too infuriating. Rivian I put my order in and at least I have an order date and understand that I'm in the queue and should be sometime MY24. If Cadillac came out with the exact same process as Rivian and it said I could get my vehicle ordered and enqueued for 12month deliver I would do it.
I think some companies just distribute cars between dealerships and let them sort it out, others allow people to actually order a car they like. I tried with Toyota, and they weren't able to get me the car I wanted or even tell me where one could be around, for months - and looks like different dealership don't talk to each other so unless I make deposit with every dealership around, I won't be able to get what I want. Subaru, OTOH, allowed me to place order for exactly the vehicle I liked and get ETA (though not a definite date, just approximate) - even though lead times are still pretty long.
I think this is why Ford has said it’s going to do electric vehicles direct. I can’t remember if they’ll use a different brand or not.
In Utah, where I am, it’s going to be a bit of a hill. I hear we have some laws to protect the local dealerships. Tesla dealers are just showrooms here and I don’t think they sell anything on-site. Could be wrong about all this.
In Utah, where I am, it’s going to be a bit of a hill. I hear we have some laws to protect the local dealerships. Tesla dealers are just showrooms here and I don’t think they sell anything on-site. Could be wrong about all this.
I believe it should be the same brand, but they've split the business into Ford Blue (ICE vehicles) and Ford Model e (electric vehicles) in March of this year: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022...
The Ford CEO has mentioned earlier this year that they're less than pleased at the various markups applied by dealerships, and would want to do set price, online sales (eg. https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/02/ford-wants-to-sell-evs-onl...).
The Ford CEO has mentioned earlier this year that they're less than pleased at the various markups applied by dealerships, and would want to do set price, online sales (eg. https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/02/ford-wants-to-sell-evs-onl...).
I don't think Ford's doing them direct. They did tell dealerships they couldn't raise their prices.
> Rivian I put my order in and at least I have an order date and understand that I'm in the queue and should be sometime MY24
Is that "Model Year 24"? So they gave you an estimate of a year-long window, but also did not guarantee the date? How is that much different than "Youre on the list" with a traditional dealership?
Is that "Model Year 24"? So they gave you an estimate of a year-long window, but also did not guarantee the date? How is that much different than "Youre on the list" with a traditional dealership?
Dealership lists are more like we'll call you if one comes in, and we'll call everyone else on the list right after. First one here gets to buy it. Also, if we have a buddy that wants it, we'll give him a heads up before we call you.
Exactly. Also, many of them are very coy about what dealer markup will apply if they ever do get an allocation. You could also be on a list at a dealership that never gets an allocation for you, because they don't get many cars and there are too many people ahead of you. It's not only opaque but also untrustworthy.
I guess it's just in which inconvenience you pick.
It seems like there is no EV that is free of something stupid that the car manufacturer is making you put up with.
Maybe Tesla it's these general annoyances. Or collision repair or out of warranty service annoyances.
I test drove a VW ID.4. It sounds like if I bought one I might deal with annoyances (markups, delays) trying to buy the car because dealers are annoying. The flip side is if I bought one and it needs service I can walk home from the local VW dealer to my house pretty quickly. Hyper Local service is rather nice.
It seems like there is no EV that is free of something stupid that the car manufacturer is making you put up with.
Maybe Tesla it's these general annoyances. Or collision repair or out of warranty service annoyances.
I test drove a VW ID.4. It sounds like if I bought one I might deal with annoyances (markups, delays) trying to buy the car because dealers are annoying. The flip side is if I bought one and it needs service I can walk home from the local VW dealer to my house pretty quickly. Hyper Local service is rather nice.
> If it weren't for the crappy dealership model I probably would have bought the Hyundai Ioniq instead.
I went looking for a Bolt EUV recently (that price point for Super Cruise is really attractive), but they were marked up everywhere by upwards of $6K and it's impossible to reserve one from the manufacturer and actually get any guarantee that it will be purchasable at the listed price.
I went looking for a Bolt EUV recently (that price point for Super Cruise is really attractive), but they were marked up everywhere by upwards of $6K and it's impossible to reserve one from the manufacturer and actually get any guarantee that it will be purchasable at the listed price.
I have seen quite a few Ioniq's around. They seem to have just hit the streets.
I have also been seeing various flavors of BMW electrics, for some time.
A chap around here, owns one of those BMW electric "supercar" looking things (i8?). I don't know him, personally.
I have also been seeing various flavors of BMW electrics, for some time.
A chap around here, owns one of those BMW electric "supercar" looking things (i8?). I don't know him, personally.
One thing to note about BMW is that they are heading in a direction that is not going to be good for anyone if the entire industry adopts it.
An $18/month subscription for heated seats. This is quite frankly absurd. And I know, Tesla is the one that started it (partially), but for things such as heated seats, this is taking it completely to the next level.
Soon enough we will start seeing microtransactions to even turn the car on? Not a good look for the automotive industry as a whole and shame on BMW for this.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/14/business/bmw-subscription/ind...
An $18/month subscription for heated seats. This is quite frankly absurd. And I know, Tesla is the one that started it (partially), but for things such as heated seats, this is taking it completely to the next level.
Soon enough we will start seeing microtransactions to even turn the car on? Not a good look for the automotive industry as a whole and shame on BMW for this.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/14/business/bmw-subscription/ind...
Ubik here we come.
The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.” He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.” “I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.” In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip. “You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug. From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door. “I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out. Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.
The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.” He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.” “I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.” In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip. “You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug. From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door. “I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out. Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.
Not just that they are cracking down on their parts as well. I can no longer get brake pads or rotors at OReillys or AutoZone. I was forced to use crappy knock offs for the same price as I couldn't wait on ordered parts.
Went through the same thing with a recent starter replacement. They no longer offer OEM bosch (this was oreilly not sure about AZ) and they no longer sell Bosch OEM even remanufactures.
Again they explained to me this was due to BMW themselves.
I'm going to ride my 328i into the ground, but once its repairs outweigh the value of the car (doing the repairs myself now, had to become my own mechanic to avoid a $1700 bill and 2 week wait for a starter replacement),I am never touching one of their vehicles again.
When in the dealership in Seattle 2 years ago for an oil change and fluid top off/inspection it was a horror show.
They only added about 3 quarts of oil to my car out of the almost 7 needed after a change (light came on immediately as leaving and oil level was - null-). They never did their whatever-point inspection, never did the fluid top off, and left my oil filter cap loose! My 'account manager' was supposed to go over some stuff with me- never saw him. Was told he'd left notes on my file- did not.
While waiting I saw three different people come in with problems with their EV batteries no longer charging. The 1st two were told they'd be covered under warranty. I heard the reps talking amongst themselves about how bad it was getting and whether there would be a recall. 3d person was a lady who was pissed as she'd just had her battery replaced under warranty, it'd happened again and this time they wanted her to pay for a new one. She threatened to sue and they comped everything they could think of for her.
Now with this heated seats fiasco BMW has officially nuked the fridge.
Edit to add- if anyone is interested check out the starter replacement [1], absolutely fucking ridiculous the way cars are now engineered to stop the layman from affecting their own repairs.
Used to be starter replacement was something anyone could do and was all of two to four bolts and a wire and took ten minutes of time. You could even just replace the solenoid half the time for a few bucks.
I've now replaced brakes, rotors, control arms, shocks, struts, starter, window actuators, headlights, radiator, mass airflow sensor, ECM, spark plugs and ignition coils, cleaned the O2 sensors etc. Some of the steps are insane especially the radiator which was 600 just because California ones have a stupid sensor on them that cant be used on an off-brand radiator.
So much blood and sweat because why leave room to work on anything.
Seriously fuck BMW.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwwARNcUBWE
Went through the same thing with a recent starter replacement. They no longer offer OEM bosch (this was oreilly not sure about AZ) and they no longer sell Bosch OEM even remanufactures.
Again they explained to me this was due to BMW themselves.
I'm going to ride my 328i into the ground, but once its repairs outweigh the value of the car (doing the repairs myself now, had to become my own mechanic to avoid a $1700 bill and 2 week wait for a starter replacement),I am never touching one of their vehicles again.
When in the dealership in Seattle 2 years ago for an oil change and fluid top off/inspection it was a horror show.
They only added about 3 quarts of oil to my car out of the almost 7 needed after a change (light came on immediately as leaving and oil level was - null-). They never did their whatever-point inspection, never did the fluid top off, and left my oil filter cap loose! My 'account manager' was supposed to go over some stuff with me- never saw him. Was told he'd left notes on my file- did not.
While waiting I saw three different people come in with problems with their EV batteries no longer charging. The 1st two were told they'd be covered under warranty. I heard the reps talking amongst themselves about how bad it was getting and whether there would be a recall. 3d person was a lady who was pissed as she'd just had her battery replaced under warranty, it'd happened again and this time they wanted her to pay for a new one. She threatened to sue and they comped everything they could think of for her.
Now with this heated seats fiasco BMW has officially nuked the fridge.
Edit to add- if anyone is interested check out the starter replacement [1], absolutely fucking ridiculous the way cars are now engineered to stop the layman from affecting their own repairs.
Used to be starter replacement was something anyone could do and was all of two to four bolts and a wire and took ten minutes of time. You could even just replace the solenoid half the time for a few bucks.
I've now replaced brakes, rotors, control arms, shocks, struts, starter, window actuators, headlights, radiator, mass airflow sensor, ECM, spark plugs and ignition coils, cleaned the O2 sensors etc. Some of the steps are insane especially the radiator which was 600 just because California ones have a stupid sensor on them that cant be used on an off-brand radiator.
So much blood and sweat because why leave room to work on anything.
Seriously fuck BMW.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwwARNcUBWE
Tesla buying experience is way better but the ETAs are famously off. Mine has been pushed back 4-5 times and always about 3-4 weeks before it's due to get delivered, so it's impossible to plan around.
Yeah, the ETA wasn't incredibly important to me for planning purposes. It was just nice to know that I was getting <exactly this car> in <roughly this timeframe>. As opposed to "keep calling and maybe we'll have a Hyundai Ioniq allocated to us that'll arrive a month or two after, oh an enjoy your $10k 'market rate adjustment' to the MSRP."
Fwiw my car was delivered in the middle half of the original ETA, but I know that others have had lots of issues with their ETAs.
Fwiw my car was delivered in the middle half of the original ETA, but I know that others have had lots of issues with their ETAs.
You can order a new car, configured as you like, with almost any brand. You'll get an ETA and a tracker that shows when it's going into production, when it's leaving the factory, when it's on a ship/boat/truck to your dealer, and when it's ready for pickup. You can get most dealers to agree in writing not to add any markups if you reserve a car with their dealership as the delivery point. That's how most people are buying EVs of any make right now, not just with Tesla.
You technically can sometimes, but in my experience it's really difficult to actually do that. Dealerships get limited custom order bank allocations, and if you're not really early when the MY order bank opens your order will potentially slip a model year or even more (at least for in-demand models).
For Hyundai specifically I was looking for the Limited trim, and I've been told they're only allocating custom orders to dealerships with level 3 chargers. And even then the order bank for MY 2022 had already been closed when I started shopping around. I would have had to wait for the MY 2023 bank to open.
For Hyundai specifically I was looking for the Limited trim, and I've been told they're only allocating custom orders to dealerships with level 3 chargers. And even then the order bank for MY 2022 had already been closed when I started shopping around. I would have had to wait for the MY 2023 bank to open.
I've done it twice with VW for ID4s. There's no special time period to order, and you don't need to talk to a dealership first, you can order from the VW website any time. If your car doesn't go into production until after a model year rolls over, then you get that newer model year.
Also, the strange thing is it is off in both directions. I had a family member order a Model X with a 5 month delivery timeline. He was super surprised to get the call to arrange delivery 3 weeks later.
What's your ETA?
I remember when everyone was excited to pre-order Teslas when their actual production was several years out...
I remember when everyone was excited to pre-order Teslas when their actual production was several years out...
Ordered late March, delivered first week of June. It ended up being about in the middle of the ETA range I was originally given.
Bit of buyer's remorse from a Nissan Leaf now that most fast-charging stations don't support CHAdeMO.
In 7 years and 7 months, my 2015 Nissan LEAF has been CHAdeMO charged exactly twice: once before delivery and once while I owned it. CHAdeMO has been practically useless since day 1.
Even with that and the limited range, I bought the right car for our usage pattern and have been overall extremely happy with the car. It's been relatively trouble-free (one visit to the dealer for some combined warranty work on the battery, Takata air bag recall, and some other recall or other, all of which were taken care of for $0 and included a free loaner car while it was being done), otherwise requiring two sets of wiper blades, some washer fluid, and one tire to have a nail hole plugged.
When I say we bought the right car for our usage pattern, we paid around $21K (net of government credits) for a car that will still do 75 miles on a charge. Before COVID, my commute was 16 miles round-trip and had chargers at work. After working remotely, I drive the car much less and our two-driver family has a traditional ICE car for any longer trips. We both prefer the LEAF for around-town errands and it gets more drives than the ICE car does. I think once in 7.5 years we had a conflict where we both had more than 100 miles to drive in a day and I worked it out by charging the LEAF during my day. It's been a non-issue and getting a car that's given us >7.5 years of drama-free service for $21K has been great.
Even with that and the limited range, I bought the right car for our usage pattern and have been overall extremely happy with the car. It's been relatively trouble-free (one visit to the dealer for some combined warranty work on the battery, Takata air bag recall, and some other recall or other, all of which were taken care of for $0 and included a free loaner car while it was being done), otherwise requiring two sets of wiper blades, some washer fluid, and one tire to have a nail hole plugged.
When I say we bought the right car for our usage pattern, we paid around $21K (net of government credits) for a car that will still do 75 miles on a charge. Before COVID, my commute was 16 miles round-trip and had chargers at work. After working remotely, I drive the car much less and our two-driver family has a traditional ICE car for any longer trips. We both prefer the LEAF for around-town errands and it gets more drives than the ICE car does. I think once in 7.5 years we had a conflict where we both had more than 100 miles to drive in a day and I worked it out by charging the LEAF during my day. It's been a non-issue and getting a car that's given us >7.5 years of drama-free service for $21K has been great.
OG Leaf owner here, and like sibling, we might have fast charged it twice. To me, fast charging is something useful for road trips. But if you take an OG (or even later model) Leaf on a road trip, that's your own fault. Eleven years of ownership, our upscale golf cart gets us to work, shopping, and everything else we thought we'd use it for when we bought it. And when we bought ours, it had 100 mile range (if you babied it), and no real charging infrastructure to speak of. We knew what we were getting into, and we'd do it again.
> now that most fast-charging stations don't support CHAdeMO
According to the US DOE, we have 4450 CHAdeMO stations and 4583 CCS stations in the US at the moment. No major charging network has started building CCS-only stations yet, though EA plans to in the future. I don't see why you're feeling that remorse, your charging network is large and continues to grow, despite your car being discontinued in the next 2-3 years.
I've owned two Nissan LEAFs (2012, 2018). The things that would give me buyers' remorse are faults of the car, not anything external. Like, not charging any faster than 40-50 kW, charging at half that speed once the battery gets hot, losing 10% of its range to battery degradation after just 3 years, and offering no upgrade path to keep the connectivity features working after AT&T shut down its 2G then 3G networks.
I drive a VW ID.4 now.
According to the US DOE, we have 4450 CHAdeMO stations and 4583 CCS stations in the US at the moment. No major charging network has started building CCS-only stations yet, though EA plans to in the future. I don't see why you're feeling that remorse, your charging network is large and continues to grow, despite your car being discontinued in the next 2-3 years.
I've owned two Nissan LEAFs (2012, 2018). The things that would give me buyers' remorse are faults of the car, not anything external. Like, not charging any faster than 40-50 kW, charging at half that speed once the battery gets hot, losing 10% of its range to battery degradation after just 3 years, and offering no upgrade path to keep the connectivity features working after AT&T shut down its 2G then 3G networks.
I drive a VW ID.4 now.
> Bit of buyer's remorse from a Nissan Leaf now that most fast-charging stations don't support CHAdeMO.
Yeah, that's a bit annoying. In the US, many(most) still do, but there aren't going to be many (if any) new CHAdeMO installations. Even more so now that Nissan itself dropped CHAdeMO in the US. The Ariya will be CCS.
That said, if you are in a city, L2 should continue to expand and hopefully you'll be able to top off during your normal activities.
Yeah, that's a bit annoying. In the US, many(most) still do, but there aren't going to be many (if any) new CHAdeMO installations. Even more so now that Nissan itself dropped CHAdeMO in the US. The Ariya will be CCS.
That said, if you are in a city, L2 should continue to expand and hopefully you'll be able to top off during your normal activities.
We got the leaf too. Its great for day trips, around town.
The charging situation for electric cars for road trips is still a thing... It seems to have found a standard in CSS. I expected there to be adapters, but apparently making adapters is slightly non trivial as there is a lot of chatting between the car and charger.
The charging situation for electric cars for road trips is still a thing... It seems to have found a standard in CSS. I expected there to be adapters, but apparently making adapters is slightly non trivial as there is a lot of chatting between the car and charger.
I don't know any Leaf or Volt owners.
I know a Bolt owner though, and they seem pleased.
I also know someone that has a Fusion plug-in hybrid. He loves it.
I have seen the F-150 Lightnings around, but don't know anyone that got one (yet).
I know a Bolt owner though, and they seem pleased.
I also know someone that has a Fusion plug-in hybrid. He loves it.
I have seen the F-150 Lightnings around, but don't know anyone that got one (yet).
Hi, I'm a Volt owner. We purchased it almost 6 years ago and are still thrilled with it. The 50'ish miles of EV range covers 95% of my wife's driving, but she can also take it on road trips w/o having to find a place to plug it in.
None here. I bought a 2015 Leaf in 2017 with 19k miles for $8,500. At 75k mile now with zero issues. Just plug it in at night and drive it around town. It's a glorified golf cart, but it works great.
My family really, really dislikes our Bolt.
My wife loves the Model Y she replaced it with. They’re vastly different vehicles, but I can say with confidence I will never again buy a GM vehicle.
My wife loves the Model Y she replaced it with. They’re vastly different vehicles, but I can say with confidence I will never again buy a GM vehicle.
I hear this a lot about Tesla: "I would have chosen a Tesla, but now..."
But now, your choices are among legacy car makers and their dealer networks, which were never a joy to interact with most of whom, Hyundai and maybe Nissan excepted, are just bringing out their first serious EVs.
Yeah, Tesla is overhyped. But their competition mostly, still, sucks. Nobody has, and nobody will for at least another year or two, make even a slight dent is demand for Tesla cars. Yes, Cybertruck is dumb. Yes, there is no roadster. But VW has apparently completely screwed their software stack. That is a much bigger failure.
The same can be said about SpaceX. SpaceX's value is highly dependent on a kind of telecom network that was a failure several times before when tried by Motorola, Microsoft, etc. Starship could fly soon, or next year, or in 5 years and it would still revolutionize access to space. Cost overruns? <cough>Boeing</cough>
It's all relative. Hype and image polishing is everywhere.
But now, your choices are among legacy car makers and their dealer networks, which were never a joy to interact with most of whom, Hyundai and maybe Nissan excepted, are just bringing out their first serious EVs.
Yeah, Tesla is overhyped. But their competition mostly, still, sucks. Nobody has, and nobody will for at least another year or two, make even a slight dent is demand for Tesla cars. Yes, Cybertruck is dumb. Yes, there is no roadster. But VW has apparently completely screwed their software stack. That is a much bigger failure.
The same can be said about SpaceX. SpaceX's value is highly dependent on a kind of telecom network that was a failure several times before when tried by Motorola, Microsoft, etc. Starship could fly soon, or next year, or in 5 years and it would still revolutionize access to space. Cost overruns? <cough>Boeing</cough>
It's all relative. Hype and image polishing is everywhere.
But now, your choices are among legacy car makers and their dealer networks...
Are you assuming that this is news to the naysayers? Or maybe the naysayers are fully-informed, and they still say, "I'd rather deal with a traditional dealer than buy a Tesla"? Because that's what this naysayer is saying: better to deal with the devil I know...
Are you assuming that this is news to the naysayers? Or maybe the naysayers are fully-informed, and they still say, "I'd rather deal with a traditional dealer than buy a Tesla"? Because that's what this naysayer is saying: better to deal with the devil I know...
But for instance, most people aren’t familiar with the outright corruption the Hyundai leadership/owners enjoy in Korea. Because they don’t tweet about it, and actively cover it up. Their owners embezzle money, bribe officials… makes Elon look like a saint.
So i’d posit, you actually don’t know that particular devil.
So i’d posit, you actually don’t know that particular devil.
There were recent stories in the US of a Hyundai subsidiary parts plant using child labor in the US. They blamed it on a staffing agency. But, yeah, labor relations is a contact sport in Korea.
In Ford's case, a dealer network with no ability to negotiate (Ford told them the pricing was fixed) so there goes the biggest complaint. Other than that, I get a local business I can sue if something goes wrong and regulated by local authorities. Sounds better to me!
Ford is not legally allowed to state that. However I think they are strongly pushing the dealers to that.
Dealer isn’t responsible for the product itself, you could only sue them for servicing and delivery failures.
It kinda sounds like the Tesla after-purchase support is less than a joy, though.
Experiences are highly mixed. The Tesla mobile services is a joy for many people for any kind of smaller issue. They just show up while you work or when you don't need your car.
The software support in terms of updates is very good, and you still get updates to years old software.
Where they struggle is not enough service capacity and parts shortages. What you would expect from a car maker growing 50% and the service capacity has not grown as fast.
The software support in terms of updates is very good, and you still get updates to years old software.
Where they struggle is not enough service capacity and parts shortages. What you would expect from a car maker growing 50% and the service capacity has not grown as fast.
Two of my acquaintances have EVs. One owns a Tesla and is....not thrilled. The other has a BMW and is pretty thrilled.
One of them has had what I would describe as a luxury car experience - fit and finish is perfect, and every detail of the car has been clearly thought about carefully and engineered to work precisely, and it was the cheaper of the two cars.
The other person got the Tesla. It's an acceptable car, but is wasn't cheap, nor is it luxurious. The quality just isn't there.
One of them has had what I would describe as a luxury car experience - fit and finish is perfect, and every detail of the car has been clearly thought about carefully and engineered to work precisely, and it was the cheaper of the two cars.
The other person got the Tesla. It's an acceptable car, but is wasn't cheap, nor is it luxurious. The quality just isn't there.
I've heard people complain about buying the Bolt, and also about low range of certain other models.
> but I have not heard one ounce of buyer's remorse from any of the other brands.
The only solid reason I've heard to buy Tesla over others is for the Supercharger network if you travel a lot or can't charge at home. Everything else comes down to preference.
The only solid reason I've heard to buy Tesla over others is for the Supercharger network if you travel a lot or can't charge at home. Everything else comes down to preference.
> They didn't buy from Tesla, but they're still a customer buying servicing from them.
This strikes me as a result of Tesla's whole "ignore everything known by car companies and act like software companies" approach. So far the software industry is young enough that most companies can expect that anyone approaching them for support is the same person who bought the software... but that's not at all the case for cars, what with resales, inheritances, etc being standard practice.
I think a lot of software companies are going to be in for a rude awakening over the next 25 years or so, as hand-me-down devices and accounts become increasingly common. I wonder how many lawsuits it's going to take before companies purporting to "sell" software actually take wills into account.
This strikes me as a result of Tesla's whole "ignore everything known by car companies and act like software companies" approach. So far the software industry is young enough that most companies can expect that anyone approaching them for support is the same person who bought the software... but that's not at all the case for cars, what with resales, inheritances, etc being standard practice.
I think a lot of software companies are going to be in for a rude awakening over the next 25 years or so, as hand-me-down devices and accounts become increasingly common. I wonder how many lawsuits it's going to take before companies purporting to "sell" software actually take wills into account.
> This strikes me as a result of Tesla's whole "ignore everything known by car companies and act like software companies" approach
Yup, the Silicon Valley strategy "letting the fires burn". As long as you can acquire new customers with less effort than servicing existing ones, why bother? It worked at Paypal and it has worked so far at Tesla. We see year after year of 50%+ sales growth but nowhere near 50% increases in service capacity. It's the reason we see people waiting months for replacement parts (those parts can go into a new car, for a new customer!) and its the reason they pressure you into accepting bad workmanship so that the problems with the car become yours and not theirs and its now on you to convince them that it is not, in fact, "in spec".
This is a 4 year old thread but Tesla still makes the same service mistakes (like the OP) today: https://twitter.com/grainsurgeon/status/1054732768465305600
Yup, the Silicon Valley strategy "letting the fires burn". As long as you can acquire new customers with less effort than servicing existing ones, why bother? It worked at Paypal and it has worked so far at Tesla. We see year after year of 50%+ sales growth but nowhere near 50% increases in service capacity. It's the reason we see people waiting months for replacement parts (those parts can go into a new car, for a new customer!) and its the reason they pressure you into accepting bad workmanship so that the problems with the car become yours and not theirs and its now on you to convince them that it is not, in fact, "in spec".
This is a 4 year old thread but Tesla still makes the same service mistakes (like the OP) today: https://twitter.com/grainsurgeon/status/1054732768465305600
What consumer software actually sells with that kind of long-term support commitment? I doubt Microsoft will ever lose a lawsuit from someone seeking security updates for a copy of Windows 95 they inherited from their grandfather.
None, sure, right now. But what happens when a judge eventually rules that putting 'actually, this is just a temporary license' in the fine print isn't sufficient? It's likely to happen eventually.
I think it is a stretch to go from "EULAs that declare software licenses to be temporary are invalid" to "software products must be actively supported with patches indefinitely".
Sure, but that's also not what I was talking about at all.
Consider Steam, right now. What happens when some judge eventually rules that it's entirely reasonable to put your Steam library in your will and divide it up between different people?
Consider Steam, right now. What happens when some judge eventually rules that it's entirely reasonable to put your Steam library in your will and divide it up between different people?
Yup - at two previous companies (one I ran, one I didn't) we had as a design philosophy "we don't cause regressions". If we gave a customer an extra feature by mistake and they've since started using it and relying on it, that's on us. They don't care that they weren't "supposed" to have that feature, they see that it was taken away.
Reputation and the customer relationship are worth more than the company's sense of "fairness", especially when (as in this case) you're not even deterring future customers from doing anything, because the customer who's affected is not responsible for the error.
Reputation and the customer relationship are worth more than the company's sense of "fairness", especially when (as in this case) you're not even deterring future customers from doing anything, because the customer who's affected is not responsible for the error.
>They don't care that they weren't "supposed" to have that feature, they see that it was taken away.
Bingo.
One of the issues with conventional large corporations (mostly outside of tech) is that middle management incentives often align poorly with this type of philosophy.
A few companies have gotten this right, at least at times.
Costco comes to mind in the present. They go out of their way to save their customers money, and to fix issues customers have as easily as they can. Their returns policy is pretty legendary.
Amazon, somewhat ironically given recent issues, had a philosophy early on that, if a customer was talking to them, they probably didn't want to be! ...And it's probably because something in Amazon's process went wrong. So while I think their reputation has fallen greatly, they did spend a lot of engineering effort into "harmonizing" their purchasing and returns process. Mostly because Bezos saw the value in that. And despite all the bad press, I think they still have that not 'right' but 'decent'. Becuase, while I've had a few issues with amazon, they resolved them really quickly and easily for me as a customer. (I think you get screwed as a vendor though...)
Another example I can think of is Vortex optics. Most optics companies had a pretty good guarantee, often lifetime. Vortex just heavily marketed it and took away the edge cases. So while leupold wouldn't replace your scope if you sent it in along with a video of you driving over it with a truck, vortex would. That allowed them to really rapidly acquire a ton of market share.
At the end of the day, customers are human and despite tech's best efforts, they still try to interact with companies as humans would each other. Fucking over your neighbor while being technically correct still leaves you with a pissed off neighbor who will not respond well to anything you bring to them in the future.
Bingo.
One of the issues with conventional large corporations (mostly outside of tech) is that middle management incentives often align poorly with this type of philosophy.
A few companies have gotten this right, at least at times.
Costco comes to mind in the present. They go out of their way to save their customers money, and to fix issues customers have as easily as they can. Their returns policy is pretty legendary.
Amazon, somewhat ironically given recent issues, had a philosophy early on that, if a customer was talking to them, they probably didn't want to be! ...And it's probably because something in Amazon's process went wrong. So while I think their reputation has fallen greatly, they did spend a lot of engineering effort into "harmonizing" their purchasing and returns process. Mostly because Bezos saw the value in that. And despite all the bad press, I think they still have that not 'right' but 'decent'. Becuase, while I've had a few issues with amazon, they resolved them really quickly and easily for me as a customer. (I think you get screwed as a vendor though...)
Another example I can think of is Vortex optics. Most optics companies had a pretty good guarantee, often lifetime. Vortex just heavily marketed it and took away the edge cases. So while leupold wouldn't replace your scope if you sent it in along with a video of you driving over it with a truck, vortex would. That allowed them to really rapidly acquire a ton of market share.
At the end of the day, customers are human and despite tech's best efforts, they still try to interact with companies as humans would each other. Fucking over your neighbor while being technically correct still leaves you with a pissed off neighbor who will not respond well to anything you bring to them in the future.
Well said, I’m potentially in the market for a car and this is like reason #5 I’m ruling out Tesla.
Same, though there were about a dozen previous reasons, starting with "pedo guy". This won't help, but I was pretty much long gone as a customer.
Funny enough, it was test driving a Tesla that got me interested in getting an EV as my next vehicle.
And like many, Musk's behavior has dissuaded me from purchasing one, and instead likely a Ford.
And like many, Musk's behavior has dissuaded me from purchasing one, and instead likely a Ford.
The EV Mustang looks so dope. See a lot of them in SV.
I pre-ordered a Model 3 in 2016. Still have the charger I installed in my garage, but now I use the J1772 one I installed later.
chrisseaton(6)
Tesla is also thousands of brilliant engineers that transformed the industry, and not just one guy who tweets a lot.
That one guy who tweets a lot can overrule and/or fire any one of those brilliant engineers.
He can overpromise to the point of outright lying about functionality and delivery schedule.
The CEO is not 'just one guy'
He can overpromise to the point of outright lying about functionality and delivery schedule.
The CEO is not 'just one guy'
A CEO can do many things, but they generally don't design, develop, test and fix products. I have no personal affection for Elon Musk, just wanted to point out that the actual things we all use are products of genuine hard work by lots of different people.
Exactly, so they should do the only logical thing and vote out Elon as Tesla's CEO so he stops destroying whatever public image they have left. Elon doesn't "do" anything besides be a double edged hype machine.
It would be amazing if Tesla were a worker cooperative where that were possible.
Trying to hold Elon to a standard in his companies gets you fired, not him: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-17/spacex-fi...
Trying to hold Elon to a standard in his companies gets you fired, not him: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-17/spacex-fi...
How can any self respecting individual work in such an environment? It's sad to know there are so many talented engineers that spend all of their days making amazing things that Elon just takes credit for.
I'm sorry but working for Tesla and building electric vehicles is more useful and more moral then most other companies. No matter if you think the CEO is an ass.
If people knew or cared all the dumb shit all other car CEO said in their live, or all the corruption they engage in with the Union bosses and the list of things goes on.
Compare working at Tesla and working at Lockheed Martin for example. How can self respecting engineer work there? You are literally building bombs that illegally blow up US citizens (and weddings) around the world.
So if 'CEO fired a some people who clearly were not on board with CEO management style' is the reason for a moral panic, there are a whole lot of places you can never work at. And that's fine, but lets be clear about that.
If people knew or cared all the dumb shit all other car CEO said in their live, or all the corruption they engage in with the Union bosses and the list of things goes on.
Compare working at Tesla and working at Lockheed Martin for example. How can self respecting engineer work there? You are literally building bombs that illegally blow up US citizens (and weddings) around the world.
So if 'CEO fired a some people who clearly were not on board with CEO management style' is the reason for a moral panic, there are a whole lot of places you can never work at. And that's fine, but lets be clear about that.
It my shock you, but most people in the world down know who Elon Musk is and the same goes for many people in the US. And many people, some the same don't know that Tesla and Elon Musk have anything to do with each other.
Also, firing the CEO when the company is growing at breakneck speed while also having industry leading margin. Just for example, Tesla NetIncome this Q matched Ford and GM combined at 1/10 the revenue and in a Quarter where Tesla main factory was mostly closed.
So I guess the question is how highly do you value image compared to 12 years of amazing growth.
Also, firing the CEO when the company is growing at breakneck speed while also having industry leading margin. Just for example, Tesla NetIncome this Q matched Ford and GM combined at 1/10 the revenue and in a Quarter where Tesla main factory was mostly closed.
So I guess the question is how highly do you value image compared to 12 years of amazing growth.
In other words, Musk isn't doing his engineers any favors either.
Is it my fault they hitched their wagon to a person who turned out to be crazy?
If Tesla somehow folded overnight I'm sure all the other car companies making BEVs would be ecstatic to scoop up that newly available talent.
If Tesla somehow folded overnight I'm sure all the other car companies making BEVs would be ecstatic to scoop up that newly available talent.
Yeah like the RTO mandate that turned into a Fire(d) Sale of top talent. Lol.
It took "thousands of brilliant engineers" to replace the engine of a vehicle with some large batteries?
I think you're overstating the "brilliance" of the engineers. I have no doubt the core of them working on the battery tech could be in the brilliant category, but the rest of those thousands of engineers are run-of-the-mill automotive engineers.
Would you describe Ford as being composed of thousands of brilliant engineers?
I think you're overstating the "brilliance" of the engineers. I have no doubt the core of them working on the battery tech could be in the brilliant category, but the rest of those thousands of engineers are run-of-the-mill automotive engineers.
Would you describe Ford as being composed of thousands of brilliant engineers?
> Would you describe Ford as being composed of thousands of brilliant engineers?
Absolutely.
I've seen people believe that creating a browser is no big deal, can you imagine developing, manufacturing, compliance certification, marketing and distribution of actual vehicles, planet-scale?
Absolutely.
I've seen people believe that creating a browser is no big deal, can you imagine developing, manufacturing, compliance certification, marketing and distribution of actual vehicles, planet-scale?
Also the “crash” outcome isn’t lost tabs.
Which is why more and more auto companies are opening offices in SV to poach them.
Hell, when was the last time Tesla released a new car? The Big Auto companies are rolling out new models every other week. Fact is, Tesla blew a lead and aren’t impressing.
Hell, when was the last time Tesla released a new car? The Big Auto companies are rolling out new models every other week. Fact is, Tesla blew a lead and aren’t impressing.
Yeah other car companies are really, really good at announcing new car models. I mean look at GM, so amazing by 2025 they are gone have 30 EVs.
Of course in the last 6 month they have sold less then 10k EVs, about what Tesla does in a week or so. But I guess they announced many new models.
> Fact is, Tesla blew a lead and aren’t impressing.
A lead in what? They are dominating both in terms of volume and in terms of profitability. A few years ago everybody was hype about how VW would blew Tesla doors within a year or two, well turns out Tesla still matches VW for growth.
> Hell, when was the last time Tesla released a new car?
The question is, what is the goal? To release a car because you have released a car? Is that your goal?
Because what matters in the real world is growth and profit. And if you have a fixed supply because of chips and batteries. Just building more different models while you can still sell your existing model is just financially idiotic.
Other manufactures like VW spend billions to turn the ID.4 into a Skoda that is basically the exact same inside.
Of course in the last 6 month they have sold less then 10k EVs, about what Tesla does in a week or so. But I guess they announced many new models.
> Fact is, Tesla blew a lead and aren’t impressing.
A lead in what? They are dominating both in terms of volume and in terms of profitability. A few years ago everybody was hype about how VW would blew Tesla doors within a year or two, well turns out Tesla still matches VW for growth.
> Hell, when was the last time Tesla released a new car?
The question is, what is the goal? To release a car because you have released a car? Is that your goal?
Because what matters in the real world is growth and profit. And if you have a fixed supply because of chips and batteries. Just building more different models while you can still sell your existing model is just financially idiotic.
Other manufactures like VW spend billions to turn the ID.4 into a Skoda that is basically the exact same inside.
I occasionally do business with people who are probably assholes to other people.
I don't do business with people who are assholes to their customers.
I don't do business with people who are assholes to their customers.
My big red flag is “self driving mode that may kill your family”.
Quite - I'm absolutely in the market for an EV, and 5 years ago it would have been a Tesla no questions asked, but Musk's behaviour and Tesla's general inability to do quality control mean I instead placed an order for a BMW i4.
Care to share the others? I'm weighing my options as well.
Anything you are leaning towards buying?
Anything you are leaning towards buying?
Battery issues being a cost of early adoption aside, I love my Bolt. It’s a hatchback and with the 0-60 of an EV it handles like Mario Kart. Super fun.
I'd say this is a great reason to not a used one. Which Tesla doesn't care about at all and probably want to discourage.
You don't think car makers have a vested interest in there being a robust secondary market for their cars? If I have a choice between a $50k car that will have a $25k resale value after 5 years, and one that will have a $10k resale value, that's a strong incentive to buy the former. That's another $15k in my budget for my next car, and if I liked the last one, there's a good chance that money is going right back to that same manufacturer.
That seems short-sighted. Having a healthy secondary market makes purchasing a new one more appealing since you can recover some of the purchase price later. It also allows the superfans to buy the latest and greatest model more often.
Agreed. They're giving the middle finger to people who can't afford a new one but were still interested in Tesla. Could have been a good opportunity to create loyal customers who are on a budget now, but could afford to spend more later in life.
Also if TSLA actually cares about "saving the planet" then they probably need to support a used car market...
> If the bad publicity alone causes even a tiny fraction of the population to choose another manufacturer
Yeah, that's me. With all of the nonsense with Tesla, why would anyone do that to themselves? Just buy another car. It's not like there aren't plenty of other EV options in the world.
Yeah, that's me. With all of the nonsense with Tesla, why would anyone do that to themselves? Just buy another car. It's not like there aren't plenty of other EV options in the world.
Agree with all of this, but if I wrote a thread about all the times Ford screwed me, it would never go viral. There’s no market for that. Tesla has extremely high customer satisfaction rates. And switching to them has been significantly more harmonious for me.
> If the bad publicity alone causes even a tiny fraction of the population to choose another manufacturer, the've lost their $4,500 and then some
This week, I begin shopping for an EV family car. On my list of options are the Ioniq 5, EV6, and odel X.
What a great time to see how Tesla treats customers.
This week, I begin shopping for an EV family car. On my list of options are the Ioniq 5, EV6, and odel X.
What a great time to see how Tesla treats customers.
[deleted]
> Harmony is a really underrated concept. When things are harmonious, you don't have problems like this, and you can still make money.
OK, I think I agree. How do we build things that are harmonious?
OK, I think I agree. How do we build things that are harmonious?
This post has quite literally made me change my mind on buying a new Tesla, which is something I've been working towards for the last few weeks.
Back to square 1 looking at the competition.
Back to square 1 looking at the competition.
[deleted]
What business, running at scale in 2022 doesnt fall into this category - LOL
This is an excellent business model! Its the complete rejection of "Right of first sale" and the entire concept of ownership. Its an inversion of communism where instead of the state owning something and forcing you to rent it, a corporation does.
Its incredibly profitable for the ruling class. Too bad you aren't in it.
Its incredibly profitable for the ruling class. Too bad you aren't in it.
> I'll spare the moral judgements against Tesla for this [...] [Tesla's] business plan and practices is creating [...] huge cognitive dissonance in your customers
I think you forgot to spare anything.
Meh. This is a software configuration issue like we've seen before. Like lots of devices in the modern world, the cars can be configured with common hardware but disjoint behavior. You might have the hardware for FSD, but you didn't buy it so you can't use it. You might have the same motor as the performance car, but the current limit is set to long range. You might have the mobile radio, but if you don't pay for the service you won't get satellite pictures.
Or you might have a large battery, but be configured to use only a fraction. And in this case they messed up and accidentally granted a customer access to a feature they hadn't paid for. And the mistake wasn't discovered until the car got reconfigured when it was sold.
I just don't see the "ransom" here. It's a messup. No one ever paid for that extra battery capacity they enabled. Should they honor the mistake? Maybe. But we really need to turn down the rhetoric in this community.
I think you forgot to spare anything.
Meh. This is a software configuration issue like we've seen before. Like lots of devices in the modern world, the cars can be configured with common hardware but disjoint behavior. You might have the hardware for FSD, but you didn't buy it so you can't use it. You might have the same motor as the performance car, but the current limit is set to long range. You might have the mobile radio, but if you don't pay for the service you won't get satellite pictures.
Or you might have a large battery, but be configured to use only a fraction. And in this case they messed up and accidentally granted a customer access to a feature they hadn't paid for. And the mistake wasn't discovered until the car got reconfigured when it was sold.
I just don't see the "ransom" here. It's a messup. No one ever paid for that extra battery capacity they enabled. Should they honor the mistake? Maybe. But we really need to turn down the rhetoric in this community.
Oh I did. I'm not calling it "ransom" or other rhetoric. You did a fantastic job of justifying what they did though.
The fact that you can do so was actually my whole point: You can totally justify this! ...and yet... someone still feels like they got fucked. ...and people on the internet agree. That is the antithesis of harmony. Some amount of dissonance is unavoidable, but there are many brands and businesses out there that make sure if a mistake was made, customers leave feeling good. The point is that there are better ways to do business and maintain more harmony between you and your customers, and I've seen many companies be deeply rewarded for that as a whole. It does however often come at the expense of degraded metrics middle managers are commonly evaluated by. Penny-wise pound-foolish is very old wisdom. I think the real key is to evaluate from a systems perspective how that kind of dissonance can be avoided.
The fact that you can do so was actually my whole point: You can totally justify this! ...and yet... someone still feels like they got fucked. ...and people on the internet agree. That is the antithesis of harmony. Some amount of dissonance is unavoidable, but there are many brands and businesses out there that make sure if a mistake was made, customers leave feeling good. The point is that there are better ways to do business and maintain more harmony between you and your customers, and I've seen many companies be deeply rewarded for that as a whole. It does however often come at the expense of degraded metrics middle managers are commonly evaluated by. Penny-wise pound-foolish is very old wisdom. I think the real key is to evaluate from a systems perspective how that kind of dissonance can be avoided.
"I feel like this is more mundane on Tesla's part than many are making it out to be.
A mistake was made years ago. An employee recently discovered and "fixed" it.
Terrible communication and customer service, but nefarious? Nah."
At this point I feel like terrible communication and service is an intentional business strategy for some companies who found that by making support so baroque as to be inaccessible or just eliminating it entirely that they can slash costs accordingly. I do consider it to be nefarious in such cases.
At this point I feel like terrible communication and service is an intentional business strategy for some companies who found that by making support so baroque as to be inaccessible or just eliminating it entirely that they can slash costs accordingly. I do consider it to be nefarious in such cases.
Maybe. Maybe not.
If I sold you my car, and I wanted my stereo but forgot it, the first sale doctrine covers the whole thing as delivered. If I was to go to the car, while in your ownership and possession, and attempt to remove the stereo, you'd call the cops for vehicular theft.
That's because it's covered under first sale doctrine. And being a vehicle (unlike most other goods) has an attached ownership registered with the state in the forms of a registration.
Previously, that was simple. I sell you X; you pay agreed price; we trade green paper for thing. Now, with remotely tied crap, people have no say on their properly owned things. That 3rd party who controls the software can do whateverthefuck they want - and that's because copyright and software erodes actual ownership.
In reality, this "correction" on Tesla's part is no different if I decided to keep a hole in my previous company's servers, and then "reach in" for extra-legal 'modifications'. This should be a federal crime, including interstate commerce clause, wire fraud, and hacking. People should go to prison for this kind of thing. - and I'm talking about C levels, not ground-level techs.
If I sold you my car, and I wanted my stereo but forgot it, the first sale doctrine covers the whole thing as delivered. If I was to go to the car, while in your ownership and possession, and attempt to remove the stereo, you'd call the cops for vehicular theft.
That's because it's covered under first sale doctrine. And being a vehicle (unlike most other goods) has an attached ownership registered with the state in the forms of a registration.
Previously, that was simple. I sell you X; you pay agreed price; we trade green paper for thing. Now, with remotely tied crap, people have no say on their properly owned things. That 3rd party who controls the software can do whateverthefuck they want - and that's because copyright and software erodes actual ownership.
In reality, this "correction" on Tesla's part is no different if I decided to keep a hole in my previous company's servers, and then "reach in" for extra-legal 'modifications'. This should be a federal crime, including interstate commerce clause, wire fraud, and hacking. People should go to prison for this kind of thing. - and I'm talking about C levels, not ground-level techs.
> If I sold you my car, and I wanted my stereo but forgot it, the first sale doctrine covers the whole thing as delivered. If I was to go to the car, while in your ownership and possession, and attempt to remove the stereo, you'd call the cops for vehicular theft.
You could just have included the stereo explicitly in the contract. This happens all the time in large purchases like real estate. You would of course need to enforce the contract in a different way than breaking into their car, but it would be enforceable as long as the contract as worded doesn’t run afoul of state and local laws. Not doing that, and forgetting to remove it, well… it seems like consumers are giving up a very large concept of ownership for marginal seller use cases, charitably. Uncharitably it seeks to be a lower grab and cut contract law out of the equation.
Edit: slight rephrasing because I misread your argument, I think we are in agreement
You could just have included the stereo explicitly in the contract. This happens all the time in large purchases like real estate. You would of course need to enforce the contract in a different way than breaking into their car, but it would be enforceable as long as the contract as worded doesn’t run afoul of state and local laws. Not doing that, and forgetting to remove it, well… it seems like consumers are giving up a very large concept of ownership for marginal seller use cases, charitably. Uncharitably it seeks to be a lower grab and cut contract law out of the equation.
Edit: slight rephrasing because I misread your argument, I think we are in agreement
If the time in which the stereo was "forgotten" was at the time the exclusions were written into the sales contract (or the sales ad), the stereo would be legally conveyed to the purchaser of the car once the buyer and seller complete the sale.
Similarly, once a real estate purchase is completed, all items within the bounds of the property purchased--whether it be roof shingles, trees, or former owner family heirlooms they forgot to take with them--legally become possessions of the new owner unless itemized in a sales contract along with agreed-to stipulations that permit retrieval of the items by the former owner after completion of the sale.
Goodwill (and being a reasonable buyer/seller) goes a long way in situations such as these, and in most situations a buyer and seller will work out property sorting issues amongst themselves. However, there would be nothing legally preventing a buyer that stumbles upon a stash of gold bars left in the basement of their new-to-them house--that they did not know about, and that the previous owner did not disclose--and immediately selling them. [1]
BMW's recent second attempt at "enabling equipment features as a service" is a canary in the coal mine, or trial balloon, so to speak. BMW's argument for heated-seats-as-a-service is, flippantly, "What if the second buyer of the vehicle doesn't want heated seats? They don't have to pay for the service. Problem solved." This distorted-reality C-suite speak so drenched in logic fallacy is worthy of a conversation by itself, but I bring it up to say this: instead of buying a car in the traditional sense, OEMs are attempting to change the model to buying "the physical components comprising a car, and the option to enable features of those physical components".
I want no part of it. I like to use hyperbolic (at least for today) examples adapting commonplace business models for smart home devices, software licenses, hardware compatibility lists, EVs, cloud services, etc. to traditional / legacy / analog items:
- What if you went to use your hammer you've owned for years, only to find out that it can't be used to drive in a nail because the company that made the hammer is no longer in business?
- What if your basement flooded because, while the trench drain around your foundation is physically capable of directing enough water away from your foundation into your sump pump, you didn't opt to pay for the "catastrophic flooding capability" license? Better yet, let's say you paid for the license, but haven't checked your email in a few days (maybe because of the storms, since your power has been out and you don't have ready Internet access) to learn that the credit card the trench-drain-as-a-service company has on file has expired and the license renewal charge was declined, so the license you leased was deactivated via OTA update without notice sent via the post?
- What if you find out while driving that your car brakes won't work because a repair shop you've gone to for years installed a set of third-party brake pads that used to be but are no longer compatible with your car (or part of an OEM-certified or OEM-supported configuration) as the result of a recent firmware update to your car's PCM/ECU?
All of those sound terrifying to me.
[1] Source: myself, but not about gold bars, unfortunately. More than one year post-purchase of a house I purchased, the seller decided they wanted a lamp back that they thought they left at the house prior to its sale. I did not remember if they left it or not, but they did leave several items behind. I sent items to their forwarding address that I deemed to be personal items (e.g. monogrammed clothes), but assumed that all other items were left because they didn't want to take them. I donated all of the items I didn't want, possibly including the lamp they desperately wanted returned, to charities. After spending a good bit of energy harassing me over the lamp, the seller consulted with counsel and learned that they had no options for recourse. The harassment stopped, and I have not heard from them since.
Similarly, once a real estate purchase is completed, all items within the bounds of the property purchased--whether it be roof shingles, trees, or former owner family heirlooms they forgot to take with them--legally become possessions of the new owner unless itemized in a sales contract along with agreed-to stipulations that permit retrieval of the items by the former owner after completion of the sale.
Goodwill (and being a reasonable buyer/seller) goes a long way in situations such as these, and in most situations a buyer and seller will work out property sorting issues amongst themselves. However, there would be nothing legally preventing a buyer that stumbles upon a stash of gold bars left in the basement of their new-to-them house--that they did not know about, and that the previous owner did not disclose--and immediately selling them. [1]
BMW's recent second attempt at "enabling equipment features as a service" is a canary in the coal mine, or trial balloon, so to speak. BMW's argument for heated-seats-as-a-service is, flippantly, "What if the second buyer of the vehicle doesn't want heated seats? They don't have to pay for the service. Problem solved." This distorted-reality C-suite speak so drenched in logic fallacy is worthy of a conversation by itself, but I bring it up to say this: instead of buying a car in the traditional sense, OEMs are attempting to change the model to buying "the physical components comprising a car, and the option to enable features of those physical components".
I want no part of it. I like to use hyperbolic (at least for today) examples adapting commonplace business models for smart home devices, software licenses, hardware compatibility lists, EVs, cloud services, etc. to traditional / legacy / analog items:
- What if you went to use your hammer you've owned for years, only to find out that it can't be used to drive in a nail because the company that made the hammer is no longer in business?
- What if your basement flooded because, while the trench drain around your foundation is physically capable of directing enough water away from your foundation into your sump pump, you didn't opt to pay for the "catastrophic flooding capability" license? Better yet, let's say you paid for the license, but haven't checked your email in a few days (maybe because of the storms, since your power has been out and you don't have ready Internet access) to learn that the credit card the trench-drain-as-a-service company has on file has expired and the license renewal charge was declined, so the license you leased was deactivated via OTA update without notice sent via the post?
- What if you find out while driving that your car brakes won't work because a repair shop you've gone to for years installed a set of third-party brake pads that used to be but are no longer compatible with your car (or part of an OEM-certified or OEM-supported configuration) as the result of a recent firmware update to your car's PCM/ECU?
All of those sound terrifying to me.
[1] Source: myself, but not about gold bars, unfortunately. More than one year post-purchase of a house I purchased, the seller decided they wanted a lamp back that they thought they left at the house prior to its sale. I did not remember if they left it or not, but they did leave several items behind. I sent items to their forwarding address that I deemed to be personal items (e.g. monogrammed clothes), but assumed that all other items were left because they didn't want to take them. I donated all of the items I didn't want, possibly including the lamp they desperately wanted returned, to charities. After spending a good bit of energy harassing me over the lamp, the seller consulted with counsel and learned that they had no options for recourse. The harassment stopped, and I have not heard from them since.
It didn't need to be fixed, though. It's as if they consider it a moral error -- can't be giving free stuff out, ya know! The money was spent long ago, so the fix didn't save Tesla any money, no recurring costs, etc. It was purely a "fuck you" move, and any halfway competent employee should have seen this shitstorm coming a mile away.
Imagine you bought a home, and 10+ years after you bought it, not the previous owner, but the owner before that comes to take the chimney off the house because they had a clause in the contract between the previous two owners where the chimney was not part of the sale. This was not in your contract.
You gonna let the original owner take his chimney over some deal that happened a decade ago that you had no idea about?
You gonna let the original owner take his chimney over some deal that happened a decade ago that you had no idea about?
Even worse, what actually happened was they sold the house to the previous owner without a chimney but then later installed it at no charge anyways. Then they decided that they wanted the chimney back after the house sold again.
Software locks themselves are nefarious. Is it the owner's car, or Tesla's?
It’s a rental car, you just don’t know that when you “buy” it.
This fucking exactly.
I'm fucking over it. If I "own" the device - legally I should own a key to EVERY fucking lock inside it. Digital or physical.
This attitude that it's acceptable to put a little green man inside of something you sell, and then retain control over that sold item using your little green man is insidious and immoral. I want it fucking banned yesterday, and it's rapidly becoming one of my strongest political opinions.
I'm fucking over it. If I "own" the device - legally I should own a key to EVERY fucking lock inside it. Digital or physical.
This attitude that it's acceptable to put a little green man inside of something you sell, and then retain control over that sold item using your little green man is insidious and immoral. I want it fucking banned yesterday, and it's rapidly becoming one of my strongest political opinions.
"Any digital restriction or otherwise arbitrary lock that tries to supersede physical ownership or first-sale doctrine or Magnuson Moss Warranty Act shall have all congressional protections, DMCA, copyright, patent, and trademarks stripped from those products.
Any remote access after sale has occurred shall be considered a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and shall hold Chief * Officers, upper tier executive positions, and boards of directors fully liable, up to and including reimbursements of 3x per device to the citizens affected, and prison times no less than 1 week to a maximum of 10 years.
Enforcement of this law shall be done by the Federal Trade Commission."
I would LOVE to see something like this.
Any remote access after sale has occurred shall be considered a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and shall hold Chief * Officers, upper tier executive positions, and boards of directors fully liable, up to and including reimbursements of 3x per device to the citizens affected, and prison times no less than 1 week to a maximum of 10 years.
Enforcement of this law shall be done by the Federal Trade Commission."
I would LOVE to see something like this.
Unfortunately this kind of law is like, at least 2 revolutions away from now w.r.t. US politics. No way this would ever pass even in the house under the current political system (see: Patriot Act, Citizens United, etc.)
It's a nice idea though!
It's a nice idea though!
Within reason, sure - but there are limits.
End user control over safety critical software is not only dangerous, but a potential source of significant legal liability.
I don't want an EV that's capable of accelerating at the maximum rate supported by the motors.
End user control over safety critical software is not only dangerous, but a potential source of significant legal liability.
I don't want an EV that's capable of accelerating at the maximum rate supported by the motors.
> End user control over safety critical software is not only dangerous, but a potential source of significant legal liability.
Sure is - and that's absolutely no reason to lock a person out of a car that they own. They OWN it - they are responsible for modifications (and the liability that comes with them). Exactly the same as every car built without a computer - which was roughly ALL of them until the late 70s/early 80s.
Sure is - and that's absolutely no reason to lock a person out of a car that they own. They OWN it - they are responsible for modifications (and the liability that comes with them). Exactly the same as every car built without a computer - which was roughly ALL of them until the late 70s/early 80s.
Why not allow access to safety systems? ICE vehicles have allowed for all kinds of modifications over the years that are unsafe and maybe illegal. Why take the user’s choice away now? Because of some bogeyman safety issues that might affect a dozen people who actually want to tweak things? It’s happening today anyways.
When's the last time you saw Toyota in the headline for one of their cars catching on fire on the highway? Tesla has hype on the same level of Apple, so any time anything goes wrong with a car catching on fire or crashing, or having a terrible time with getting the car serviced, they're in the news. Tesla's first-party service centers are usually a plus for consumers, but Ford GM et al. benefit from dealerships being separate entities that take all the blame when something goes wrong.
I don’t understand how a business’s PR concerns should affect my freedom.
As far as I can tell nobody is stopping you from doing this. Just as you can legally hack iPhones if you figure out how, so can you hack your Tesla. The only slightly illegal thing might be the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, but you'd have to take that up with Howard Coble and the members of the 105th congress.
My comment is reasoning for why Tesla has a stake in protecting their reputation; if you don't like it, please don't support their practices by buying their cars.
My comment is reasoning for why Tesla has a stake in protecting their reputation; if you don't like it, please don't support their practices by buying their cars.
Maybe this is a controversial opinion here, but I think software locks aren't inherently bad in a car that can be driven by software. I don't really trust Tesla's self-driving software as is, I certainly don't trust some random person's hack of already questionable Tesla code. This isn't an iPhone. Someone mucking about in the software can kill people.
This sort of justification would never fly if we were talking about modding ICE vehicles:
* Illegal to replace your own brake rotors or pads, as faulty ones can cause safety issues.
* Illegal to replace your own headlights, as bad ones could be too dim or too bright and cause safety issues.
* Illegal to change your own oil, as bad ones could seize up your engine in the middle of the road and cause safety issues.
* Illegal to install a turbocharger, as that makes your car accelerate faster than the manufacturer likes and could cause safety issues.
The end result of this line of thinking leads to a million dollar tractor that a farmer can't fix when they need it most. I much prefer the idea that people are individually responsible for any modifications they choose to make to their cars.
* Illegal to replace your own brake rotors or pads, as faulty ones can cause safety issues.
* Illegal to replace your own headlights, as bad ones could be too dim or too bright and cause safety issues.
* Illegal to change your own oil, as bad ones could seize up your engine in the middle of the road and cause safety issues.
* Illegal to install a turbocharger, as that makes your car accelerate faster than the manufacturer likes and could cause safety issues.
The end result of this line of thinking leads to a million dollar tractor that a farmer can't fix when they need it most. I much prefer the idea that people are individually responsible for any modifications they choose to make to their cars.
In the UK, many modifications are restricted. For example, if I was to replace my halogen car headlights with LED ones, the car would be technically illegal, uninsured and fail inspection (if they notice). Exhausts can't be noisier than factory, which means in practice all aftermarket sports exhausts are illegal.
At some point, I assume modifying drive-by-wire systems will become legally restricted.
At some point, I assume modifying drive-by-wire systems will become legally restricted.
Are those modifications illegal or is driving it on public roads after those modifications illegal?
In the US, for a while, car manufacturers could void your warranty over modifications. Something happened some-odd years back that made it so that they had to prove that the modification is what caused the issue to refuse service.
1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
https://www.autocare.org/government-relations/current-issues...
https://www.autocare.org/government-relations/current-issues...
Well that's just not true.
You are talking about something subtly but crucially different. Replacing your headlights is not illegal, only the type of headlight you use is legally restricted. Modification itself is not legally restricted, only the end result.
Yeah, a better example is modifications to homes. Those are restricted in many places in the US. I can't replace a circuit in my homes wiring, even if I follow every code.
Who is going to stop you?
But even in that case, the restriction comes from law, not an arbitrary decision made by a private company.
And there are a number of competing, qualified, third party electricians who can make the change for you. You aren't locked-in to contracting with the company which originally built the house.
Sadly, a lot of people disagree with you and do want much heavier regulations for a lot of those things.
These seem largely to be straw-men; brake rotors, pads, headlights.... all have associated safety standards.
You can install your own brake pads sure, but as a layman if you installed brake pads of your own design and construction, it might be a bit of an issue.
You can install your own brake pads sure, but as a layman if you installed brake pads of your own design and construction, it might be a bit of an issue.
In EU many modifications are illegal and you'll get huge fines and/or lose your vehicle.
Nitpick: the modifications aren't illegal. Driving with some modifications is illegal
You can modify your car to your heart's desire and put it in a garage or drive it on a race track. You just cannot go into a public road with them. Totally sensible.
You can modify your car to your heart's desire and put it in a garage or drive it on a race track. You just cannot go into a public road with them. Totally sensible.
Yeah, that's a better way to put it. But the end result for an average person is that on public roads you know that the vehicles are at least somewhat standard. You just can't go around trying to kill pedestrians or bicyclist because "muh freedom". [1]
[1]: https://i.redd.it/e9n15wjtad411.jpg
[1]: https://i.redd.it/e9n15wjtad411.jpg
Gross.
Whether or not the car is street legal is an entirely separate concern, and certainly not one that should be enforced by allowing the manufacturer to prohibit all software modifications of any sort.
It's like preventing customers from changing their own tires because "they might do it wrong and cause an accident". Yeah, they might. But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that, and it certainly isn't justification for locking down the car to only be drivable with manufacturer-installed tires, or remotely disabling cars that use tires from unapproved brands.
It's like preventing customers from changing their own tires because "they might do it wrong and cause an accident". Yeah, they might. But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that, and it certainly isn't justification for locking down the car to only be drivable with manufacturer-installed tires, or remotely disabling cars that use tires from unapproved brands.
> But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that
Imagine someone installs a cheap third-party ADAS in a Tesla that causes a multi-car pile-up. Should we expect highway patrol officers be able to determine if some third-party software interfered with the normal operation of the car? And, even if Tesla Inc is legally in the clear because the customer did it, they are the #1 target for bad news headlines because they're 'the Apple of Cars' (at least in terms of how much hype they attract), so by the time they set the record straight they've already lost some good-will.
Imagine someone installs a cheap third-party ADAS in a Tesla that causes a multi-car pile-up. Should we expect highway patrol officers be able to determine if some third-party software interfered with the normal operation of the car? And, even if Tesla Inc is legally in the clear because the customer did it, they are the #1 target for bad news headlines because they're 'the Apple of Cars' (at least in terms of how much hype they attract), so by the time they set the record straight they've already lost some good-will.
While not exactly equivalent, what if the lock was on MPG on an ICE vehicle? Would that be reasonable?
Li-ion batteries have a huge environmental cost. To hide ⅓ of that material behind software is immoral (imho).
It sounds like they were swapping in a better part because they may have not had the original. In the past that was a “win” for the customer. It seems like Tesla has turned this into a loss for the customer (more weight on the vehicle) and a loss for humanity (70 tons of earth mined for unused lithium).
Li-ion batteries have a huge environmental cost. To hide ⅓ of that material behind software is immoral (imho).
It sounds like they were swapping in a better part because they may have not had the original. In the past that was a “win” for the customer. It seems like Tesla has turned this into a loss for the customer (more weight on the vehicle) and a loss for humanity (70 tons of earth mined for unused lithium).
The energy cost difference with regenerative braking is essentially negligible between these two cars. Adding several hundred pounds to my EV driving around makes little difference by my measurements. And as to the idea of the lithium being wasted, that might not necessarily be true as well. Its not like those extra cells will never be used, its just the pack will never really hit 100% charge and will never really hit 0% charge, it'll essentially always be somewhere above 0% and below 100%. This will allow better wear leveling over the whole pack, so if the car is used a decent bit it'll get more miles on its life than the smaller pack.
Absolutely true, in the realm of anything related to self-driving or even fly-by-wire controls.
However, the software that artificially controls how much range the battery pack will produce (outside of the charging & self-protection algos) - that's borderline unethical to DRM.
However, the software that artificially controls how much range the battery pack will produce (outside of the charging & self-protection algos) - that's borderline unethical to DRM.
I assume you meant that the car in question was a 90 by virtue of a "random person's hack". Would you mind describing why you think this?
The car is a 90 (effectively) because Tesla set it up that way.
The car is a 90 (effectively) because Tesla set it up that way.
From the twitter thread: "I try to help, but without completely disconnecting the car from Tesla, when I change it back to a 90 their "teleforce" bot reaches in remotely and flips it back to a 60 within moments. There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal."
I see, so that comment is not disagreeing with the original 60 -> 90 switch. They think it's a bad idea when 60 -> 90 -> 60 was completed and then the user (and their confederate) attempted to go back to 90. So that commenter would have been okay with things if Tesla had modified nothing back down to 60. Thank you for explaining.
Random person's hack maybe not but what about say Shelby, or Saleen? I would be all over a Saleen Model S.
https://www.saleen.com/gtx/
Now I kind of want to see what Shelby would do.
Now I kind of want to see what Shelby would do.
I wonder if there is some nice fine print somewhere that they only sold a "licence" to use the car. Not the car itself... Kinda like software has...
If they want to *lease* the vehicles, that's fine. They need to make it explicitly known it is a lease for X term, and at Y cost per month of the lease. Modifying their property would be completely in the clear, or at least a hell of a lot less ethically ambiguous.
But they're selling these vehicles. As in, transfer of title to the person they're selling to. Taxes are paid. Transfer is registered with the state(s). Insurance is purchased on vehicles in your possession. And full coverage is required for vehicle loans (another set of showing proper legal transfer).
And, just because some click-wrap software has "We are allowed to murder your family and eat your children" does not make illegal clauses legal. And given in this instance, it was tesla->first owner->second owner->third owner , any click-wrap garbage would have been done by the first owner.
Basically, this is the end-run around physical ownership for all the IoT companies and companies that pay for/demand 100% connectivity. All of these companies that have these always-on remote tie ins are the Darth Vader here - "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further."
All the EV companies are doing this. I so want to buy an EV. I'm not willing to subvert my ownership rights for that.
But they're selling these vehicles. As in, transfer of title to the person they're selling to. Taxes are paid. Transfer is registered with the state(s). Insurance is purchased on vehicles in your possession. And full coverage is required for vehicle loans (another set of showing proper legal transfer).
And, just because some click-wrap software has "We are allowed to murder your family and eat your children" does not make illegal clauses legal. And given in this instance, it was tesla->first owner->second owner->third owner , any click-wrap garbage would have been done by the first owner.
Basically, this is the end-run around physical ownership for all the IoT companies and companies that pay for/demand 100% connectivity. All of these companies that have these always-on remote tie ins are the Darth Vader here - "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further."
All the EV companies are doing this. I so want to buy an EV. I'm not willing to subvert my ownership rights for that.
All cars are doing this stuff, it isn’t EV specific
It wouldn't matter even if they did. In the US we title large pieces of property so that people don't pull this kind of BS.
Contracts and DRM are two sides of the same coin when it comes to chipping away at ownership. They want to segment the market as finely as possible, to capture all of the excess value of their product.
E.g. they don't want to sell you a general-purpose GPU, but a GPU that's good for one purpose only, and you have to pay extra to use it for anything else [1]. Tesla is leading the way [2], but I'm sure other automakers are also trying to come up with ways to restrict "personal" vehicles from being used for "commercial" activities.
[1] Nvidia’s updates EULA to ban the use of gamer-oriented GPUs in data centers - https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-bans-consumer...
[2] Don’t plan on using your autonomous Tesla to earn money with Uber or Lyft - https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/dont-plan-on-using-an-a...
E.g. they don't want to sell you a general-purpose GPU, but a GPU that's good for one purpose only, and you have to pay extra to use it for anything else [1]. Tesla is leading the way [2], but I'm sure other automakers are also trying to come up with ways to restrict "personal" vehicles from being used for "commercial" activities.
[1] Nvidia’s updates EULA to ban the use of gamer-oriented GPUs in data centers - https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-bans-consumer...
[2] Don’t plan on using your autonomous Tesla to earn money with Uber or Lyft - https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/dont-plan-on-using-an-a...
I have always suspected that nvidia's closed source drivers are an intentional result of hiding poorly-implemented limitations
(see code 43 error, etc.) for the sake of market segmentation between data-center and gaming models. They would be screwed if data centers realized they could just reuse cheap off-the-shelf components for a fraction of the price.
Not to mention they benefit from building up a proprietary ecosystem (CUDA, etc.) from collecting data from users (geforce now, etc.).
It's something of a conspiracy theory.
Not to mention they benefit from building up a proprietary ecosystem (CUDA, etc.) from collecting data from users (geforce now, etc.).
It's something of a conspiracy theory.
Do you think CUDA development would be completely sustained by the profit margins of consumer cards (that would then be shared between the CUDA and gpu research teams)?
It certainly echos the approach of other tech companies like google and apple. Save money and reduce risk by not giving your employees any power or freedom to think on their own. Or not having employees even exist when possible. The customer suffers but the customer is also the sucker who used your service because it was the cheapest or free.
its all gross and unnecessary
its all gross and unnecessary
My perspective is that this simply begs the question, "How does one buy and sell a used Tesla vehicle?"
And by doing a bit of research, we arrive at the throat of the issue. Tesla is a competing Used Tesla Dealer, this is listed in their 10K as a part of their automotive segment: - https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla
This page provides no clear guidance on how licenses transfer for "upgrades." Presumably that's in the licensing details for each "upgrade." In other instances, such as Full-Self Driving it's called a "subscription" which has a clearer implication. I seek the EULA for the vehicle itself, which should detail that part of the ownership lifecycle, but it doesn't seem to be public.
The consumer may be able to work a state-permitted return: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/o...
Under the "New Vehicle Limited Warranty" https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Model_3_...
Tesla has performed an unneeded repair and broken their own obligation... "but when replacing a Battery, Tesla will ensure that the energy capacity of the replacement Battery is at least equal to that of the original Battery before the failure occurred"
And by doing a bit of research, we arrive at the throat of the issue. Tesla is a competing Used Tesla Dealer, this is listed in their 10K as a part of their automotive segment: - https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla
This page provides no clear guidance on how licenses transfer for "upgrades." Presumably that's in the licensing details for each "upgrade." In other instances, such as Full-Self Driving it's called a "subscription" which has a clearer implication. I seek the EULA for the vehicle itself, which should detail that part of the ownership lifecycle, but it doesn't seem to be public.
The consumer may be able to work a state-permitted return: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/o...
Under the "New Vehicle Limited Warranty" https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Model_3_...
Tesla has performed an unneeded repair and broken their own obligation... "but when replacing a Battery, Tesla will ensure that the energy capacity of the replacement Battery is at least equal to that of the original Battery before the failure occurred"
It's actually a bit scary. When considering what upgrades to buy, I'm afraid those won't be able to be transferred. So if I pay $XXXX for a feature, I have to account for that being worth $0 if I were to sell the car. Is the price point then really worth it?
All upgrades (e.g., FSD, acceleration boost) stay with the car. This is huge source of frustration for those of us who purchased FSD, but want to move to another car while retaining FSD.
All upgrades stay with the car unless the used car dealer is Tesla themselves.
True. Tesla is double-dipping here. They also tend to enable FSD for many of their used models, which is frustrating because I don't think FDS is worth the $7K I spent, and definitely not the current $12K.
Ah, that may be the source of my confusion. I'm probably not the only one having heard things get removed, though. So their reputation is doing them no favors.
Well, it can be more complicated than that. Each upgrade can have it's own T&C and they maybe introduce an update, that stays with the driver.
> My perspective is that this simply begs the question, "How does one buy and sell a used Tesla vehicle?"
> And by doing a bit of research, we arrive at the throat of the issue. Tesla is a competing Used Tesla Dealer, this is listed in their 10K as a part of their automotive segment: - https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla
Well, that seems to be the original reason why the older vehicle companies weren't allowed to directly sell, and had to go through dealerships.
But because it is a software company, they break the older rules and the reasons why we had those older rules. And naturally, society memory is measured in days.
This article covers the whole situation... and why we probably should stick with dealerships? https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15352113/why-do-we-keep-b...
> And by doing a bit of research, we arrive at the throat of the issue. Tesla is a competing Used Tesla Dealer, this is listed in their 10K as a part of their automotive segment: - https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla
Well, that seems to be the original reason why the older vehicle companies weren't allowed to directly sell, and had to go through dealerships.
But because it is a software company, they break the older rules and the reasons why we had those older rules. And naturally, society memory is measured in days.
This article covers the whole situation... and why we probably should stick with dealerships? https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15352113/why-do-we-keep-b...
Maybe this is Tesla's strategy. Create fear around the sale of their used cars so that they're the only company that people will buy used teslas from.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.
Whereas other auto companies set high barriers to entry to the aftermarket for used cars of their brand by making them impossibly costly to fix after their parts began to fail, Tesla skips all steps and gets down to the core of how you discourage it: generating fear and ill will. A more efficient way to discourage your "users" from "transferring" your product.
> Car is sold twice since, and now has a new owner (my customer). It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range.
When they bought the car from the 3rd party, did they buy it as a P60 or a P90? Did someone mis-represent the car when sold? Was it Tesla or the previous owner?
Was the badge on the back changed to P90? That doesn't sound like a 'mistake' Tesla would make when making a warranty repair.
Curial information here is missing. If the car was clearly a P60 that was accidentally unlocked P90 then I would consider that when buying the car that Tesla would lock it again when they noticed. If the previous owner misrepresented the car as a P90 and modified the badge then it's on them.
When they bought the car from the 3rd party, did they buy it as a P60 or a P90? Did someone mis-represent the car when sold? Was it Tesla or the previous owner?
Was the badge on the back changed to P90? That doesn't sound like a 'mistake' Tesla would make when making a warranty repair.
Curial information here is missing. If the car was clearly a P60 that was accidentally unlocked P90 then I would consider that when buying the car that Tesla would lock it again when they noticed. If the previous owner misrepresented the car as a P90 and modified the badge then it's on them.
I wondered that too. It'd be extremely unusual for Tesla to go as far as changing the badge.
OTOH, a car dealer along the way might do that if they noticed the discrepancy between the badge and what the software reported. It'd be hard to blame them too, since people do sometimes downgrade the badging on cars (eg, this "218i", lol: https://carsandbids.com/auctions/Kmm4AgbK/2016-bmw-m2 ).
It still leaves Tesla as the bad guy. The current owner bears no relation to the ones who did it, and there's really no reasonable process that could have allowed him to know that this might happen.
OTOH, a car dealer along the way might do that if they noticed the discrepancy between the badge and what the software reported. It'd be hard to blame them too, since people do sometimes downgrade the badging on cars (eg, this "218i", lol: https://carsandbids.com/auctions/Kmm4AgbK/2016-bmw-m2 ).
It still leaves Tesla as the bad guy. The current owner bears no relation to the ones who did it, and there's really no reasonable process that could have allowed him to know that this might happen.
> It still leaves Tesla as the bad guy.
I mostly agree. I think good customer service norms do dictate a reasonable statute of limitation here.
I think where it becomes interesting is if someone acted negligently in the chain when they bought a P60 and sold it off as a P90. If someone wasn't paying too much attention, they might not have noticed at all. I for instance had no idea which engine variant my car had (1.5L vs 2.0L) until I realized my mpg was poor. So maybe it's a legit mistake. The changing of the physical badge is very suspicious however. But if Tesla changed the software badge then yes, I think they deserve the blame.
I mostly agree. I think good customer service norms do dictate a reasonable statute of limitation here.
I think where it becomes interesting is if someone acted negligently in the chain when they bought a P60 and sold it off as a P90. If someone wasn't paying too much attention, they might not have noticed at all. I for instance had no idea which engine variant my car had (1.5L vs 2.0L) until I realized my mpg was poor. So maybe it's a legit mistake. The changing of the physical badge is very suspicious however. But if Tesla changed the software badge then yes, I think they deserve the blame.
Yeah, I think we are thinking similarly here. I've seen some cases where FSD was lost where it was absolutely dealer negligence.
The bad thing is that Tesla sometimes takes a really long time with these "audits". Its hard when the customer only finds out what the dealer did after months of ownership.
The bad thing is that Tesla sometimes takes a really long time with these "audits". Its hard when the customer only finds out what the dealer did after months of ownership.
Mind explaining the 218i joke?
> If the previous owner misrepresented the car as a P90 and modified the badge then it's on them.
I'm not entirely sure if I agree with this - they didn't just modify the badge, they also provided the additional rage from a P90.
As a thought experiment: if I sell you a BMW 328i as a 340i but I also swap the engine and sell it with the additional power that comes with that change, have I misled you? Perhaps - I'm honestly not sure - but I don't think selling a car with a P90 badge that also includes the modifications needed to have that car act as a P90 is automatically wrong.
I'm not entirely sure if I agree with this - they didn't just modify the badge, they also provided the additional rage from a P90.
As a thought experiment: if I sell you a BMW 328i as a 340i but I also swap the engine and sell it with the additional power that comes with that change, have I misled you? Perhaps - I'm honestly not sure - but I don't think selling a car with a P90 badge that also includes the modifications needed to have that car act as a P90 is automatically wrong.
The key of this issue here is that there's a software lock that's been incorrectly unlocked. So it's a reasonable assumption that it might become locked again in the future. Regardless of the product, I believe that morally it needs to be disclosed to the buyer so that they can be aware of the risk and factor that into their buying decision and pricing.
> I don't think selling a car with a P90 badge that also includes the modifications needed to have that car act as a P90 is automatically wrong.
Neither do I. I'm okay with 'Here's my P60, that Tesla accidentally unlocked.' but not 'Here's my P90'.
> I don't think selling a car with a P90 badge that also includes the modifications needed to have that car act as a P90 is automatically wrong.
Neither do I. I'm okay with 'Here's my P60, that Tesla accidentally unlocked.' but not 'Here's my P90'.
> it's a reasonable assumption that it might become locked again in the future
it is absolutely not reasonable that someone will mess with your car, whether they do it by software or by breaking into yuour garage. Both should be treated as crimes.
If they want to touch the car, they need concent of it's legal owner or they can go to court, and make their case to the judge. I wonder if they can convince a Judge that Joe Bloggs should let them mess with his car, because they made a mistake while servicing Jamed Smith 10 years ago. Most likely the judge would tell them to get lost, it's their mistake after all.
it is absolutely not reasonable that someone will mess with your car, whether they do it by software or by breaking into yuour garage. Both should be treated as crimes.
If they want to touch the car, they need concent of it's legal owner or they can go to court, and make their case to the judge. I wonder if they can convince a Judge that Joe Bloggs should let them mess with his car, because they made a mistake while servicing Jamed Smith 10 years ago. Most likely the judge would tell them to get lost, it's their mistake after all.
I disagree with "it's a reasonable assumption that it might become locked again in the future". Unless this was very explicitly explained by Tesla to first customer.
The default assumption is going to be "they were out of 60kWH batteries so they gave me a 90kwh battery" end of story. And gifts cannot in general be taken back. Certainly not from later owners.
It is not like Tesla will give you lots of information. I know that my own replacement battery in my own Model S was a refurbished one, not a new one, because of the letters "RFRB" or something on my receipt. At no points in their process do they provide more details than the very minimum or let you talk to humans that can meaningfully answer questions (in my own experience).
If this info (that it was not supposed to be a gift) it was given to the customer probably in the form of "99kwhlckdwn60" on the receipt and no further info or something equivalently obscure.
If it looks like a gift, why not assume it was a gift? It is entirely reasonably they would gift 30kwh more if 60kwh was out of stock?
The default assumption is going to be "they were out of 60kWH batteries so they gave me a 90kwh battery" end of story. And gifts cannot in general be taken back. Certainly not from later owners.
It is not like Tesla will give you lots of information. I know that my own replacement battery in my own Model S was a refurbished one, not a new one, because of the letters "RFRB" or something on my receipt. At no points in their process do they provide more details than the very minimum or let you talk to humans that can meaningfully answer questions (in my own experience).
If this info (that it was not supposed to be a gift) it was given to the customer probably in the form of "99kwhlckdwn60" on the receipt and no further info or something equivalently obscure.
If it looks like a gift, why not assume it was a gift? It is entirely reasonably they would gift 30kwh more if 60kwh was out of stock?
I think my original language was unclear. Let me rephrase it to: It's a prudent assumption for an educated buyer to expect a lock feature that was unlocked accidentally to become locked again later knowing companies like Tesla and their customer service track record.
I agree that Tesla taking it away after a long period of time is unreasonable.
I agree that Tesla taking it away after a long period of time is unreasonable.
I still disagree about your main point.
Even the existence of software controlled lock features is not something that most people will even know about.
I would say this stuff is "arcane knowledge for geeks", not "prudent assumption".
Not all Tesla customers work as programmers or have read up in Tesla forums on the internet.
Even the existence of software controlled lock features is not something that most people will even know about.
I would say this stuff is "arcane knowledge for geeks", not "prudent assumption".
Not all Tesla customers work as programmers or have read up in Tesla forums on the internet.
> if I sell you a BMW 328i as a 340i but I also swap the engine and sell it with the additional power that comes with that change, have I misled you?
Amongst car people, I think you have. Motor swaps come with all sorts of other risks. Hell, it’s good manners to disclose if you swapped a motor for equivalent power, for helping the next owner diagnose any problems or be aware of mileage discrepancies.
It’d be good manners at the very least to disclose something was purchased as one model, but made to be equal to a different model by whatever means. It could have future implications to the buyer, just like the ones in this story.
Amongst car people, I think you have. Motor swaps come with all sorts of other risks. Hell, it’s good manners to disclose if you swapped a motor for equivalent power, for helping the next owner diagnose any problems or be aware of mileage discrepancies.
It’d be good manners at the very least to disclose something was purchased as one model, but made to be equal to a different model by whatever means. It could have future implications to the buyer, just like the ones in this story.
> Was the badge on the back changed to P90? That doesn't sound like a 'mistake' Tesla would make when making a warranty repair.
It's conceivable. As far as I can tell, Tesla seems to offer battery replacement as a paid, after-the-fact upgrade. Presumably/hopefully that comes with a new badge since it affects the resale value.
The mechanics could have, through lack of communication or coordination, performed that same procedure for this warranty repair.
(But that's speculation, and really we just need more info.)
It's conceivable. As far as I can tell, Tesla seems to offer battery replacement as a paid, after-the-fact upgrade. Presumably/hopefully that comes with a new badge since it affects the resale value.
The mechanics could have, through lack of communication or coordination, performed that same procedure for this warranty repair.
(But that's speculation, and really we just need more info.)
How can a potential buyer verify that a used Tesla they are considering purchasing is not subject to some sort of pullback like this?
I feel like there's an information asymmetry between the used car buyer (who has likely never owned a Tesla before, and certainly doesn't know the history of the vehicle he's considering purchasing), the seller (who may specifically be aware that the car appears to have functionality that could be revoked at a later date), and Tesla (who have records of what has been paid for).
What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position?
I feel like there's an information asymmetry between the used car buyer (who has likely never owned a Tesla before, and certainly doesn't know the history of the vehicle he's considering purchasing), the seller (who may specifically be aware that the car appears to have functionality that could be revoked at a later date), and Tesla (who have records of what has been paid for).
What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position?
>What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position?
Just a few spit balls for you:
Do you have another used car for sale that is not a Tesla?
Does this Tesla have any features currently enabled that might be disabled when someone realizes I'm no longer the original owner or the current owner realizes their credit card is still paying for services they no longer use, etc?
In what ways will Tesla fuck me after purchasing this car?
Just a few spit balls for you:
Do you have another used car for sale that is not a Tesla?
Does this Tesla have any features currently enabled that might be disabled when someone realizes I'm no longer the original owner or the current owner realizes their credit card is still paying for services they no longer use, etc?
In what ways will Tesla fuck me after purchasing this car?
You could just as easily get screwed by GM, Ford, or any other legacy automaker. Your remedies are always legal or regulatory in nature, and you can’t rely on brand alone to ensure a satisfactory ownership experience.
I've never had a legacy car that could over-the-air disable things. Maybe OnStar or similar could do something, but not like the level that Tesla took things.
You're "remedies are always legal" is a bit flat. Tell to the parent that is in a rush to take their 2.34 kids to school before heading to work that they need to contact a lawyer before starting their day. And when is the last time a call to a lawyer fixed anything within any kind of quick turn time? So now you're without a car until lawyers "fix" things.
You're "remedies are always legal" is a bit flat. Tell to the parent that is in a rush to take their 2.34 kids to school before heading to work that they need to contact a lawyer before starting their day. And when is the last time a call to a lawyer fixed anything within any kind of quick turn time? So now you're without a car until lawyers "fix" things.
I agree we need better laws around right to repair and what “ownership” means when software and telematics are involved.
> when is the last time a call to a lawyer fixed anything within any kind of quick turn time?
This May when my landlord was taking a piss with his obligations.
A single letter set him staight real fast.
This May when my landlord was taking a piss with his obligations.
A single letter set him staight real fast.
[deleted]
> You could just as easily get screwed by GM, Ford, or any other legacy automaker
That is purely hypothetical, however -- as far as I know, this kind of stunt has only become a thing since Tesla started doing it. Chevy wants to reduce the capacity of my wife's Bolt by 20%, but they are asking for her permission to do that, not just sending an OTA update to do it against her wishes.
When I look at what car to buy, I am not going to care so much about regulations or legal ramifications, I'm going to look primarily at how likely it is that I will have to resort to those remedies in the future because the manufacturer likes to modify already-sold vehicles after the fact without even asking.
Stunts like this are why we are looking at a Mach-E to replace my wife's Bolt, not a Model Y.
That is purely hypothetical, however -- as far as I know, this kind of stunt has only become a thing since Tesla started doing it. Chevy wants to reduce the capacity of my wife's Bolt by 20%, but they are asking for her permission to do that, not just sending an OTA update to do it against her wishes.
When I look at what car to buy, I am not going to care so much about regulations or legal ramifications, I'm going to look primarily at how likely it is that I will have to resort to those remedies in the future because the manufacturer likes to modify already-sold vehicles after the fact without even asking.
Stunts like this are why we are looking at a Mach-E to replace my wife's Bolt, not a Model Y.
I'm not in line for a Tesla either, and the Mach-E does look nice. Their latent flaw is that they shed range much more than other EVs in cold weather: https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/winter-ev-range-loss
Curiosity is too strong. For what reason does Chevy want you to volunteer to lower your capacity?
They blow up otherwise. https://cleantechnica.com/2021/09/19/gm-tells-bolt-owners-to...
its part of a massive recall on the bolt. They completely halted production for months and months and are now going to recall and replace the battery of every bolt on the road. Before the replacements go in they want owners to agree to have their capacity cut as an extra precaution.
So is it better to do this, or do an Apple and just have the software silently start handling things for you in order to protect your battery therefore protecting you? I don't mean that in a rhetorical way either. Things happen in the real world that means products sometimes misbehave outside of the expected. To me, the ultimate thing would be for the company to revalue the item based on the new limited capabilities and refund the difference as well as making it safe. Should they be expected to buy back entirely for something losing 30% of capabilities?
> So is it better to do this, or do an Apple and just have the software silently start handling things for you in order to protect your battery therefore protecting you?
I always thought Apple should have offered free battery replacements, ideally ones that had been re-engineered to better maintain voltage, so I think Chevy's approach is good here given the predicament.
Having to accept a very small risk of fire or lose range temporarily is really unfortunate, but all 2017-2019 owners are getting a 6kWh (20ish mile) upgrade in addition to everyone getting a brand new battery with a fresh battery warranty. Options for buy back or partial refund would be good to present as options but idk how many people would take it in this car market and/or with the option to get a brand new battery.
I always thought Apple should have offered free battery replacements, ideally ones that had been re-engineered to better maintain voltage, so I think Chevy's approach is good here given the predicament.
Having to accept a very small risk of fire or lose range temporarily is really unfortunate, but all 2017-2019 owners are getting a 6kWh (20ish mile) upgrade in addition to everyone getting a brand new battery with a fresh battery warranty. Options for buy back or partial refund would be good to present as options but idk how many people would take it in this car market and/or with the option to get a brand new battery.
Better isn’t the question I would say. It’s “what remedy is fair to owners, within regulatory and legal requirements, and performed with full disclosure?”
If an owner wants a buyback, the automaker buys it back. If the owner wants to keep the vehicle with whatever changes need to be made to make the vehicle safe, they keep the car and a check is cut to make them whole for the diminished value of the vehicle.
If an owner wants a buyback, the automaker buys it back. If the owner wants to keep the vehicle with whatever changes need to be made to make the vehicle safe, they keep the car and a check is cut to make them whole for the diminished value of the vehicle.
In the US that would be the Monroney Sticker that every new car comes with. Instead of throwing it out, sounds like most new car buyers should keep it as a fundamental record of ownership now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroney_sticker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroney_sticker
What about addons that were purchased later, like FSD or BMW's heated seats? Does a simple receipt do the trick? It feels like we need some way to know that a record was (and still is) valid.
I don't understand people who throw away monroney stickers. They fit perfectly in the back of every owners manual pouch.
Hmm, the Carfax report for the car should show it as what it is originally, right? All features that are not in that should then be considered absent.
But that's not a complete list. FSD, etc. won't transfer either. You're right. This would be a useful page on some Tesla owners' wiki.
But that's not a complete list. FSD, etc. won't transfer either. You're right. This would be a useful page on some Tesla owners' wiki.
It's bigger than just Tesla. Someone should make a site with a checklist for the type of car you're buying, so you know what to ask about. And then have a contract that the seller signs indicating what he paid for and if it will transfer. Think BMW heated seats, for example.
>Should I be buying a car from a company that thinks I'm leasing a car?
Seems like the most obvious first question.
Seems like the most obvious first question.
Tesla wants you to buy a new one
Why would I buy a new one if no one will want to buy it from me in 5 years? Sounds like Tesla wants me to buy a new Ford.
Tesla's not the only one who pulls shenanigans like this. BMW was charging annually for CarPlay for a while, and now they're testing the same for heated seats. If this trend continues, people will actually want a checklist of things to ask about, and perhaps a contract that says what features were paid for, how, and whether there are any transfer fees so the new owner can use them. Sad state of affairs.
Reason 547 why you should not connect your car to the internet. Today it is limiting range because mistake several years ago, tomorrow it will be mandatory ads every time when you start a car.
Verdex presents: A Plausible Future
Driver: Okay Car are you ready to go?
Car: Sure thing driver, let's just hook up to the T-Network. Okay, we're in! Where's our destination?
D: Well, first thing is that I'm going to want a Mocha Frappe from the local Starbucks.
C: Sounds great! Off we go.
D: Wait, Car what are we doing at McDonalds?
C: McDonald's offers a wide variety of cafe style drinks at competitive prices. This includes your Mocha Frappe. 9 out of 10 baristas actually prefer the smooth taste of McDonald's Mocha Frappe to that of Starbucks. Have you had your break today?
D: No, I wanted Starbucks. Oh well, I guess we're already in line.
Menu: Welcome to McDonalds! What can we make for you today?
D: I would like a Mocha Frappe.
M: Oh, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid out frappe machine is broken. What else can we make for you?
D: Really? I just wanted the Mocha. Okay Car, can you take me to Starbucks now?
C: Sounds great! Off we go.
D: No, Car, you just left the McDonald's parking lot and then came right back. They don't have any Mocha Frappe's here. They said their machine is broken.
C: McDonald's offers a wide variety of cafe style drinks at competitive prices. This includes your Mocha Frappe. 9 out of 10 baristas actually prefer the smooth taste of McDonald's Mocha Frappe to that of Starbucks. Have you had your break today?
D: I guess their frappe machine isn't the only broken machine here.
Driver: Okay Car are you ready to go?
Car: Sure thing driver, let's just hook up to the T-Network. Okay, we're in! Where's our destination?
D: Well, first thing is that I'm going to want a Mocha Frappe from the local Starbucks.
C: Sounds great! Off we go.
D: Wait, Car what are we doing at McDonalds?
C: McDonald's offers a wide variety of cafe style drinks at competitive prices. This includes your Mocha Frappe. 9 out of 10 baristas actually prefer the smooth taste of McDonald's Mocha Frappe to that of Starbucks. Have you had your break today?
D: No, I wanted Starbucks. Oh well, I guess we're already in line.
Menu: Welcome to McDonalds! What can we make for you today?
D: I would like a Mocha Frappe.
M: Oh, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid out frappe machine is broken. What else can we make for you?
D: Really? I just wanted the Mocha. Okay Car, can you take me to Starbucks now?
C: Sounds great! Off we go.
D: No, Car, you just left the McDonald's parking lot and then came right back. They don't have any Mocha Frappe's here. They said their machine is broken.
C: McDonald's offers a wide variety of cafe style drinks at competitive prices. This includes your Mocha Frappe. 9 out of 10 baristas actually prefer the smooth taste of McDonald's Mocha Frappe to that of Starbucks. Have you had your break today?
D: I guess their frappe machine isn't the only broken machine here.
You forgot the part where it charges you for the Frappe anyway because the charge is automatic (for your convenience!) and you have to figure out which customer service you need to call to reverse the charge. Spoiler: you'd have to call all of them, wait half an hour on hold on each and at the end you'd have to reverse the charge at CC company because none of them know how to deal with it. Reversing the charge would block your car account and you'd have to spend next month with Uber while it is being sorted out.
And by being sorted out I mean you complain on Twitter and one of the Silicon Valley founders notices it by chance and mentions it in his feed, from where it reaches the support of your car company because their support VP reads it, and it is flagged as something to be handled by an actual human.
And by being sorted out I mean you complain on Twitter and one of the Silicon Valley founders notices it by chance and mentions it in his feed, from where it reaches the support of your car company because their support VP reads it, and it is flagged as something to be handled by an actual human.
My favorite part of this story is where the machine that forced you to go to the Preferred Provider⁰ was stymied by another machine that they couldn't repair because their preferred provider¹ was sued by their overlord's Preferred Provider²
0: McD, 1: Kytch, 2: Taylor
0: McD, 1: Kytch, 2: Taylor
Very good. Not only will your car try to control you, it will also fail to do it properly.
"I’ll sue you," the door said as the first screw fell out.
Joe Chip said, "I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it."
Ubik (1969)
Ubik (1969)
The trouble is, the new buyer can't charge the thing from a Tesla station until they have a "Tesla account", which means accepting Tesla's EULA, which means giving them control of the vehicle again. Muahahaha!
Now, if someone bought the vehicle, and never signed up for a Tesla account, they might have a good criminal case for "exceeds authorized access" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Because the original owner's obligations to the seller don't bind the new owner. (This is called "privity" in law. If A has an obligation to B, and B has an obligation to C, A does not have an obligation to C.)
This usually comes up in the other direction, where someone bought a used Tesla, the relevant DMV recognizes the transaction, but Tesla does not.[1] But it sometimes comes up when someone moves a Tesla to another country, which apparently causes Tesla to treat the vehicle as "unsupported".
Expect this to become more of an issue as more used Teslas are around, and there are more third party repair operations.
[1] https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/can-i-supercharge-wi...
Now, if someone bought the vehicle, and never signed up for a Tesla account, they might have a good criminal case for "exceeds authorized access" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Because the original owner's obligations to the seller don't bind the new owner. (This is called "privity" in law. If A has an obligation to B, and B has an obligation to C, A does not have an obligation to C.)
This usually comes up in the other direction, where someone bought a used Tesla, the relevant DMV recognizes the transaction, but Tesla does not.[1] But it sometimes comes up when someone moves a Tesla to another country, which apparently causes Tesla to treat the vehicle as "unsupported".
Expect this to become more of an issue as more used Teslas are around, and there are more third party repair operations.
[1] https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/can-i-supercharge-wi...
Interesting. Well they should fix this hole as they are getting subsidies to do this: https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/support/non-tesla-supercharging
You can literally just take the sim card out of the vehicle.
It’s convenient though. You get live traffic data, international radio in high quality, maps with background pictures, music and video streaming, the possibility to pre-heat or pre-cool the car while walking to it and a few other things.
Most of these are possible with the smartphone you've already got and using the car as a dumb display + sound system (via CarPlay or equivalent), with the advantage that the smartphone knows its place and the little amount of leverage it has on you compared to a car.
Don't mention CarPlay to the poor Tesla folks, they don't have it or AA.
I heard it’s fine when it works.
If only. I have an Android though.
Or... you can just use your phone + Android Auto / CarPlay. You will achieve same effect without connecting your car to the internet. And I will rather sacrifice preheating / precooling if it means, that I will keep control over my car.
It’s difficult to sacrifice that once you experience it.
My 2014 Toyota has a button on the keyfob for pre-A/Cing. Never connected it to the net, it doesn't even know what it is.
But you have to be in the range of the key fob, it’s less useful.
You don't have to. Other cars have apps, too, that allow you to turn on the air conditioning from afar.
So, they have internet?
On the other hand, with CarPlay/Android Auto I can get 95% of that without needing to depend on the usually-shitty infotainment software.
I’m not a fan of connectivity issues but I agree that the concept is interesting.
LMAO. My wife's Bolt has CarPlay and I can go in the app and pre-condition the climate inside the car. And CarPlay has many features Tesla does not offer.
So, the car has internet?
> Reason 547 why you should not connect your car to the internet.
I disagree. You should connect your car to the internet for the features (benefits) it brings. There should be laws protecting users with the connectivity though.
I disagree. You should connect your car to the internet for the features (benefits) it brings. There should be laws protecting users with the connectivity though.
As a tesla owner, this story does not make me want to unhook my car from the internet (Tesla did what was legally in their right to do, this is a nothing-burger.) I would imagine 99% of other Tesla owners feel them same.
You feeling nostalgia for the good old days with MapQuest?
You feeling nostalgia for the good old days with MapQuest?
> Tesla did what was legally in their right to do, this is a nothing-burger.
Put me in the 1%. I won't buy another Tesla ever, until there is an ironclad guarantee that what's mine is mine. I did not license the car from them, I bought it outright.
> You feeling nostalgia for the good old days with MapQuest?
Everybody but Tesla has CarPlay. Most have 360* cameras, too, and physical switches and knobs for certain commonly used things, etc.
The real joke is this idea that Tesla is leading technologically. No, they aren't. They're behind everyone else at this point. A touchscreen-for-everything only seems futuristic to a certain niche demographic.
Put me in the 1%. I won't buy another Tesla ever, until there is an ironclad guarantee that what's mine is mine. I did not license the car from them, I bought it outright.
> You feeling nostalgia for the good old days with MapQuest?
Everybody but Tesla has CarPlay. Most have 360* cameras, too, and physical switches and knobs for certain commonly used things, etc.
The real joke is this idea that Tesla is leading technologically. No, they aren't. They're behind everyone else at this point. A touchscreen-for-everything only seems futuristic to a certain niche demographic.
sure they arn't .... let's revisit in 2025
Sounds like you are Tesla's ideal customer! Most people I know don't want to have to worry about the manufacturer suddenly crippling their car's functionality months after they bought it from a private party.
I get it, it sucks, but since every car is going to support over the air updates in the coming years, it's unavoidable unless you want to drive an old ICE car.
Why stop at that? Why not a 5 second ad every 10 miles?
Oh yes. Roll down windows, full blasting stereo with an ad, so you can "transfer the message" to as wide audience as possible. Obviously it will lock audio controls so you can't mute it. Employee of the month here.
I don't think this kind of behavior is going to impact their sales, because frankly, they long ago passed the point where you have to be willing to completely drink the koolaid and not care about your privacy/independence and treat your car as just another SaaS software product you essentially rent, even if you did pay upfront.
Much like how Lay's will not lose any customers if it's revealed they actually are slightly fattier and unhealthier than everyone already knows they are -- anyone who really would care already stopped eating them, the customers left don't care.
Much like how Lay's will not lose any customers if it's revealed they actually are slightly fattier and unhealthier than everyone already knows they are -- anyone who really would care already stopped eating them, the customers left don't care.
I think it hurts the resale value of their vehicles IMO. How much that hurts the retail value is dependent on the customer base. Like you said, if the base is like the classic apple user who just wants the newest shiniest tech, then they already expect the cost of the vehicle to be sunk. But Apple's goal isn't market penetration, exclusivity is part of their brand. Tesla on the other hand seems to have a goal of replacing as many gas cars with EVs as possible. I think marketing exclusivity conflicts with the goal of market penetration, and the only reason it hasn't become a problem yet is because everyone assumes their car is losing value already.
But if Tesla wants to sell a car to the other more frugal 90% of the population, they're going to have to cut this shit out.
But if Tesla wants to sell a car to the other more frugal 90% of the population, they're going to have to cut this shit out.
I agree, I don't think in the near term this affects their sales. They've cultivated a myth of technological superiority that works with less sophisticated consumers, while at the same time offering fewer features than all of the competition. I mean, heck, even a Nissan Rogue has a 360* camera that Tesla doesn't offer. Auto wipers that actually work. CarPlay, etc.
Stories like this and BMW selling microtransactions makes me hate technology. I remember being disgusted when the horse armor DLC was released and now that type of monetization is everywhere in gaming. These stories of car manufacturers locking you out of hardware you paid for with software is the horse armor DLC of the future for cars.
Horse armor at least provided value through at least a decade of memes.
"You'll own nothing and you'll like it."
The irony is that I would love to not actually own a car, please let me pay a flat monthly/yearly fee for “having a car of a specific model or better in good working order” available to me at all times and let the manufacturer figure out how best to do that.
Car breaks down, who cares, call the seller, they swap you out, repair it and keep it ready for the next person. It’s the only business model that aligns the incentives right. Car manufacturers and I benefit from better reliability and lower maintenance costs.
This shitty world we live in is the worst of both worlds.
Car breaks down, who cares, call the seller, they swap you out, repair it and keep it ready for the next person. It’s the only business model that aligns the incentives right. Car manufacturers and I benefit from better reliability and lower maintenance costs.
This shitty world we live in is the worst of both worlds.
We'd get pretty far by just putting that guy's face and that quote on billboards everywhere. It's an idea so odious that no commentary is needed.
--------Transcript of tweets, for those that don't want to go to birdsite--------
Tesla really fires me up sometimes.
I have a customer who's the ~3rd owner of a 2013 Model S 60.
At some point years ago the battery pack was swapped under warranty with a 90 pack. It wasn't software limited. It was effectively made into a 90 by Tesla.
Years went by.
Car is sold twice since, and now has a new owner (my customer). It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range.
He has the car for a few months, goes in and does a paid MCU2 upgrade at Tesla after the 3G shutdown.
All goes well. The upgrade is done, car is working fine.
Later on, while the car is parked in his driveway, Tesla calls him to tell him that they found and fixed a configuration mistake with his car.
They remotely software locked the car to be a 60 again, despite having been a 90 for years.
He now has ~80 miles less range.
Furious, he demands they restore it back to the way it was, and they refuse. "We can unlock it for $4,500."
This guy bought a car, & years later Tesla reaches in remotely with no warning and literally cuts his usable range by a third!
(I confirmed story w/logs)
Imagine walking out to your car to find it's now 1/3rd as good as it was 15 minutes ago, and Tesla making it out like this is a good thing! They fixed the problem!
What do you do?
He tried for a while with them with no progress.
I try to help, but without completely disconnecting the car from Tesla, when I change it back to a 90 their "teleforce" bot reaches in remotely and flips it back to a 60 within moments. There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal.
Tesla won't help him at all.
Honestly, this is pretty f*cked up.
Guy had no way to know that this was going to be done by Tesla. They basically robbed him & are demanding a ransom to get back what he had before.
That's just wrong.
@Tesla @elonmusk - Do better on this and make it right. DM for VIN.
Tesla really fires me up sometimes.
I have a customer who's the ~3rd owner of a 2013 Model S 60.
At some point years ago the battery pack was swapped under warranty with a 90 pack. It wasn't software limited. It was effectively made into a 90 by Tesla.
Years went by.
Car is sold twice since, and now has a new owner (my customer). It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range.
He has the car for a few months, goes in and does a paid MCU2 upgrade at Tesla after the 3G shutdown.
All goes well. The upgrade is done, car is working fine.
Later on, while the car is parked in his driveway, Tesla calls him to tell him that they found and fixed a configuration mistake with his car.
They remotely software locked the car to be a 60 again, despite having been a 90 for years.
He now has ~80 miles less range.
Furious, he demands they restore it back to the way it was, and they refuse. "We can unlock it for $4,500."
This guy bought a car, & years later Tesla reaches in remotely with no warning and literally cuts his usable range by a third!
(I confirmed story w/logs)
Imagine walking out to your car to find it's now 1/3rd as good as it was 15 minutes ago, and Tesla making it out like this is a good thing! They fixed the problem!
What do you do?
He tried for a while with them with no progress.
I try to help, but without completely disconnecting the car from Tesla, when I change it back to a 90 their "teleforce" bot reaches in remotely and flips it back to a 60 within moments. There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal.
Tesla won't help him at all.
Honestly, this is pretty f*cked up.
Guy had no way to know that this was going to be done by Tesla. They basically robbed him & are demanding a ransom to get back what he had before.
That's just wrong.
@Tesla @elonmusk - Do better on this and make it right. DM for VIN.
Luckily I don't have to imagine because I will never, ever buy a vehicle that allows for this sort of behavior.
The person should hire a lawyer and sue Tesla.
The person should hire a lawyer and sue Tesla.
Even for actual crimes there’s statute of limitations…
the clock starts when the crime was committed which is when Tesla cut the range
Can you explain why it was committed when the Tesla cut the range?
https://notabird.site/wk057/status/1551713024171548672
https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/wiki/Instances for alternative instances to the nitter frontend
Are there any new EVs that aren't 4-wheel iPhones? Heck, it feels like all new cars are like this (vehicle is "managed" by the car company).
I'd love to buy an EV that was basically like the original Tesla Roadster: four wheels, a bunch of batteries, and that's it. The only way I know to get this is to do your own EV conversion. Not 100% sure, though. ???
I'd love to buy an EV that was basically like the original Tesla Roadster: four wheels, a bunch of batteries, and that's it. The only way I know to get this is to do your own EV conversion. Not 100% sure, though. ???
I'd wager that most EVs are pretty similar to the ICE equivalent from the same manufacturer. Teslas are relatively unique with the smartphone-on-wheels concept. My wife drives a Bolt, and it's just a car which happens to use electric motors. Infotainment and everything else is normal.
Yes all new vehicles have computers and can be upgraded. Mercedes even has a car where you are not allowed to open the hood. Welcome to the modern world.
> four wheels, a bunch of batteries, and that's it.
Go watch tear-down the car, there is a lot more.
However I don't think cheap EV like the Bold are nearly as managed and basically work like an old school car.
> four wheels, a bunch of batteries, and that's it.
Go watch tear-down the car, there is a lot more.
However I don't think cheap EV like the Bold are nearly as managed and basically work like an old school car.
Yet another example of why we need open-source information about how to find the LTE modem in cars and disable it.
Longer term, we need firewalls and deep packet inspection devices we can install inline with the LTE modem, so people can still get maps and traffic info, but reject all software "upgrades." We need ublock origin for cars.
Longer term, we need firewalls and deep packet inspection devices we can install inline with the LTE modem, so people can still get maps and traffic info, but reject all software "upgrades." We need ublock origin for cars.
We need regulation from the government that flat out prevents this kind of behavior to begin with. Customers shouldn't need to keep up on the latest technological countermeasures just to maintain ownership of a car they purchased.
Last update on Twitter:
"While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way."
Tesla is a big company by now. Probably a lot more people working there in Service Centers than in the core manufacturing & engineering. Hard to get everything right. Lots of room for improvement for sure. Rooting for Tesla to work these things out over time! (Disclaimer: Owner + shareholder, both out of conviction.)
"While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way."
Tesla is a big company by now. Probably a lot more people working there in Service Centers than in the core manufacturing & engineering. Hard to get everything right. Lots of room for improvement for sure. Rooting for Tesla to work these things out over time! (Disclaimer: Owner + shareholder, both out of conviction.)
This just makes it worse - it basically means that the only way to get adequate service for your car is to get lucky on social media.
> Tesla is a big company by now. Probably a lot more people working there in Service Centers than in the core manufacturing & engineering. Hard to get everything right
Sorry but if you don't have the capacity to attend to every single customer request, maybe don't fuck with their cars remotely, and especially not a couple years after the original mistake?
> Tesla is a big company by now. Probably a lot more people working there in Service Centers than in the core manufacturing & engineering. Hard to get everything right
Sorry but if you don't have the capacity to attend to every single customer request, maybe don't fuck with their cars remotely, and especially not a couple years after the original mistake?
The customers probably want the software updates.
It doesn't seem like much to ask, though, to have a rule that says "No software updates will alter the configuration profile of the car. The end."
The tweets indicate it was "badged a 90". Seems odd/unlikely Tesla actually changed out the badging on a battery replacement, in which case someone else committed fraud.
Yes, someone may have committed fraud. That has no bearing whatsoever on the basic problem here, however, which is a car manufacturer retroactively changing the configuration profile on a car sold nearly a decade ago.
Except that's not what happened... When the car was sold, it had the lower range. If it was resold with that same lower range expectation then, while slightly frustrating, the buyer would not have an expectation of the greater range, so it would be more like when the cable company takes away those extra channels your original technician enabled with a wink and a nod - you knew you weren't really paying for them. The fraud created a false expectation.
There should be a law forbidding software locking. Otherwise I'm afraid it will keep getting more and more popular (like the "seat heating subscription"[1]). If I buy a piece of hardware, I own it.
1 - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/14/business/bmw-subscription...
1 - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/14/business/bmw-subscription...
Tesla after-care is amazingly bad. Falling through the cracks will leave you up a river without a paddle.
You have to be an astute Tesla purchaser to avoid all the “easy” pitfalls. Which simply summarizes to: Don't buy anything that has a weird option. Don't expect to be retro-fitted for anything, and get whatever it is in writing.
With my Model 3, I bought one used from Tesla and it originally came with premium connectivity forever. However, when I purchased mine, it was supposed to only be active for a year (this was the standard deal for used car purchases from Tesla at the time). I still have it 2 years later. They probably have a filter/cutoff by vin # that says who gets premium forever and doesn't filter for sold/resold by Tesla..until they fix that glitch. It’ll happen one day, I’m sure.
The latest pitfall is service. If you have a problem, the only way to talk to someone is to go to the service center. If you have a problem afterwards, you’ll end up as a ticket in the system and no one will get back to you in a timely manner.
Service story time; I had my car serviced for a bad LTE board. It took them several days to diagnose this. When I picked up the car, they had taken apart the panels in the trunk. My mobile connector was in the trunk, and they forgot to put it back in when re-assembling the car. I didn't realize this till the day after I picked up the car. I called as soon as I found this out and could not get a live person at the service center. The call center could only put a ticket in and they'd get back to me in 72 hours. In cases like this, time is of the essence, the more time that's passed, the more likely that my mobile connector would go missing. Anyway, after a lot of calling, no one could get me in touch with someone at the service center. no one. I couldn't drive back down there myself for 5 days. When I finally got there, the service advisor didn't even go ask the tech who worked on my car where the connector was. He just gave me a new one. Very frustrating.
You have to be an astute Tesla purchaser to avoid all the “easy” pitfalls. Which simply summarizes to: Don't buy anything that has a weird option. Don't expect to be retro-fitted for anything, and get whatever it is in writing.
With my Model 3, I bought one used from Tesla and it originally came with premium connectivity forever. However, when I purchased mine, it was supposed to only be active for a year (this was the standard deal for used car purchases from Tesla at the time). I still have it 2 years later. They probably have a filter/cutoff by vin # that says who gets premium forever and doesn't filter for sold/resold by Tesla..until they fix that glitch. It’ll happen one day, I’m sure.
The latest pitfall is service. If you have a problem, the only way to talk to someone is to go to the service center. If you have a problem afterwards, you’ll end up as a ticket in the system and no one will get back to you in a timely manner.
Service story time; I had my car serviced for a bad LTE board. It took them several days to diagnose this. When I picked up the car, they had taken apart the panels in the trunk. My mobile connector was in the trunk, and they forgot to put it back in when re-assembling the car. I didn't realize this till the day after I picked up the car. I called as soon as I found this out and could not get a live person at the service center. The call center could only put a ticket in and they'd get back to me in 72 hours. In cases like this, time is of the essence, the more time that's passed, the more likely that my mobile connector would go missing. Anyway, after a lot of calling, no one could get me in touch with someone at the service center. no one. I couldn't drive back down there myself for 5 days. When I finally got there, the service advisor didn't even go ask the tech who worked on my car where the connector was. He just gave me a new one. Very frustrating.
If there's one thing we should all agree on: stop using analogies.
This thread is full of the most tortured, confusing and poorly used analogies I think I've ever seen.
This thread is full of the most tortured, confusing and poorly used analogies I think I've ever seen.
I have a Tesla (M3.) But it's stories like these that will make my next electric not a Tesla.
From the failure to deliver FSD, to the inability to quickly fix their out-of-factory fitment problems, to anti-customer policies like these they're quickly souring in my mind.
At least the car is a blast to drive.
edit: FWIW looks like Tesla decided to do the right thing,
> While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way.
https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602
From the failure to deliver FSD, to the inability to quickly fix their out-of-factory fitment problems, to anti-customer policies like these they're quickly souring in my mind.
At least the car is a blast to drive.
edit: FWIW looks like Tesla decided to do the right thing,
> While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way.
https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602
I'm with you. I had a P3D. What a blast it was to drive. But one of the reasons I sold it was uneasiness about the level of control Tesla maintained over the car and their apparent willingness to use that control later -- and not in my best interest.
I'm going to stick to cars from manufactures that don't seem inclined to do this to me. So definitely not Tesla. And maybe not BMW, they're giving off strong vibes of wanting to play this same game with their cars.
It helps that Tesla has fallen way behind in actual features, so I don't really want what they're offering. I can get lane following and adaptive cruise from anyone else, CarPlay is more valuable to me than Tesla's tiny little garden, and all the other standard car features Tesla doesn't want to offer. Wipers that work, door handles that don't suck, 360* camera for parking in tight places, stuff like that. Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on fast EVs any more, and before much longer they won't have the best charging network either. That was what drew me to the P3D.
I'm going to stick to cars from manufactures that don't seem inclined to do this to me. So definitely not Tesla. And maybe not BMW, they're giving off strong vibes of wanting to play this same game with their cars.
It helps that Tesla has fallen way behind in actual features, so I don't really want what they're offering. I can get lane following and adaptive cruise from anyone else, CarPlay is more valuable to me than Tesla's tiny little garden, and all the other standard car features Tesla doesn't want to offer. Wipers that work, door handles that don't suck, 360* camera for parking in tight places, stuff like that. Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on fast EVs any more, and before much longer they won't have the best charging network either. That was what drew me to the P3D.
I had no idea they could even do something like this remotely.
What else can they do? Shut the engine off? Lock the steering? What intelligence agencies have access? What if a side-channel can be created and (other) malicious actors obtain access?
This kind of remote access to a car is genuinely terrifying.
What else can they do? Shut the engine off? Lock the steering? What intelligence agencies have access? What if a side-channel can be created and (other) malicious actors obtain access?
This kind of remote access to a car is genuinely terrifying.
They aren't the only ones - Toyota was toying with retroactively charging for *keyfob* remote start access until the outcry caused them to double back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfDoc6wegss
But other manufacturers have to be looking at what Tesla and BMW are pulling and thinking about ways they could follow suit. A pox on all their houses; if I never buy another new car I'll be more than happy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfDoc6wegss
But other manufacturers have to be looking at what Tesla and BMW are pulling and thinking about ways they could follow suit. A pox on all their houses; if I never buy another new car I'll be more than happy.
What a terrible PR stunt. Leaving the extra capacity in place costs them nothing. The money for the bigger pack spent long ago. Now they have bad PR and an unhappy customer. How many people are going to read this and say to themselves "Yikes, I won't ever be buying a Tesla, look how they treat their customers!"
They should have used it for a little warm fuzzy "Hey we see this was in the system wrong, your car is in fact a 60, but you may now consider it officially a 90. If you haven't already, we'd be happy to send you a complimentary 90 badge to put on the back." Cost practically nothing, instant goodwill.
I enjoyed my Tesla, won't be buying another however.
They should have used it for a little warm fuzzy "Hey we see this was in the system wrong, your car is in fact a 60, but you may now consider it officially a 90. If you haven't already, we'd be happy to send you a complimentary 90 badge to put on the back." Cost practically nothing, instant goodwill.
I enjoyed my Tesla, won't be buying another however.
> To be extra clear, I don't post this stuff because I hate Tesla or anything. In fact, it's just the opposite. I hate seeing Tesla derail themselves with this kind of nonsense.
I respect the OP for saying this. But I have a hard time respecting people buying Teslas, or anything from Musk. Is it not obvious that the guy is a charlatan? (and that the fish rots from the head?) How likely is it that you won't be robbed blind if you try to do business with him or any of his ventures?
I respect the OP for saying this. But I have a hard time respecting people buying Teslas, or anything from Musk. Is it not obvious that the guy is a charlatan? (and that the fish rots from the head?) How likely is it that you won't be robbed blind if you try to do business with him or any of his ventures?
He oversells it a bit much (what startup doesn't? it's also a method for success) but I wouldn't call him a charlatan. The companies he's run have accomplished quite a lot.
Tim Dillon said it best.
“I met him and guy is a genius. But he’s also a carnival barker.”
“I met him and guy is a genius. But he’s also a carnival barker.”
Genius may be overselling it. Elon's primary skill seems to be marketing, and recognizing talented senior management to actually run the company.
I don't know Tim Dillon but you have to be equally 'smart' to call this pothead puppet a genius
I don't like him and I don't think he is that important to Tesla and SpaceX nowadays. But he did contribute at least at the beginning.
Someone called him out on twitter for his flirtation with toxic conservatism. They asked if he remembers what demographic buys 99% of his vehicles.
I didn’t see if he replied.
I didn’t see if he replied.
He needs electric vehicles to be associated with conservatism, otherwise they're going to ban them and make rolling coal mandatory. It's probably the greatest thing he could do for climate change.
If you piss off your current customer base before you land the new one you'll be filing for bankruptcy protection before you know it.
I saw a report somewhere that Teslas current customer base is pretty evenly split when it comes to political affiliation.
I don't think it was this CNN article I'm remembering, but this has the survey data in it.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/03/cars/tesla-buyer-politics/ind...
> Surveys by research firm Morning Consult show that in January about 22% of Democrats were considering buying a Tesla, while 17% of Republicans were looking to purchase one. And that gap has been closing — Republican consideration of buying a Tesla has risen about 3 percentage points just since December's survey. And Republicans are slightly more likely to trust the Tesla brand, 27% compared to 25% among Democrats.
I don't think it was this CNN article I'm remembering, but this has the survey data in it.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/03/cars/tesla-buyer-politics/ind...
> Surveys by research firm Morning Consult show that in January about 22% of Democrats were considering buying a Tesla, while 17% of Republicans were looking to purchase one. And that gap has been closing — Republican consideration of buying a Tesla has risen about 3 percentage points just since December's survey. And Republicans are slightly more likely to trust the Tesla brand, 27% compared to 25% among Democrats.
Ill tell you a little secret. You live in a bubble and 90% of costumers don't give a shit or know about the culture war battles on twitter.
And another thing, most people in the world don't give a shit either, and Tesla sells most of their car not in the US.
Tesla base of costumers if far more then the online techno crowd. The are a global car maker that is most strongly associated with electric vehicles. And most people probably don't even know that fact.
> you'll be filing for bankruptcy protection before you know it
MMhh given the companies growth and demand shortfall, pissing of existing costumer base because of some tweets is miles away from causing bankruptcy.
And another thing, most people in the world don't give a shit either, and Tesla sells most of their car not in the US.
Tesla base of costumers if far more then the online techno crowd. The are a global car maker that is most strongly associated with electric vehicles. And most people probably don't even know that fact.
> you'll be filing for bankruptcy protection before you know it
MMhh given the companies growth and demand shortfall, pissing of existing costumer base because of some tweets is miles away from causing bankruptcy.
Aside from anecdotes and fear mongering from EV owners, most people aren't actually making car buying decisions based on politics. Of the friends & family I have who own EVs, more than half are die hard conservatives. They recognize value when they see it.
I hope I can be buried with my current "dumb" cars. I have ZERO desire to have any vehicle with a built in modem or one that won't run without it being active.
My car came with a modem and was calling home. Now whatever wireless service it uses is no longer available. My car has been telling me it couldn't connect and that it would stop trying but it never stopped trying. Apparently, I have to take the car to the dealer and pay them to disable the feature in software. I'm not finding any value in this.
This is the problem with over the air updates. It gives car companies the ability to disable features at their own will. Another aspect is that software has bugs and an update can potentially also introduce problems in your car, especially when your 10yr model is receiving updates that the software engineer didn't care to test for such old model. I always liked software that runs stable software and keeps running that way forever.
I bought my Tesla used, and when I went to pull up the digital user manual (a PDF) the entire screen went black and the car rebooted.
After rebooting, I tried it again, and it did it again.
I've since learned to avoid software updates as long as possible unless the description of changes explicitly describes fixing a bug. Even then, I weigh the benefits of fixing the bug, or leaving it as is, knowing an update could make other things worse.
After rebooting, I tried it again, and it did it again.
I've since learned to avoid software updates as long as possible unless the description of changes explicitly describes fixing a bug. Even then, I weigh the benefits of fixing the bug, or leaving it as is, knowing an update could make other things worse.
Exactly. Everyone loves those OTA updates right now because they bring new features. Let's revisit in ten years and see how happy everyone is.
My first thought was back to the Celeron 300A CPU [1]. I had heard at the time that Intel had packaged Pentium 2 - 450s as Celeron 300As because they had too many but were not meeting the demand for the Celeron. It was cheaper to repackage already fabricated 450s than increase the 300A line throughput for an unknown demand curve.
The Wikipedia article says it was more of an efficiency improvement with the new Mendocino core with on board L2-cache. They really did mean for it to be a 300Mhz processor but it would easily run at 450.
Ah the days when if you got a fun product upgrade it couldn't be retracted years later...
Further, amazing that whomever made the decision to lock it down didn't consider the blow back versus the good will that was already established. ROI & Risk vs Reward... never forget them.
-- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron
The Wikipedia article says it was more of an efficiency improvement with the new Mendocino core with on board L2-cache. They really did mean for it to be a 300Mhz processor but it would easily run at 450.
Ah the days when if you got a fun product upgrade it couldn't be retracted years later...
Further, amazing that whomever made the decision to lock it down didn't consider the blow back versus the good will that was already established. ROI & Risk vs Reward... never forget them.
-- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron
I’d this isn’t already illegal there really needs to be legislation to ban this shit. Or at least more right to repair action.
There was a twitter message that made it to Reddit front page yesterday about being a black man driving an electric car in the rural south and trying to find a recharging station being the plot for Jordan Peele’s next movie. Interesting synchronicity. Also would watch that movie.
I kinda don't care about the aftermath of this. I think this entire thing is bad:
1. Tesla offers a warranty.
2. Tesla is unable to properly make good on the warranty because they don't continue to stock the correct parts.
3. Tesla uses a better part, but then tells the software to pretend the part is much less capable than it really is.
No, no, no. Stop right there. This should be illegal. We should not get to any successive steps where Tesla can gouge you $4,500 for someone to spend two seconds clicking in some admin UI somewhere. That is just bullshit. If you replace a part with something that is more capable (because you no longer have the less capable version), then the customer should get the benefit of the new capabilities. Full stop.
1. Tesla offers a warranty.
2. Tesla is unable to properly make good on the warranty because they don't continue to stock the correct parts.
3. Tesla uses a better part, but then tells the software to pretend the part is much less capable than it really is.
No, no, no. Stop right there. This should be illegal. We should not get to any successive steps where Tesla can gouge you $4,500 for someone to spend two seconds clicking in some admin UI somewhere. That is just bullshit. If you replace a part with something that is more capable (because you no longer have the less capable version), then the customer should get the benefit of the new capabilities. Full stop.
[deleted]
Seems like this had a happy ending after all. It just sucks that nowadays you have to make a fuss on social media when a company fucks up and doesn't own their mistake.
https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602
"While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way.
Thanks to those who've reached out!"
https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602
"While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way.
Thanks to those who've reached out!"
Tesla is just a cult at this point. Boggles the mind how gaslit their fans are.
The only reason to software lock the capacity of the battery in this manner is to extort customers.
There is apparently absolutely no additional labor, no additional material, nothing to distinguish a P90 from a P60 except for a software lock.
That's labor that was not necessary. All the work needed to software lock the charge capacity of the battery could have been avoided. The only way it makes sense is if you get to charge more for the exact same thing. Which is what Tesla is apparently doing.
Essentially, every P90 should be $4500 cheaper and every P60 should have the range of a P90.
There is apparently absolutely no additional labor, no additional material, nothing to distinguish a P90 from a P60 except for a software lock.
That's labor that was not necessary. All the work needed to software lock the charge capacity of the battery could have been avoided. The only way it makes sense is if you get to charge more for the exact same thing. Which is what Tesla is apparently doing.
Essentially, every P90 should be $4500 cheaper and every P60 should have the range of a P90.
> The only reason to software lock the capacity of the battery in this manner is to extort customers.
I have mixed feelings about schemes like this, but I don't think they're inherently bad.
You start off making 60kWh and 90kWh cars. Customers are happy buying both.
You notice you can save costs overall by just selling the 90kWh cars at the 60kWh price-- but revenue will fall if you don't lock the pack down to 60kWh.
Would it be better to force Tesla to maintain two different physical pack SKUs and incur more costs if they want different pricing for the different capacities?
And you do save some money, even, with the locking-- after all, the 90kWh pack used as a 60kWh one is far less likely to need warranty service-- it has spent less time at the extremes of charge and it can fall all the way from 90 to 54kWh instead of 90 to 81kWh.
This is just like binning with CPUs-- at first, the yields control whether something is an 8 core or 6 core part. Later, you lock some 8 core parts down to be 6 cores so you can sell them at a lower price.
I have mixed feelings about schemes like this, but I don't think they're inherently bad.
You start off making 60kWh and 90kWh cars. Customers are happy buying both.
You notice you can save costs overall by just selling the 90kWh cars at the 60kWh price-- but revenue will fall if you don't lock the pack down to 60kWh.
Would it be better to force Tesla to maintain two different physical pack SKUs and incur more costs if they want different pricing for the different capacities?
And you do save some money, even, with the locking-- after all, the 90kWh pack used as a 60kWh one is far less likely to need warranty service-- it has spent less time at the extremes of charge and it can fall all the way from 90 to 54kWh instead of 90 to 81kWh.
This is just like binning with CPUs-- at first, the yields control whether something is an 8 core or 6 core part. Later, you lock some 8 core parts down to be 6 cores so you can sell them at a lower price.
There is actually a second catch here. A Software locked 90>60 gets less range than a native 60kWh car for the exact reason why your binning example makes no sense here. Tesla is building the same packs and locking down the hardware via software with no yield reason but more importantly, in binning a 6 core part is a 8 Core part with a defect or not.
A 60kWh battery is not a defective 90kWh pack at all, it's an entirely different component weighing hundreds of pounds less. the 90kWh pack cars eat tires faster, have worse MPGe, and overall are Ewaste.
A 60kWh battery is not a defective 90kWh pack at all, it's an entirely different component weighing hundreds of pounds less. the 90kWh pack cars eat tires faster, have worse MPGe, and overall are Ewaste.
> A Software locked 90>60 gets less range than a native 60kWh
Yah, a little less, this is true. It also is less damaged by charging to 100%, has better regen, charges faster, and can be expected to have a much better lifespan. You could make a lot of arguments both ways for which one is better.
> A 60kWh battery is not a defective 90kWh pack at all,
The point I'm making is that most 6 core parts are 8 core parts with no defect, so the distinction becomes an artificial one for the purpose of price discrimination rather quickly.
> locking down the hardware via software with no yield reason
In addition to the market segmentation reason, there's also the much-better-warranty-yields reason, and the less-need-to-predict-what-buyers-will-want reason.
Yah, a little less, this is true. It also is less damaged by charging to 100%, has better regen, charges faster, and can be expected to have a much better lifespan. You could make a lot of arguments both ways for which one is better.
> A 60kWh battery is not a defective 90kWh pack at all,
The point I'm making is that most 6 core parts are 8 core parts with no defect, so the distinction becomes an artificial one for the purpose of price discrimination rather quickly.
> locking down the hardware via software with no yield reason
In addition to the market segmentation reason, there's also the much-better-warranty-yields reason, and the less-need-to-predict-what-buyers-will-want reason.
There's a huge difference here compared to binning: binning generally involves chips that are physically incapable of performing to the higher spec because of defects.
As I stated in my comment: this is true at the beginning of a process node with a new design. But yields improve, and eventually you end up with too many parts in the high bins and nowhere near enough in the value bins-- so you end up blowing fuses on parts that test fully OK to make them be 4 cores or 6 cores.
(And now, Intel is about to let Xeon customers pay to unlock additional cores...)
(And now, Intel is about to let Xeon customers pay to unlock additional cores...)
I was going to mention this also, software defined processors, where you have to pay intel to unlock features. But the original buyer unlocks and sells the PC, it should revert to the stock and limited cpu.
Here they gave the owner a 90, then came back and limited it to 60, after the fact, years later.
Here they gave the owner a 90, then came back and limited it to 60, after the fact, years later.
> Here they gave the owner a 90, then came back and limited it to 60, after the fact, years later.
Yah. And the buyer was a buyer in good faith of a 90 product that no one expected to be snapped down to a 60 artificially afterwards. I agree this is very problematic.
Yah. And the buyer was a buyer in good faith of a 90 product that no one expected to be snapped down to a 60 artificially afterwards. I agree this is very problematic.
Initially that’s the case, but once the production yield improves, they frequently start gimping large numbers of them.
Or. And I know this is radical. But stop selling the 6 core and sell the 8 core for the price of the 6.
Yes revenue will fall, but your costs fell as well. Your margin should be roughly the same. Anyway, I thought that's what progress was supposed to be. We get better at making things, those things become cheaper.
If the only difference between two physical items is that I'm not allowed to use all of one, what is the actual difference?
Why are we justifying these corporations taking us for a ride?
Yes revenue will fall, but your costs fell as well. Your margin should be roughly the same. Anyway, I thought that's what progress was supposed to be. We get better at making things, those things become cheaper.
If the only difference between two physical items is that I'm not allowed to use all of one, what is the actual difference?
Why are we justifying these corporations taking us for a ride?
> Or. And I know this is radical. But stop selling the 6 core and sell the 8 core for the price of the 6.
But you still get some 6 core parts-- just not enough to meet demand.
In general, suppliers prefer modulating the mix of supply of their products entering the retail chain over endlessly modulating pricing to try and match demand.
> Why are we justifying these corporations taking us for a ride?
Well, one fundamental underlying reason is that deadweight losses fall when you are able to segment markets and adjust pricing for each (price discrimination).
But you still get some 6 core parts-- just not enough to meet demand.
In general, suppliers prefer modulating the mix of supply of their products entering the retail chain over endlessly modulating pricing to try and match demand.
> Why are we justifying these corporations taking us for a ride?
Well, one fundamental underlying reason is that deadweight losses fall when you are able to segment markets and adjust pricing for each (price discrimination).
The demand for 6 core over 8 core is simply because the 6 core costs less than the 8 core. If the 8 core cost the same as the 6 core, you'd buy the 8.
> The demand for 6 core over 8 core is simply because the 6 core costs less than the 8 core. If the 8 core cost the same as the 6 core, you'd buy the 8.
I don't really understand your comment in the context of our discussion-- we're talking about price discrimination. The whole point is that you have different prices for different segments to match demand. So, yes, of course.
Initially, you set the 6 core price and 8 core prices to match actual production yields.
Later, as your yields improve, you use the different SKUs for price discrimination, which captures some of consumer surplus (ewww) and eliminates deadweight losses (yay).
I don't really understand your comment in the context of our discussion-- we're talking about price discrimination. The whole point is that you have different prices for different segments to match demand. So, yes, of course.
Initially, you set the 6 core price and 8 core prices to match actual production yields.
Later, as your yields improve, you use the different SKUs for price discrimination, which captures some of consumer surplus (ewww) and eliminates deadweight losses (yay).
I'm saying get rid of the 6 core product line when it's just as effective to artificially limit the better product just to have inventory.
You know, like how we don't make 486DX2 chips anymore.
You know, like how we don't make 486DX2 chips anymore.
> I'm saying get rid of the 6 core product line when it's just as effective to artificially limit the better product just to have inventory.
Not everyone is willing to pay the same price. If there's a market for 100k processors at $200 each, there could easily be a market for 50k slower processors at $150 each and 80k processors at $250 each. If yields are 95% at 8 core and 100% at 6 core:
* The firm gets to make $7.5M more revenue
* The firm avoids waste of about 5000 processors in the single-price, 8-core-only scenario.
* The world gets 30,000 more processors vs. what the firm would make if they only could choose one price to optimize income
* The firm has flexibility on meeting demand: they can alter the mix of 8 and 6 core processors they sell instead of frequently modifying price.
This is a simple scenario, but it shows the reason for price discrimination: it generates more revenue and it also encourages a monopoly or a participant in monopolistic competition to make more product.
30,000 people who wouldn't have gotten a processor in the prior case now get one, and 20,000 people who would have otherwise gotten a high cost processor now spend less money.
Not everyone is willing to pay the same price. If there's a market for 100k processors at $200 each, there could easily be a market for 50k slower processors at $150 each and 80k processors at $250 each. If yields are 95% at 8 core and 100% at 6 core:
* The firm gets to make $7.5M more revenue
* The firm avoids waste of about 5000 processors in the single-price, 8-core-only scenario.
* The world gets 30,000 more processors vs. what the firm would make if they only could choose one price to optimize income
* The firm has flexibility on meeting demand: they can alter the mix of 8 and 6 core processors they sell instead of frequently modifying price.
This is a simple scenario, but it shows the reason for price discrimination: it generates more revenue and it also encourages a monopoly or a participant in monopolistic competition to make more product.
30,000 people who wouldn't have gotten a processor in the prior case now get one, and 20,000 people who would have otherwise gotten a high cost processor now spend less money.
> There is apparently absolutely no additional labor, no additional material, nothing to distinguish a P90 from a P60 except for a software lock.
> Essentially, every P90 should be $4500 cheaper and every P60 should have the range of a P90.
Oh come on, don't take this to a ridiculous extreme.
I'm pretty sure this logic would say that if a store has a loss-leader then they should sell everything at a negative 20 percent profit margin.
Hell, even without software locks, if they want to sell half the stock at one price and half the stock at a different price that's fine.
> Essentially, every P90 should be $4500 cheaper and every P60 should have the range of a P90.
Oh come on, don't take this to a ridiculous extreme.
I'm pretty sure this logic would say that if a store has a loss-leader then they should sell everything at a negative 20 percent profit margin.
Hell, even without software locks, if they want to sell half the stock at one price and half the stock at a different price that's fine.
How is it a ridiculous extreme. If they're the same thing except you're just not allowed to use the full capacity of one, then what is the difference?
It's not like two physically different products. My issue is that there is no differentiator besides "didn't give enough money".
It's not like two physically different products. My issue is that there is no differentiator besides "didn't give enough money".
Well, like I was trying to say, simplify it even further. Make it exactly the same product, some sold at price A and some sold at price B. Just because I can afford to sell some at a cheaper price doesn't mean I can afford to sell all of them at a cheaper price. Right?
We can take issue with the software lock without saying something silly like "the lowest price must be the correct price". Sometimes the lowest price actually loses money. That's why I brought up loss leaders.
We can take issue with the software lock without saying something silly like "the lowest price must be the correct price". Sometimes the lowest price actually loses money. That's why I brought up loss leaders.
That just means both of your prices are wrong.
Yeah, basically, that's my entire argument.
Not every P60 is a P90 with software cap. Only a few, when a P60 battery is not available. They swapped the battery for a better one in order to keep waiting times low and costumers happy. That's a good thing. Ideally, if it's an one off thing, they should just give the upgrade for free to the customer. However, if it's more of a systematic issue that extended for a while, it's reasonable that they cap it to avoid abuse.
Anyway, now that they already let it out without capping, it's pretty shitty to suddenly cap it. Specially if the car now has a different owner.
Anyway, now that they already let it out without capping, it's pretty shitty to suddenly cap it. Specially if the car now has a different owner.
"Extort customers" is another way of saying "perform price segmentation". Customers hate it, especially when coupled with economies of scale that make building one physical thing and selling two software-separated different things, but it's perfectly rational if abhorrent capitalism.
As I quoted literally yesterday regarding the BMW heated seat subscription [1]:
> And God help you if an A-list blogger finds out that your premium printer is identical to the cheap printer, with the speed inhibitor turned off. [2]
You wrote:
> Essentially, every P90 should be $4500 cheaper and every P60 should have the range of a P90.
This is not realistic, or is at least overly simplified. There are customers who would not buy the product at the P90 price, but still will give Tesla money - just a little less. Tesla wants that money. There are also customers who are willing to spend a lot more than the list price of a P60, and Tesla wants that money too. Tesla also doesn't want to build and stock two different sized battery packs.
How would you propose that this should work? Regulate price segmentation? Better information for consumers? Moral pleading for megacorporations to act against their financial interests?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32225588
[2] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-...
As I quoted literally yesterday regarding the BMW heated seat subscription [1]:
> And God help you if an A-list blogger finds out that your premium printer is identical to the cheap printer, with the speed inhibitor turned off. [2]
You wrote:
> Essentially, every P90 should be $4500 cheaper and every P60 should have the range of a P90.
This is not realistic, or is at least overly simplified. There are customers who would not buy the product at the P90 price, but still will give Tesla money - just a little less. Tesla wants that money. There are also customers who are willing to spend a lot more than the list price of a P60, and Tesla wants that money too. Tesla also doesn't want to build and stock two different sized battery packs.
How would you propose that this should work? Regulate price segmentation? Better information for consumers? Moral pleading for megacorporations to act against their financial interests?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32225588
[2] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-...
> but it's perfectly rational
Indeed, price discrimination eliminates deadweight losses and improves economic efficiency.
Indeed, price discrimination eliminates deadweight losses and improves economic efficiency.
Tesla is acting like Ferrari. They have not earned that right yet. They should aim to act like BMW: milk your wealthy customers, but never hand over a product that isn't your best work.
So, if you buy a Tesla, know your resale value is artificially low because of the actions of the company. I would expect you will also be a target of a lawsuit if Tesla reduces features to the next owner by update unless your sale contract is ironclad. Even then, if you claim features in your ad or sale agreement that might come back to haunt you. In this case, if it was branded a 90 then you are in deep.
Payed-For Physical Objects As A Service strikes again.
A friend had one of these for a day recently and gave me a ride/let me drive it.
https://www.caranddriver.com/audi/e-tron-gt
The E-Tron GT RS or whatever gobbledygook name its got is simply not of this world. We're not going to be talking about Tesla too much longer I think.
https://www.caranddriver.com/audi/e-tron-gt
The E-Tron GT RS or whatever gobbledygook name its got is simply not of this world. We're not going to be talking about Tesla too much longer I think.
I saw first hand a situation where a local municipality did a public procurement for printer ink, and since there are no software patents in law, the best offer that won was for a compatible (non-oem) ink. This ink worked fine at the time of purchase, but after a software update to the printers (a few weeks later) stopped working.
[deleted]
I wonder technically how they implement this. If the battery stops charging at 60 wouldn’t that potentially have a negative impact on the battery life depending on the battery chemistry? I guess the alternative would be tracking power used and cutting off at 30 left which would actually be better than running down to 0.
I'm pretty short on Tesla. I'm hearing too many real customer frustrations and no customer success stories. That company has serious problems.
If I had to guess, Musk is too distracted. Take your pick of distractions, but the guy has been riding a rocket ship for so long he hasn't yet noticed that it's run out of fuel.
If I had to guess, Musk is too distracted. Take your pick of distractions, but the guy has been riding a rocket ship for so long he hasn't yet noticed that it's run out of fuel.
> no customer success stories
Have you considered selection bias, because seem like that's what's going on here.
> That company has serious problems.
You concluded this from anecdotal evidence?
> the guy has been riding a rocket ship for so long he hasn't yet noticed that it's run out of fuel.
Based on what exactly? Look at every single number both looking forward and looking backward and those numbers would disagree with you.
And Tesla had customer frustration stories literally since the Model S.
Have you considered selection bias, because seem like that's what's going on here.
> That company has serious problems.
You concluded this from anecdotal evidence?
> the guy has been riding a rocket ship for so long he hasn't yet noticed that it's run out of fuel.
Based on what exactly? Look at every single number both looking forward and looking backward and those numbers would disagree with you.
And Tesla had customer frustration stories literally since the Model S.
Sounds like this should be a lawsuit instead
Very yes. Litigate in small claims, win, and move on with life.
What the absolute hell is wrong with consumers that they put up with this kind of shit?
1. I would never want any kind of software in my car, because this is precisely the kind of bullshit I would expect to happen, given being a person who knows the state of the software industry. That and death due to uConnect etc.
2. I even less would want any kind of remote access
3. I also don't want UN*X crap in my car like sh scripts or C code, you have billions of dollars, make a real language or use assembly since the software should be small anyway
4. The fact that someone will bring up GNU+Car just proves even more how dipshit you consumers are; you can't even understand how simple things are to fix (just stop putting software in things) and just reason about the major players of the tech industry in an abstract, dilettante way.
> I don't post this stuff because I hate Tesla or anything. In fact, it's just the opposite. I hate seeing Tesla derail themselves with this kind of nonsense.
Uhh no, I hate Tesla after seeing this post and hope they actually get cancer and die (admittedly, the same probably applies to every tech company).
What if you put a "90 pack" in yourself, do they also downgrade it for you?
1. I would never want any kind of software in my car, because this is precisely the kind of bullshit I would expect to happen, given being a person who knows the state of the software industry. That and death due to uConnect etc.
2. I even less would want any kind of remote access
3. I also don't want UN*X crap in my car like sh scripts or C code, you have billions of dollars, make a real language or use assembly since the software should be small anyway
4. The fact that someone will bring up GNU+Car just proves even more how dipshit you consumers are; you can't even understand how simple things are to fix (just stop putting software in things) and just reason about the major players of the tech industry in an abstract, dilettante way.
> I don't post this stuff because I hate Tesla or anything. In fact, it's just the opposite. I hate seeing Tesla derail themselves with this kind of nonsense.
Uhh no, I hate Tesla after seeing this post and hope they actually get cancer and die (admittedly, the same probably applies to every tech company).
What if you put a "90 pack" in yourself, do they also downgrade it for you?
This is why I'll stick to dumb cars.
Any recommendation for a solid SUV? Would Toyota cut it? I remember the coronas are extremely solid but not sure about their SUV such as Highlander.
I’m wondering what the “ransom” aspect was? At first I thought the car owner had driven somewhere suitably far, and then when Tesla detected it, cut their range so they would never make it back to any kind of charging location in time and basically be left stranded?
Since America really loves deregulation, that's what you get for allowing corporate lobbies to dictate laws and prevent the creation of an EU-like consumer protection agency.
And please spare me with the "FTC exists" remarks. It's been neutered for decades.
And please spare me with the "FTC exists" remarks. It's been neutered for decades.
It's too bad consumer protection law has somewhat crumpled. This would be a great lawsuit.
It sounds like a broader problem: you buy something digital and manufacturer changes it (most of the people may even like the update but you hate it). Maybe subscription payment model would make more sense (but tbh the whole economy needs some rethinking).
"You'll Own Nothing and Be Happy"
Or maybe you won't be happy but your only option would be to complain about it on social media and hope there's enough people that matter in your follows to raise a stink and get your particular case looked on.
Or maybe you won't be happy but your only option would be to complain about it on social media and hope there's enough people that matter in your follows to raise a stink and get your particular case looked on.
Whine on social media as long as your social score permits it of course..
There is another story somewhere where a car dealer blames Tesla for software-downgrading the car. It might be Tesla to blame, but on the other article a careful read put it in a grey area. Perhaps here too, the dealer wants to wash themselves clean?
Good customer relations would have been to leave car as it was... Then again, if there is some ratio of fanatics that are ready to pay 4500 extra on second hand car this might make financial sense... You never know with Tesla and some people...
Ignoring the arguments about morality, and who is(n't) in the right, this is a prime example of why I don't trust electric cars! If the manufacturer can do this then you don't own the car, even if you paid for it in full.
What does this have to do with electric cars? Do you think this kind of thing can't happen to ICE vehicles?
It's shit like this which is going to destroy resale values for Teslas over time.
lol - once the true costs of battery replacements start to become more widely known/understood by "normals", there won't be any significant resale of electrics in general.
Enjoy it while it lasts....
Enjoy it while it lasts....
Surprise, surprise: the insane may not be a best judge of what's right and wrong.
Can we have the title changed? "To ransom" means to free someone from captivity by paying their ransom. Tesla's not freeing anyone. I think the term the poster meant was "extorts".
If more companies keep doing these sorts of things, like making you pay a monthly fee to access hardware that is already in the car, I will just have to buy an old VW Beetle or Bus and convert them to EV.
There's a happy medium somewhere in between, I think. Like almost all non-Tesla EVs you could buy today. This whole idea of retroactive changes or subscription features is limited mostly to Tesla, with BMW dipping it's toes in the water. No need to go back to stone age car.
Is it possible to modify the car to disconnect from the remote Tesla service and keep the 90 firmware on there? What critical functionality of the car would you be looking at losing, other than updates?
So, 2 owners got extra range for a couple of years. This was to their benefit.
It should be considered a gift from Tesla, since Tesla made the mistake.
If Tesla withdraws the gift then they should also pay for the mistake, somehow.
It should be considered a gift from Tesla, since Tesla made the mistake.
If Tesla withdraws the gift then they should also pay for the mistake, somehow.
I bought a used car that had satellite radio. I never paid for the subscription, but it worked for 10 years! Then, suddenly one day it was cancelled. I didn't really feel like I could call them and complain.... I wonder if a previous owner was getting billed the whole time, and just didn't notice it.
Of course, this is different as a subscription service. But what if I'd sold it to someone before it got cancelled, and told them that it had free satellite radio? I don't think Sirius/XM should then have to just give the service for free. Yet somehow I don't think Tesla should have limited the battery either. I'm not really sure what the difference is.
Of course, this is different as a subscription service. But what if I'd sold it to someone before it got cancelled, and told them that it had free satellite radio? I don't think Sirius/XM should then have to just give the service for free. Yet somehow I don't think Tesla should have limited the battery either. I'm not really sure what the difference is.
Would not buy a tesla. There are other electric cars on the market.
This situation certainly feels like it should be in a Dilbert comic.
The wasted resource usage is my biggest concern. The pack uses 50% more cells that are effectively unusable, meaning 50% more precious metals were mined for a software option.
Things like this make me indifferent. I bought a Model 3 last year, and it's by far the best car I've ever owned. I love it.
And then I think, I hope none of this BS ever befalls me.
And then I think, I hope none of this BS ever befalls me.
Slightly Off Topic. I have had this feeling or opinion for quite some time.
I dont like the world being dominated by Software which could be remotely updated. Whether that is a Car or IoT.
I dont like the world being dominated by Software which could be remotely updated. Whether that is a Car or IoT.
Imagine the poor bastards out there who can't get this social media push ...
Sounds like Tesla have the same support issues as Google...
Reason 243 I wouldn't go near buying a Tesla.
Sounds like Tesla have the same support issues as Google...
Reason 243 I wouldn't go near buying a Tesla.
Couple question for everyone dogging tesla in this thread:
1. Does your car support over the air updates?
2. If (1) is yes, do you really want to give them up because of this edge case?
1. Does your car support over the air updates?
2. If (1) is yes, do you really want to give them up because of this edge case?
Sounds like someone found an easy revenue opportunity in the data to upcharge current owners and implemented it. Probably up for promotion for it.
I've seen very few articles that make me want to get a Tesla. Most of them make me want to stay far away from that company.
A few examples come to mind, are they similar?
1. BMW accidentally enabled the heated seats in your car, then later deactivates it? So you enjoyed a bonus for a while, seems like they're entitled to remove it.
2. Bank accidentally gives you $1,000,000. A while later they realize their mistake and ask for the money back / transfer it out of your account. My understanding is that this is exactly what would happen.
What are the differences from this situation? Is it really a problem?
1. BMW accidentally enabled the heated seats in your car, then later deactivates it? So you enjoyed a bonus for a while, seems like they're entitled to remove it.
2. Bank accidentally gives you $1,000,000. A while later they realize their mistake and ask for the money back / transfer it out of your account. My understanding is that this is exactly what would happen.
What are the differences from this situation? Is it really a problem?
> Just to be clear, IMO if Tesla swaps a battery under warranty with a larger one because they don't have the right one, and they don't software lock it before it leaves the service center... well, that's on them. They can't play takebacksies years later, remotely, with no warning.
This is a really funny thing to say because they can and did. Should be clear that Tesla will do whatever they want.
This is a really funny thing to say because they can and did. Should be clear that Tesla will do whatever they want.
it's so scary that at any point Tesla can do whatever they want to your car and you are basically powerless to do anything about it. this is why i will never own a Tesla no matter if it was given to me. the horror stories i have heard and this is just another drop in the bucket.
https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551713024171548672
EDIT: Meant to paste unrolled link: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1551713024171548672.html
EDIT: Meant to paste unrolled link: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1551713024171548672.html
How is this different from all of the companies that we all work at where there's a UI or a backend process, that which turned on would cost an additional $0.12 per month, per customer, but allows our companies to charge an additional $5000 per month, per customer. I get that some processes are much more intense, but we're all still upcharging 1000x or more.
Consumers have the power here and are giving up more and more rights every day.
In the EU they can now remotely speed limit your car.
If you think the push for EVs is for the environment think again, they are a dubious tradeoff with a bigger environmental impact.
The EV push is meant to take away your control over the assets that you "own".
If you don't fight back now, you won't be able to own anything in 5 years.
In the EU they can now remotely speed limit your car.
If you think the push for EVs is for the environment think again, they are a dubious tradeoff with a bigger environmental impact.
The EV push is meant to take away your control over the assets that you "own".
If you don't fight back now, you won't be able to own anything in 5 years.
Oh jeez. This has nothing to do with EVs. Most EVs, in fact, are nowhere near as intrusively leashed to the mothership as Teslas are. My wife's Bolt is just a car that happens to use electric motors instead of gas. As are most EVs.
Also, if you think EVs are worse for the environment, then you are exposing your ideologically-driven ignorance.
Also, if you think EVs are worse for the environment, then you are exposing your ideologically-driven ignorance.
when you factor manufacturing emissions and impact , along with grid impact and waste , EVs are a clear loser
And this is why I won’t buy a Tesla.
This kind of stuff is why I'm not really keen to get a Tesla. Might get a v8 next actually.
The guy should sue Tesla for lugging around 1/3 extra battery weight at his own cost.
[deleted]
The message to customers is that they are on the hook for Tesla's mistakes.
People ask why I insist on having a car without over air updates - this is why.
Devils advocate here. Does the action of the customer service person (and maybe their manager) reflect the real mission of the company? Could it be employees (for whatever reason) not realizing that leaving the full range unlocked is in the best interest of the company?
Why would the company hire employees, particularly those whose literal job description is to represent the company, who act against the real mission of the company? Occam's Razor applies.
Who pays for the energy that is needed to move the added weight?
In my current gas truck (GMC), I disconnected the OnStar module harness. I'm not buying an electric vehicle until I have the same option.
"Green" and "Environmental" hardware companies like Tesla, Apple, etc are a joke.
"Green" and "Environmental" hardware companies like Tesla, Apple, etc are a joke.
I wish the title of this submission was less sensational.
I don’t want a car that’s this connected. Fuck Tesla.
This seems good. Yes, good. No one complains when Tesla gives free software upgrades to car owners. So to be consistent, Tesla should have the ability to also enforce software limitations.
Who says that nobody complains about this? I for one hate when a software update comes along and completely changes the UI layout, even if may come with additional new features. I don't want anything I didn't ask for or confirm, regardless of whether it's in good faith.
Internet of Extortion. What a time to be alive.
Another reason I will never buy a Tesla.
What a shitty company.
What a shitty company.
Would it kill the twitter author to write a simple post and not some 10 part twitter explanation.
Please be kind to those that suffer from Attention Surplus Disorder. (ASD)
Please be kind to those that suffer from Attention Surplus Disorder. (ASD)
Basically, it would kill the author to write a blog post.
Death as in the death of sympathy, attention, notice, psychological affirmation, pride, sharing, hype, superficial outrage and the death of this comment thread of hundreds of comments after only a handful of hours.
There's a reason why people use Twitter, because it really would be their (superficial) death not to.
Death as in the death of sympathy, attention, notice, psychological affirmation, pride, sharing, hype, superficial outrage and the death of this comment thread of hundreds of comments after only a handful of hours.
There's a reason why people use Twitter, because it really would be their (superficial) death not to.
Ah, the IoT in it’s full glory
Time to jailbreak your tesla.
‘To ransom’ means to pay a ransom.
‘To hold ransom’ (or hold for ransom) is the intended usage here.
‘To hold ransom’ (or hold for ransom) is the intended usage here.
[deleted]
Whoever invented the idea of software-paywalling already-installed-and-working hardware ought to be locked in a padded cell and forced to listen to the entire Alvin and the Chipmunks discography on repeat for the foreseeable future.
So futuristic
Fuck Tesla and Elon Musk then. This puts me off ever buying a product.
Perhaps Elon Musk is trolling Vilfredo Pareto post-mortem.
The big brands like ford who actually know how to make a car are going to swallow Tesla. Tesla had a jump on them for sure, and sold a cool brand, but their cars have major qc issues, the company is a mess, and I do not trust them long term. Bet on the real auto makers.
The only issue here is the amount of control Tesla has over “private property”.
It is not their car. They should have no say over the operating parameters.
It is not their car. They should have no say over the operating parameters.
> Ransoms car owner remotely...
Well, as expected and unsurprising. [0] It isn't your car. You don't own it and it has a backdoor straight to Tesla inc.
Especially this magnificent and well (badly) aged comment in [0]
No thanks and no deal.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29624703
Well, as expected and unsurprising. [0] It isn't your car. You don't own it and it has a backdoor straight to Tesla inc.
Especially this magnificent and well (badly) aged comment in [0]
"TESla OwNErs likE THiS BAcKdoOR abIlITY."
No thanks and no deal.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29624703
I'm increasingly short on TSLA. Not directly due to the ethical concerns surrounding this, but more importantly: as they fix their supply chain & excellent competition enters the market, the price of their used cars won't be so driven by lack of supply+competition, and confusion about what exactly you're getting when you buy a used Tesla will depress their values. Depressed aftermarket values means more buyers who want a Tesla will buy used, which will hurt new sales.
Its a really scary kind of resonance at their scale. Most companies who sell goods like these recognize that the aftermarket value of their product is a feature of new products; its a factor in the buying matrix. Apple is a great example; tons of people know and factor into the decision to buy their products that they hold value better than the competition; so a higher upfront cost can be worth it. But if Tesla is scraping by and looking to move more and more of their functionality into cloud-connected-feature-flags & subscriptions, they're going to get eaten alive by competition who can just say "our car is the same price but that's built in".
Its a really scary kind of resonance at their scale. Most companies who sell goods like these recognize that the aftermarket value of their product is a feature of new products; its a factor in the buying matrix. Apple is a great example; tons of people know and factor into the decision to buy their products that they hold value better than the competition; so a higher upfront cost can be worth it. But if Tesla is scraping by and looking to move more and more of their functionality into cloud-connected-feature-flags & subscriptions, they're going to get eaten alive by competition who can just say "our car is the same price but that's built in".
Tesla has consistently outperformed in terms of used car value and have done so for 10 years now. Based on what do you based your analysis do you think they don't care.
Because of this 1/1000 snafu? Is that really it?
> "our car is the same price but that's built in".
Maybe you should do some research. If anything other car companies have far, far, far more options and things in them that you might not be able to use. Or they just don't put it it in.
So the reality is, if you do fair price comparison with the competition and you add the features, the competition is actually not doing so well.
I hope you are not actually putting really money on your insights.
Because of this 1/1000 snafu? Is that really it?
> "our car is the same price but that's built in".
Maybe you should do some research. If anything other car companies have far, far, far more options and things in them that you might not be able to use. Or they just don't put it it in.
So the reality is, if you do fair price comparison with the competition and you add the features, the competition is actually not doing so well.
I hope you are not actually putting really money on your insights.
This has got to be one of the worst clickbait headlines in HN history, and this is an achievement. This is what happened. Person A has his tesla serviced, tesla increases his range by mistake. Person A puts a wrong decal on the tesla and illegally and fraudulently sells it as a car with an increased range to person B. The car eventually gets to person C, who takes the tesla to service where they correct the mistake.
So sorry, there is no ransoming. Just a bit of old fashioned fraud, and not on the part of Tesla.
So sorry, there is no ransoming. Just a bit of old fashioned fraud, and not on the part of Tesla.
> So sorry, there is no ransoming. Just a bit of old fashioned fraud, and not on the part of Tesla.
Actually, it's just a bit of old fashioned stupidity on the part of Tesla (or, at least, on the part of one of Tesla's employees).
They made the mistake when the car was owned by someone else (in fact, two someone elses ago). It would cost them basically nothing to just leave it alone, and instead they've gained a huge pile of ill will -- not only for the current owner of the car, but an internet's worth of customers and potential customers. And saying they will "fix" what they "fixed" for $4500 just makes them look even more like jerks.
Really bad move on Tesla's part.
Actually, it's just a bit of old fashioned stupidity on the part of Tesla (or, at least, on the part of one of Tesla's employees).
They made the mistake when the car was owned by someone else (in fact, two someone elses ago). It would cost them basically nothing to just leave it alone, and instead they've gained a huge pile of ill will -- not only for the current owner of the car, but an internet's worth of customers and potential customers. And saying they will "fix" what they "fixed" for $4500 just makes them look even more like jerks.
Really bad move on Tesla's part.
> illegally and fraudulently
How so? The car clearly had increased range at the time of sale. Tesla clearly approved of it at the time or they wouldn't have let it happen, and companies sure as hell don't get to take back stuff after years of condoning it because it was "by mistake".
How so? The car clearly had increased range at the time of sale. Tesla clearly approved of it at the time or they wouldn't have let it happen, and companies sure as hell don't get to take back stuff after years of condoning it because it was "by mistake".
It's not clear of the 3rd owner purchased an S90 or knowingly purchased an S60 that had been "faked" to be an S90.
Tesla made a mistake, which benefited 1,2 or even all 3 owners. They then fixed the mistake.
I wonder if there are some regulations that prohibit the type of upgrade Tesla did on accident, and the $4,500 fee goes to cover the regulatory requirements necessary to upgrade a vehicle.
Otherwise, yes it's kind of bad move from a customer service point of view.
As another commenter wrote, the first blame lies with who ever rebadged the S60 as an S90 and then sold it as an S90. At somepoint one owner realized they had benefited from something without paying for it, and it's unclear if they ever tried to rectify it with Tesla.
Edit to Add Ethical Questions:
If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for?
What if you order DoorDash, and you get extra food you didn't pay for? Do you message Doordash to charge you?
What if it's the opposite, you don't get food you did pay for? Ask DoorDash for a refund?
Finally, what if you accidentally receive a high ticket item in from an online order. 3 months later, the online retailer figures out what happened, and asks you for the item back. If you refuse to send it back, should they charge you for it?
Tesla made a mistake, which benefited 1,2 or even all 3 owners. They then fixed the mistake.
I wonder if there are some regulations that prohibit the type of upgrade Tesla did on accident, and the $4,500 fee goes to cover the regulatory requirements necessary to upgrade a vehicle.
Otherwise, yes it's kind of bad move from a customer service point of view.
As another commenter wrote, the first blame lies with who ever rebadged the S60 as an S90 and then sold it as an S90. At somepoint one owner realized they had benefited from something without paying for it, and it's unclear if they ever tried to rectify it with Tesla.
Edit to Add Ethical Questions:
If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for?
What if you order DoorDash, and you get extra food you didn't pay for? Do you message Doordash to charge you?
What if it's the opposite, you don't get food you did pay for? Ask DoorDash for a refund?
Finally, what if you accidentally receive a high ticket item in from an online order. 3 months later, the online retailer figures out what happened, and asks you for the item back. If you refuse to send it back, should they charge you for it?
> I wonder if there are some regulations that prohibit the type of upgrade Tesla did on accident, and the $4,500 fee goes to cover the regulatory requirements necessary to upgrade a vehicle.
There aren't.
> If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for?
If a server at a restaurant says "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" I have no reason to think it's a mistake to be charged the price of a strip steak. That restaurant doesn't get to put another charge on my credit card literally years later because a manager decided that in retrospect I should be charged the difference.
There aren't.
> If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for?
If a server at a restaurant says "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" I have no reason to think it's a mistake to be charged the price of a strip steak. That restaurant doesn't get to put another charge on my credit card literally years later because a manager decided that in retrospect I should be charged the difference.
> If a server at a restaurant says "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?"
In this case, the restaurant offered, which is not a mistake, and IANAL, but arguably "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" sounds close to a verbal contract.
In this case, the restaurant offered, which is not a mistake, and IANAL, but arguably "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" sounds close to a verbal contract.
Tesla installing a larger battery and configuring the car for it is the same kind of 'mistake' as a restaurant server offering and billing something that the restaurant manager disagrees with. "Whoops, our front-line employee wasn't supposed to do that" doesn't mean they then get to take something away literally years later.
> If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for?
I speak up, and 99 times out of 100 they say "ha, whoops, no big deal, it's on us."
> What if you order DoorDash, and you get extra food you didn't pay for?
The feds already have rules on this sort of thing. When someone sends you unsolicited goods you didn't order, they are yours to keep.
> Finally, what if you accidentally receive a high ticket item in from an online order. 3 months later, the online retailer figures out what happened, and asks you for the item back. If you refuse to send it back, should they charge you for it?
That's actually the same example. You're asking moral questions, but they have established legal answers.
I speak up, and 99 times out of 100 they say "ha, whoops, no big deal, it's on us."
> What if you order DoorDash, and you get extra food you didn't pay for?
The feds already have rules on this sort of thing. When someone sends you unsolicited goods you didn't order, they are yours to keep.
> Finally, what if you accidentally receive a high ticket item in from an online order. 3 months later, the online retailer figures out what happened, and asks you for the item back. If you refuse to send it back, should they charge you for it?
That's actually the same example. You're asking moral questions, but they have established legal answers.
Yes, they were ethical questions, and thank you, I now know that for unordered items, you are under no obligation to return them.
Likewise, if Amazon sends the wrong item to a customer, they have to send the right item, or refund the purchase.
I wonder if this also applies to packages being delivered to the wrong address.
Likewise, if Amazon sends the wrong item to a customer, they have to send the right item, or refund the purchase.
I wonder if this also applies to packages being delivered to the wrong address.
Sounds like all around bad decisions. The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90". Tesla, being notified, should have just enabled the 90 and made the customer happy. How exactly are people supposed to abuse this? Tesla put the 90 in there and they're the only ones who are going to be doing that. Presumably this cost them a fortune to do it in the first place. Why not get some good will out of it? "Hey sorry about your battery. We only had a 90 so we threw that in there. Enjoy. Tell everyone you know about how awesome Tesla was about fixing the problem and remember that next time you go to buy your next car"