Nobody ever got fired for doing exactly what the process said they should.
Someone in the chain that handled this ticket probably just didn't realize this was a case of broken process that would lead to a newsworthy bad outcome so they didn't escalate it and instead did what the process told them to. Maybe there was a perceived bigger fire to fight that day or something. It's really hard to build a support system that is highly averse to any perceived risk or monetary loss to the company without having things like these slip through the inevitable cracks in your processes.
+1- and so many companies have gotten themselves in trouble for this. Some employee follows a policy blindly (even when it shouldn't apply or should be escalated) and then the PR blows up...
> Someone in the chain that handled this ticket probably just didn't realize this was a case of broken process that would lead to a newsworthy bad outcome
All the more reason to avoid Teslas and any other equipment that can be modified remotely after the sale.
Business 101: if you give someone something, even by accident, it's NEVER going to end well if you try to take it back. You have two options: accept it as a sunk cost, or lose the customer forever.
Removing it after it was returned to them, and restoring it to a standard model as far as possible for maximum resale opportunity, fine. Selling it on to a dealer, including the additional features as part of the package, and then revoking those features them after the sale, is incredibly stupid and sounds illegal.
This is absurd. It’s theft, plain and simple. Tesla wants to habe each owner of the car pay the $7,000 software update option, yet when someone pays for it, they refuse to transfer the license to the buyer’s next car.
I think they're implying the original owner may not have paid for autopilot, and perhaps had it activated through illicit means, like persuading an employee to tweak a database.
Be that as it may, in the meantime the car returned to Tesla's ownership who then advertised it as having those options.
They need to reactivate it for this car (forever), apologize for the misunderstanding and then case is closed.
Well I did read the article and it has what seems to be a sales sheet for the car from the auction, on which you can see those features listed.
It is a bit confusing that some are marked included and some have a price tag, but if you add up all the price tags you get the advertised price, so I think it's reasonable to assume that everything listed there is included in the purchase.
There are also screenshots, supposedly from the car, showing that the car has those features activated.
Now, I'm not going to independently verify the claims the article makes and I'm for now assuming it's presenting the case in a fairly unbiased way.
It seems to me then that Tesla's position is that since the activation was done without payment and their knowledge (again, I believe the article for now), then they have the right to deactivate it.
And I would agree with them if anyone other than Tesla themselves had sold the car at the auction.
But they did, they said the features were there and they have the authority to add them, so they should.
They didn't verify the car properly before selling and that's on them.
The fact that this was a lemon law buyback suggests to me that the original owner did pay for the feature, but then got a full refund. Tesla intended to restore it to standard features but accidentally sold it on before doing so, and in doing so asserted that it still included that feature.
Legally, I think that leaves them in the same position as if they'd intended to remove the premium interior but sold it on before doing so - tough.
If I have a computer with a big pile of really expensive software on it licensed to me, and I sell you that piece of hardware, without formatting the disks, does that mean I’ve sold you those licenses?
I think any reasonable take here is “no, you did not”.
A Tesla is a computer that just happens to have wheels.
In this case, it sounds like someone bought a second hand computer that happened to have an unlicensed installation of some software, and the license was revoked. Perhaps the car was ex-demo before the owner who auctioned it off did so.
Now, there’s a separate question around the communications over this, and the dealer/end customer being mis-sold, and they’ve stumbled there, but this is more of a gap between expectations (it’s a car!) vs reality (it’s a computer).
If the computer is specialised to the extent that the software is only useful on that one computer, and you have no ongoing use for the software without the computer, and perhaps you even advertised the software license as part of your sale...
I think this analogy depends entirely on communication and your ability to defend what you think of as your property. Applying the reverse logic, is it theft if the person uses that software that you sold them access to?
As far as I'm concerned, someone's property is what they can defend as their property. If someone has access to a license that you didn't intend to sell them, but also doesn't impair your ability to use it, then you now both have that property.
Otherwise, if you clearly communicate that it's part of the deal, but then keep a backdoor in, and remove the software from the person's new computer, that's theft.
The only way I'd argue that the software would remain yours after the transaction and when you forgot to exclude it, is if you maintained access to it somehow. Whether the person keeps it or not is up to their goodwill or ability to use the licenses. In the old days, if a computer came with a Photoshop license on it, it's yours.
Could Tesla owners really keep the FSD 'license' when selling a car and use it with their next Tesla? I have never read about anything like that. I thought the features were tied to the car, not to the owner.
it seems in this case the expensive software was never licensed to begin with. It was on the PC by accident so to speak.
Its like buying a PC with an internet activated piece of software which is later deactivated remotely because the software detected it was never licensed.
BUT Tesla and others in the chain should not have listed it as an extra and those are now required to make this right. This could mean accept the return of this product, or leave the feature activated
If you want to stick with the computer metaphor, it's like Tesla sold you a computer with some paid-for firmware options enabled, tied to that device, that cannot be transferred to any other device, then pulls them post-resale.
Tesla needs to pick: either it's software licensed to you as a person and therefore transferrable to another car, or it's software tied to a specific car and therefore transferrable to another person.
I would say this is very similar to Cisco saying that the IOS license for their switches is non-transferable. You go buy a switch on eBay, and you'll have to pay a license fee to Cisco.
Mind you that this is not legal in Europe. Licenses are transferable regardless of what American corporations say.
Even funnier, if you, say, get cancer and die, and you leave your girlfriend your car, she can't have autopilot without ponying up again, even if you lived with each other for decades.
Autopilot must be a really high-margin feature for Tesla. $7k for basically a remotely-managed software license the end-user has no real control over. Once the costs of development, maintenance, and labor are recouped, then each successive AP activation is a big extra margin for Tesla over the normal vehicle price.
The entire "Autopilot" feature is technical ability driven by marketing to pump more money out of their car sales. Good business for Tesla, but a shitty thing to do to consumers to treat autopilot as an owner-dependent feature and not as a feature that could be handed off. That's one of the biggest negatives to having cars that can innately phone home to the manufacturer - it gives Tesla the power to giveth and taketh away at their discretion, and leave the car and consumer S.O.L.
I can really live without updating my car. Last year I used an electric company car to drive home. Or at least that was the plan. After half of the way a warning light flashed up and the display told me to stop the car as soon as possible. That I did. It completely shut down after stopping. Nothing worked anymore besides warning lights, otherwise it was completely dead. Had to leave the car behind and walk home (short trip, I was just lazy because winter).
Next day in the morning I tried to start it up and it actually worked again. The display just shortly displayed 'update complete'. Made me laugh. I believe the error was related to the battery being low while it was really cold outside and the update notification was unrelated. But I guess you could call that "camping mode".
Still left me with an appreciation for my old car, which is too old and stupid to receive updates and is really dependable without me treating it that well.
That sounds like a real life nightmare to me. I have to be able to depend on my transportation. It’s going to be excessively costly and stressful for me to rely on someone else in that case. Completely unacceptable behavior from a car.
Dumb cars are nice. My car is so dumb that I can start it without a battery, so long as I have a sufficiently steep hill or a few people to push it.
My car is so dumb that it doesn't brick itself when I change the suspension or put a bigger turbo on it. Though it might send a piston into orbit.
You don't need to be nannied by your car.
Further, it takes a naive level of trust to be okay with an "essential", non-subscription item depending on the benevolent existence of a 3rd party. Be it vehicles, machinery, firearms, combine harvesters or front door lock.
Even if you can start it without a battery in there please don't. The battery keeps the voltage down and without it - even if it is otherwise empty or unusable - you could easily damage the electronics in your car.
Yes, but if it's a choice between getting my car started and having to redo the electronics (which I can do with 3rd party parts, as I please) or getting stranded on the highway, I am happy to have the ability to choose.
Sure, but it is just about leaving it connected. Your car will jump start fine like that anyway. I take it you don't lose your battery on the highway :)
End user has the same control as over any feature of the car.
If you buy Tesla and then buy FSD and then sell that car to someone else, FSD stays with the car. It would be absurd if it worked any other way.
In this case, the car was sold back to Tesla, a dealer bought it from Tesla and sold it to someone. Tesla determined that the car was configured with FSD even though the user never paid for it.
Now it's a he said / she said situation.
The user got screwed because he lost FSD that he thought he had.
The question is: was he screwed by the dealer (who mis-represented availability of FSD) or was he screwed by Tesla (who mis-represented availability of FSD to the dealer). Or maybe the dealer misunderstood.
Either way, this should be straightforward to resolve.
The buyer should be made whole by the dealer, because dealer sold the car.
The dealer should be made whole by Tesla (if Tesla indeed misrepresented the car).
All parties have relevant documents so it should be clear who's responsible for what.
> End user has the same control as over any feature of the car.
If you buy Tesla and then buy FSD and then sell that car to someone else, FSD stays with the car. It would be absurd if it worked any other way.
People are having FSD disappear from their cars and having to produce invoices showing they bought it in order to have it restored. How do you do that when you bought it used?
You have misinterpreted what the article documents:
> In this case, the car was sold back to Tesla, a dealer bought it from Tesla and sold it to someone. Tesla determined that the car was configured with FSD even though the user never paid for it.
The dealer purchased the car from the manufacturer and the window sticker (required by law to be provided by the manufacturer to prevent dealer fraud) listed the “FSD” feature as included with the device. The purchaser bought it with the understanding that that list of features was correct. The dealer had no say in the matter either way.
You don’t have to take my word for this: the Monroney sticker is actually in the linked article.
Legally this is unambiguously fraud by the manufacturer.
I agree with your analysis - the beuyer did pay for the feature, but there is one detail you got wrong: a manufacturer Monroney is only required for new cars.
Unless I am woefully misinformed, Tesla is absolutely 100% not allowed to sell a lemon buyback as a new car. It's a used car, and on top of that it has to be disclosed as a lemon buyback.
I'm not familiar with US laws around these stickers, but that doesn't sound like a get out for Tesla. Not being legally required to provide a sticker doesn't (or shouldn't) change the fact that, if the manufacturer provides a sticker anyway, it must be accurate.
Agreed. It may not have the slam-dunk legal authority that a monroney sticker on a new car would have, but it is still documentation that shows features and a VIN, and including it in the car is tantamount to claiming that the car has these specifications. It was foolish of Tesla to include it.
I think it was correct for Tesla to include it and I think their policy of non-transferable licenses is exploitative. Not legal in the EU but they can get away with that crap in the USA.
In Europe this would be very straightforward. The car is not "as described" in the sale. Return it to the dealer who has to make it right: add the missing feature, agree a discount, or give a full refund.
And I'm pretty sure Tesla will have lawyers who will pull their general sales conditions saying that the $8k self-driving option is a nominative, non-transferable software license and will likely win in court.
Also the validity of software EULA in the EU is still blurry for me (definitely not expert), to my knowledge they are not more enforceable than conditions of how you are permitted to use any object you bought. You own it, you are free to use it as you want basically (at least it was right during retail CD years). SaaS circumvent this because these are conditions to use a service.
I don't think there's just one answer to EULA validity in the EU, but rather there's a bunch of shit in EULA's that is enforceable in the US but have absolutely no basis in all/some EU countries.
For example, shrink wrap EULAs have not been considered binding here.
And any lawyer who wasn't bottom of his graduating class will say they it's a one time upgrade, tied to that VIN, in the same way that an upgraded interior or larger set of wheels is.
If this optional upgrade can be renegotiated at time of future sale, then any and all other upgrades must necessarily be renegotiable too.
I don't think Tesla wants to have to replace interiors every time someone resells a vehicle.
Except that it is a transferable software license, as Tesla owners sell their cars regularly and of course the autopilot and the self-driving option stays active. Whatever exactly went wrong in this case, this has to be a very individual thing where it is unclear whether the car ever had a valid license for the autopilot.
The whole approach of making software unsellable is very American. Here in Europe we have a guaranteed right to sell used software.
For example, Autodesk turned their 3ds max from $5k once into a $6k annual subscription. As a result, people started buying used perpetual licenses to avoid the overpriced subscription. Autodesk is denying those used license transfers in the US, but they have to tolerate it in the EU.
As a result, advertisement, movie and CGI studios in Europe gained a competitive advantage over US companies because the weak US laws failed to protect their own studios from predatory pricing.
And for a CGI animator making $3k monthly, those $6k in annual software fees really add 16% to the gross price, so enough to drive customers elsewhere.
Anyone actually pays those exorbitant prices? I thought they were just for bribery-fueled wholesale deals, everyone else just pirates them. Know a lot of animators and no one ever paid for those.
I doubt that. Maybe they don’t have a license personally but the studio they work for sure has, or they are just one disgruntled employee away from getting a friendly reminder from Autodesk
LOL i know a media rendering farm, a big one, that uses pirated Adobe software of all kinds. Asked how do they deal with licensing they just say "but well we are a Russian company, we are not concerned with this, licensing is a Western concept".
The notion of "registering an app" ("зарегистрировать приложение") in Russian means "finding a crack".
It's a lot of money, but if you are making a living professionally, in such a specialized profession too which can warrant charging more, you should pay for the tools you use.
A plumber has the choice of buying the MegaPlumberPlus (making it up) for a high price but that makes them 10% more efficient, or weld together their Plumbathon. Doesn't matter what the cost of the MPP(tm) is, it can not justify stealing (pirating in sw) it. Not in a moral, nor legal way.
For a private person doing private stuff on their own computer perhaps many would say morally this is grey, but if you live from it? Pay'em or don't use it.
Yep, we just bought a second-hand Microsoft SQL Server 2016 licence for like ~$1000 for a 100-user licence, just because a company migrated to 2019 and they are legally allowed to sell their old licence. The licence activated with MS after a quick phone call and we have all the invoices etc. No problem at all.
Just as well. After the Brexit transition period ends on 31/12/2020, those laws may not cover UK consumers anymore unless the Parliament creates an equivalent law for the UK (unlikely).
Well it does apply to retail software; oem means you have to resell the hardware too. Everything else is subscription which is the real meaning of licensed.
That's exactly how this should/would work in the US. I'm not sure why the owner didn't raise hell with the dealership when the car was not as described.
When you buy a car in America (some states?) you get a Lemon Law disclosure explaining your rights in these types of situations. The Tesla owner should be able to return the vehicle (I'm not sure if a refund for the feature alone is written into the law).
I'm not so sure about the stock. This line in the article:
> The car was sold at auction as a result of a California Lemon Law buyback, as the car suffered from a well-known issue where the center-stack screen developed a noticeable yellow border.
makes me think that soon (say the next 2 years) there will be a shitload of Teslas - which were bought during their mass adaption time - which will start malfunctioning because of wear, and the company will be in pretty deep shit, with a lot of customers with no cars and long waiting times for the service. Hmm, and how is their parts distribution network?
So what you're saying is you like companies with shitty consumer attitude? Because that right there is exactly how you get them and ruin the business landscape for everyone else.
I mean, you're incentivizing the behavior by extending them the funding to operate. "The Market" is you, and you are "the Market".
I have no plans to ever work for Amazon even as a software developer - but I wish I had bought the stock.
I held Wells Fargo for awhile - specifically because they bragged about how good they are about extracting fees from customers. I would never bank with them, I use credit unions exclusively.
Tesla might be "the F-35 of personal autos", but it kind of makes sense for have the AI part of a product be SaaS. The company invested a ton in R&D, and it's also liable for the damages (including deaths!) that the feature might produce if it malfunctions (hence they'd want it disabled after N years period where supporting it is no longer cost effective - even the fact that a city's roads configuration drastically changes 10 years in the future independent of the car could make the self-driving system unsafe, it's a systems issue here, no longer and "isolated product"!).
We're probably going to start seeing this more and more with "truly smart" devices... Though we do need ways to re-sell software licenses for firmware and stuff while they are still supported, even if separately from the actual hardware.
The feature in this case was never payed for it seems. By nobody. It was wrong to list the car as having the feature. Which is why it can be deactivated, BUT this means the buyers have a right to return it up the chain to whoever made the mistake first.
All Teslas are built with FSD hardware included. If you pay the extra $7k or whatever it is, they just enable it for you in software. In here, they are just arguing that it was enabled by mistake and the customer never paid for it in the first place.
That's like how the BMW E46 comes with cruise control. All of the circuits to enable cruise control are in the cars from factory (except maybe not for the earliest model years). However, if you chose not to get a multifunction steering wheel, you can't activate it.
What if a customer ordered a car without the multifunction steering wheel and BMW accidentally built it with it. Couple of years forwards and someone notices that for some reason, the order sheet and the build sheet do not match. The owner takes their car to be serviced and the BMW technician switches the multifunction steering wheel panel with the blank steering wheel panel.
How can BMW at that point explain that the customer never paid for cruise control and therefore they never had it? The manufacturer shouldn't punish the consumer for their mistakes.
Which honestly doesn't sound relevant to the purchaser. My understanding is that the Monroney sticker stipulates exactly what features are included in the vehicle, as provided by the manufacturer. By purchasing the vehicle, the customer has paid for exactly those features.
This is like them saying "Oh, we forgot to charge your dealer you for the premium interior and lighting" (which is listed on the same sheet as a $5000 option) - your response would quite rightly be "Tough, I bought it from the dealer at the agreed price based on the features listed, it's mine now"
Absolutely, and as others have already pointed out, it's on the dealer to put this right. Either refund the customer, pay for the upgrade, or take the car back.
Except the FSD was also on the new-car Monroney sticker, as shown in the article. As far as anybody outside Tesla can tell, the car was originally sold with FSD. It appears the owner had it, used it, then got caught in this update nightmare.
If a car manufacturer accidentally sells a car with an upgraded interior priced as a non-upgraded interior, once it's gone, they can't chase down whoever owns it and swap out the seat leather.
They fucked up, too bad, so sad, try again next time.
I am pretty sure it is. Stealing something that someone legally bought from you back again because you made a mistake when calculating the sales price is blatantly illegal, regardless of whether the "stealing process" includes breaking up the car door and ripping out seats or unchecking some checkbox in a remote management software.
The latter is much easier, but not an iota less illegal from the viewpoint of the law.
> You don't loose $7k feature when you sell the car, it stays with the car.
... revokable with a change in the EULA? Does the EULA have an arbitration clause?
It would be a dumb move to pull this trick, but then again, what they did here was a dumb move. You can't trust the bean-counters to be reasonable when they see a way to get more beans.
Too late, I already bought one a few months back. And I am absolutely concerned about what incidents like this will do to the resale value. Thankfully I don't have any optional features like FSD on my car, but still, perception is more important than reality and reduced demand will definitely have an effect on the value.
Seems to me that it depends on if you buy the software for your account or for your car. Both are valid buissness models as far as I am concerned. If you buy it for your account you should only have to pay it once and then migrate it from car to car. If you buy it for the car it should be bound to the car.
Read my first actual post. My point was not that they should be able to just do that. My point is that it needs to be contractually clear what is gone happen. What are parts of the car and what are services you are buying with your account.
Neither way to do it is wrong and suggesting so is just dumb, the same trade-off exists all over the place in other industries as well.
You could totally remove heated seats digitally though. Just disable the heated seats button via a diagnostics computer. No need to remove the physical button or the actual heating elements.
Yeah but you can't grantee that any other Tesla a user has can activate heated seats. Whatever model you go with it needs to be clear when you buy it how its gone work.
Perhaps. But speaking for myself, that's not the point. The point is that this is a great example of the risks of having stuff that can be updated by the manufacturer. We see similar things happening (albeit at lower price points) in software all the time.
This is an example of why I object to software that phones home and/or engages in automatic updates. It puts far too much control in the hands of companies.
> I object to software that phones home and/or engages in automatic updates
But Tesla's don't auto update. So it's not on topic.
We have to stay in reality.
Updates push us forward. It comes with risks but so far the rewards outweight the risk.
Elon made a car that can update! That's fucking amazing. It's what he does. Changes the game. Makes NEW things that push everything forward. It's a new way of thinking.
These comments seem straight from TSLAQ but sadly don't seem to be from that intelligent evil which would be interesting! just seems like stupidity.
A $50 billion+ company that works on reputation will ruin that for $7000?
Good to know -- so users can simply elect not to accept updates? What about when Tesla changes the operating characteristics of the car, is that always optional? Is accepting the change this article is talking about optional?
If so, then I have no objections, although I will still never buy a Tesla or any other vehicle that phones home.
> Updates push us forward. It comes with risks but so far the rewards outweight the risk.
Perhaps. But as long as it's the owners who get to decide whether or not the risk is worth it, that's fine. If the manufacturer gets to make that decision, that's not fine at all.
Looking at it from the original buyers perspective,
When they sold/traded in their used Model S to Tesla did the price they get take into account the self drive feature, or do Tesla pay the same trade in regardless of software features?
If Tesla aren't buying back the feature then it makes it even less enticing to buy it on a new car as it has 100% depreciation!
If they're paying for it at trade in then removing it before they sell it on then thats kinda fair enough its a bit like a dealer taking in a car with fancy wheels and putting stock ones on before they sell it on, sucks for the used buyer if they then have to pay full new price to add that feature later but...
Although in this case it seems the issue is that Tesla sold a used car with a feature and then decided to take that feature back, which is theft in my book pure and simple.
It sounds like it was returned due to lemon law, which I imagine means the original buyer received a full refund. That's probably also the reason the feature was removed - they probably meant to disable it before selling it on. However, they didn't, and that's their mistake to accept - they can't just revoke features after they've already sold it without agreement from the buyer.
The Monroney paperwork is provided by the manufacturer as a legally binding assertion of the features the vehicle was sold with - there's a copy of that in the article.
I'm not 100% sure of the law, but I wouldn't expect that to make a difference. The manufacturer may not be legally required to include the document if the vehicle isn't new, but if they choose to include one, I expect that it would still be required to be accurate and would still be legally binding.
Tesla is kind of hostile to second hand market. No spare parts , no service history info, unauthorized repair disables charging etc.. Basically Apple mentality.
Car with a good maintenance should last 20 years. Not like a phone that gets thrown away every 5 years.
This is outdated. Tesla now publishes a full parts catalog. You can call up the parts desk at any Tesla Service Center and order whatever part you like (for the most part, a few critical parts are restricted). I believe they do ask for a VIN number, though.
Unless its changed even more recently - they _do_ publish a parts catalog.
And every single item, down to the most commodity screw/bolt doesn't list a price, just says "Contact Tesla for Sales". And according to at least a few people who have indeed contacted them, "Sorry, that part is not purchasable".
Basically as if a state said they had to make parts available to be (potentially) purchased online, and they had followed the very letter of the law.
I think it's just a matter of time until Tesla moves to a subscription model. The current model of selling FSD as an early adopter package relies a lot on the promise it will be there soon and the expectation that the value (and price) will go up. If Tesla doesn't deliver on their FSD promises before current owners start looking for their next car, there's a huge risk of disappointment. These will be customers who paid thousands of dollars for FSD functionality that they never got.
Turning FSD into a subscription solves this: allowing customers to take the functionality to their next car keeps the current customer base happy and avoids messing up resale value if Tesla does not manage to deliver FSD on current hardware. It also creates a huge incentive for current owners to make their next car also a Tesla.
Tesla is already starting to offer premium functionality such as entertainment on a subscription model. As soon as FSD is good enough that people actually want to pay monthly for it (and not just the promise of it), I expect Tesla will do the same for FSD (and maybe even for other things like performance upgrades).
But to sell a subscription you have to have a product. You can sell FSD “capability” now, but if they switched that to a subscription they’d have to say “sign up to this list to start paying the subscription when we actually have FSD”
They have a product, it is just misnamed. FSD gets you smart summon, navigate-on-autopilot, AP lane switches, and autopark. It should be called enhanced autopilot, because actual FSD is so far away that nearly all current Teslas will be crushed before it's a real thing.
The real kicker is that before Taleb brought it to light, Tesla support was telling people who accidentally purchased the Autopilot feature that "sorry, we can't undo the purchase/the feature is added, and it's permanent".
And like that debacle, maybe what's about to happen is Elon is realizing what an ongoing PR disaster this is going to be, with the number of used Teslas going up every day. Any moment, perhaps, he will tweet a policy change.
Obviously not. But that's the crux of the issue, FSD is not assigned to the owner but the car, apparently. But the article claims that it does not stay with the car.
I think the real underlying issue (said elsewhere in this comment section) is that Tesla accidentally turned FSD on when recertify the car and their internal processes reconciled the mistake by turning it off, rather than eating the mistake.
Or the car got an OTA update for the tranche without FSD, because that system had it as non-fsd.
The article does not say that. The point here is, that supposedly the dealer who sold the car had bought the car without auto pilot, but it was active when handed over. If he had bought the car with auto pilot from Tesla, it would have stayed with the resale.
(All sides now have to check the contracts carefully to find out who actually bought what)
I'll be honest, while the facts definitely matter for the individuals in this case, the whole idea that this scenario can happen in the first place is very unsettling to me. Prior to this incident, I had overlooked the degree of control Tesla has over their products and made owning a Tesla one of my medium-term life goals for the environmental benefits.
However, upon seeing how they exert the control they have over a vehicle's functions remotely has caused me to rethink whether or not I trust them enough to purchase a product. I can accept unintended bugs, this is a risk I would be willing to take (and hopefully neither me nor my family would suffer terribly for), but for the vehicle itself to have a feature enabled upon sale and then have it disabled after an audit is beyond what I can find acceptable. I understand some fault may rest on the dealer if they misrepresented how they were allowed to sell the car, I'm not talking about "did the customer pay for this feature or not". I'm talking about how such a significant, and expensive, feature of a car can be arbitrarily, and unilaterally, toggled at the whim of the manufacturer.
Frankly, I no longer have the confidence that the legal, economic, nor, sadly, the modern moral system of the United States will provide sufficient protection to regular people anymore for these kinds of cases and trends. The encroaching subscription model of commerce is slowly taking ownership away from individuals of the very things they rely on in their daily lives and I don't like it.
> owning a Tesla one of my medium-term life goals for the environmental benefits
Sorry to jump in but just in case keep in mind that pushing an old ICE car has usually a lesser impact than buying a new one, it can take years until the difference in consumption cover the impact of the building process and the materials extraction and transport.
The best option for the environment would be going without a car at all, like many people in Europe do. Unfortunately people have created environments and societies where they are chained to car ownership.
In Europe in dense cities. In France near Paris for example you can clearly see the distinction when you go further in the countryside[1]. Anecdotical but I know very few people under 40 who own a car in Paris:
> The best option for the environment would be going without a car at all
Indeed. This is what I do (in the US). The second-best option for the environment is to buy a used car. Environmentally speaking, a used ICE car beats a new electric one.
US is not really saying enough. I live with my gf in NYC and we had no need for a car. If I got one for free I would have tried to sell it as soon as possible.
Now we live in bay area suburbs with a dog, and one car is absolutely needed if you can afford it. If we had kids it would have been almost impossible without a car.
The real solution, at least in metro areas, is using public transport instead of driving. And that is another reason not to buy a Tesla, because of the Musk empire's ongoing crusade against public transportation. Dollars spent on Teslas are dollars available for advocating/subsidizing Loop-type and Boring Company projects that drain the public coffers for transportation infrastructure. I'm sure different people have different opinions on ethically how the anti-public-transport conflict of interest stacks up against the good done by making electric vehicles sexy, but for me they approximately cancel out and there's little virtue in buying a Tesla instead of a very efficient ICE or hybrid.
That's what I always say, if you want to be eco and you want to drive electric, by an electric bike.
They have tiny batteries compared to electric cars and thus an almost negligible impact in comparison, enough range for 90% of your commuting needs, can keep you moderately fit, and you still have enough money left to drive your ICE for longer stretches.
That’s not a very attractive option for those of us here in the north. Being buried in snow, slush, and ice for six months of the year makes biking very unattractive.
I live in Germany, and except for the occasional snow I find it easy to ride a bike most of the year.
And the countries further north I understand, but then those are a very small part of the world population, so I don't think the impact is that high, even if they drive ICE.
I live in Utah, and we're known for snow, yet the bike paths are clear most of the year. I bike most of the time, and honestly, I prefer biking in winter to the summer because it's easier to layer up than cool down. When it snows, I take mass transit because I hate driving or cycling in the snow.
I own a hybrid, which is a nice compromise between electric and ICE. I can go on long car trips without worrying about recharge stations and I save a ton on gas the rest of the time. I mostly use our car for shopping and family trips, and it often goes days without being used.
My bike currently isn't an ebike, but I'm considering getting a conversion kit, which is way more powerful than the ebikes available in stores (the store models need to follow the law, aftermarket parts leave that up to the user).
The US will never adopt public transportation as their primary means of mobility. Never.
There will be skyscrapers in the suburbs before Americans deign to ride a rail car to work en masse.
We will have AR-based work-from-home before Americans wait at a bus stop in any meaningful size cohort.
There is simply too much mistrust in those systems and too much desire for independent mobility.
Additionally, US cities are built for individual, single-rider automobiles. It sucks real bad, but even if 100% of americans decided that we hate cars and driving, we’re still stuck physically with thousands of acres built upon individual mobility and no mixed-use whatsoever, situations where you have to drive 3+km just to buy a soda.
It’s madness, and the madness is actually encoded into the physical structures as a sunk cost. We have to work with and around that in any practical way forward, which is terrible.
> I had overlooked the degree of control Tesla has over their products and made owning a Tesla one of my medium-term life goals for the environmental benefits.
Less mad electric car manufacturers are available. Typically more environmentally friendly for most users, too; Tesla are very much on the heavy end, so you have a lot of sunk cost that's really only helpful to people who need as much range as possible.
> I no longer have the confidence that the legal, economic, nor, sadly, the modern moral system of the United States will provide sufficient protection to regular people anymore for these kinds of cases and trends.
This is echoed 100% in many consumers around me in meatspace.
Big Brother and Big Mother were let in because people opened their wallets to buy Teslas, carry around iPhones to track them and install Ring to invade their neighborhoods. This is what anarcho-capitalism results in: political/institutional corruption that amplifies inverted totalitarianism for the nearly exclusive benefit of the very rich. Without sensible regulations (limits and protections), we are doomed. Some people need to clear this waxy build-up of libertarian utopian nonsense that was invented by the Koch's and their economist buddies lionizing Ayn Rand from between their ears before it causes any more damage to society.
I bought mine because it is quite fast and has the best charging network at the moment.
Don't really care what anyone else thinks about it. And I find it hard to believe that anybody really thinks Model 3s are cool. They look pretty goofy.
Yeah, they are a little goofy. But other car makers looked at it and said "I can top that". And they did. I don't know why car makers want to make their EVs look so bad.
Totally agree. At this point, even though theyre cool, I would never buy a Tesla for the simple reason that i am not going to pay 60k plus to not own the thing.
Tesla needs to come out and say, this software has a lifetime guarantee and we will never revoke the license. Anything short of that and you would be dumb to buy it.
But the software was never paid for. It was only enabled in the first place by accident.
If you don't have a software license, should you be able to use their software?
I agree you should be able to hack the car, write your own autopilot, or whatever, but I don't think you're entitled to someone else's software just because it exists.
Perhaps Tesla should eat the loss because this was their mistake, but this is not what is being discussed in this thread.
You misunderstand.. people like my parent are saying "if i bought it it should be mine" .. except they are discussing something that was never purchased.
If you scroll this thread, it's abundantly clear that many people are not reading the article and drawing their own conclusions based on the headline.
Based on my reading of the article, the customer bought the feature. Tesla didn't mean to sell them the feature, but they did. If there's another way of looking at this, I don't personally see it in the article text.
> When the dealer bought the car at auction from Tesla on November 15, it was optioned with both Enhanced Autopilot and Tesla’s confusingly-named Full Self Driving Capability; together, these options totaled $8,000. You can see them right on the Monroney sticker for the car:
To me, that reads as Tesla accidentally selling something that they didn't mean to sell, at a price they didn't mean to offer. But that doesn't change anything from the customer's point of view. The customer/dealer bought the addon package that was advertised by Tesla itself as included with the car.
A company shouldn't be able to sell me a device with features advertised as enabled, and then after the purchase is over retroactively decide, "we didn't mean to do that, so let's just pretend we didn't." What they're doing here is trying to retroactively alter part of the transaction, which is crazy. It's the corporate equivalent of me buying a car for $30,000, and then issuing a chargeback a month later because "that was an accident, I only meant to offer you $22,000. So let's pretend that you accepted that."
Edit: reading more comments, I'm seeing people say that Monroney stickers aren't applicable to used cars? Is the argument that the sticker on the car shouldn't be taken as advertised features? But even then -- wouldn't Tesla be required to tell the dealer what features the car actually had?
>but I don't think you're entitled to someone else's software just because it exists.
I think differently. IF I buy (A) in good faith (B) a perpetual license (C) manifested by the rights holder into physical media, THEN I am in fact entitled to it.
> owning a Tesla one of my medium-term life goals for the environmental benefits.
Besides the fact that owning a Tesla is barely going to do anything for "environmental benefits" (but it will make you feel good), why not considering other EV makes? Tesla is all over the news but other models are available with almost the same performance and lower prices.
Porsche Taycan Turbo S is similar in terms of speed+acceleration to Model S, while lacking a bit in range (190-200 miles vs 370 miles) and being much more expensive overall ($79k vs $185k).
Unfortunately, that’s the closest comparable EV that is available today. I am not comparing to any vehicles that arent available yet on purpose.
Note: i intentionally picked the longest range models of both cars, but it was mostly to prop up Porsche, because even the cheapest Model 3 in production beats Taycan with 220 miles of range.
Note that's EPA range. The taycan dramatically beats it in real world use while Tesla tends to do worse than rated. There are a number of tests out right now showing the Taycan gets as good or better range than most Teslas (the difference is even more dramatic when you include charging time).
The only head-to-head range test that's been published to date shows that a brand new Taycan has about 3% less range than a 2-year old, used Model 3, at 95 mph on the Autobahn (and other tests show that the Model 3 has about 15% less range than a Model S).
The Taycan does significantly beat EPA in low-average-speed, "spirited driving" tests with the A/C and heater turned off (usually in the mountains, and never head-to-head against another EV that might also be its EPA). "Car people" are impressed by these tests because gas cars are known get poor MPGs in sprited mountain driving. "EV people" are unimpressed by these tests because they know the true test of an EV is high speed cruising, where aerodynamics matter and regen doesn't.
So, while it's impressive that the Taycan comes close to (but does not beat) its EPA range in real-world highway cruising, it still has less range for 3x the price.
I know, right? The hypocrisy. Could've at-least went half the price and mention Chevy Bolt, Volt - whatever their naming scheme of GM cars sucks.
Then again it's from different users posting the replies.
Still, who suggests an electric porsche at twice the price and half the range. By buying an Tesla you get more value, brand equity and the feeling of "doing" more good than any Porsche purchase would be and you'll support an American company vs a company that shoes in an EV because they should.
That was the exact point I was trying to illustrate. The closest EV that comes to Tesla cars in specs is a car with half the range and more than twice the price.
I'm sure he has - I have too. It's not comparable. Sure, if you only care about range vs. dollars, it's close to a base model 3... but it feels like a cheap Chevy, doesn't have nearly the acceleration performance, and the driver assist isn't in the same league.
Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who owns Chevy Spark EV (the smaller, cheaper, precursor of the Bolt basically).
For a full replacement for ICE cars (instead of owning 1 ICE and 1 EV), there's really no substitute for a Tesla.
I'm on my second Spark EV and when it came time to go all electric replacing my Honda Fit I looked hard at the Bolt because I like small hatchbacks. Now every time I pass one in my Model 3 I'm glad not to have made that mistake. The Bolt isn't a bad car, but it's not at all comparable to a Model 3.
Yep, same here. I planned to buy a Tesla for environmental reasons when my current 15-year-old car gives up the ghost, but I had no clue about the sort of shenanigans described here.
There is absolutely no way I'd knowingly "buy" a car [or other major product, for that matter] which was subject to this sort of postsale unilateral manipulation on the part of the manufacturer / seller.
To my way of thinking, it's similar, but much worse, than the situation with HOAs [which I also decline to support]
edit: I'd already started switching to bike for commute and errands; now I'm even more inclined to continue in that direction rather than look to EVs
Not just control, but they gather a huge amount of data from the cars as well, including video from all the cameras. Heck, for the Model 3, there's a camera inside the car pointed at the driver. It's very creepy.
Teslas do not upload their video anywhere. I have seen no proof otherwise, and nobody who monitors their car's wifi (watching for software updates) has noticed. Where have you found this information?
It's unlikely that the internal camera is used for data collection by Tesla. It's something they've put in the car to monitor passengers for their planned autonomous taxi service.
Source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1113977924947009536
Here are Tesla's data collection policies, which includes remote image and video clip collection:
Telematics log data: To improve our vehicles and services for you, we may collect certain telematics data regarding the performance, usage, operation, and condition of your Tesla vehicle, including: vehicle identification number; speed information; odometer readings; battery use management information; battery charging history; electrical system functions; software version information; infotainment system data; safety-related data and camera images (including information regarding the vehicle’s SRS systems, braking and acceleration, security, e-brake, and accidents); short video clips of accidents; information regarding the use and operation of Autopilot, Summon, and other features; and other data to assist in identifying issues and analyzing the performance of the vehicle. We may collect such information either in person (such as during a service appointment) or via remote access.
Source: https://www.tesla.com/about/legal
Wait, what the f? They put an internal camera in it? And their data collection policies explicitly reserve the right to remotely access it - all all other data?
Hell to the nope. And to think people were scared of smart TVs! It sounds like this has literally everything bad that people were scared of with Smart TV ("infotainment system data"), with the added fun feature of filming you and tracking everywhere you go.
I am not reassured by "it's unlikely...". Tesla is not distinguishing itself in the field of restraint.
I share in these concerns.
Tesla collects information during crashes but will not ordinarily release any of it directly to the owner of the vehicle[1].
All modern Teslas passively use the cameras outside of the vehicle to monitor your driving to compare and improve their own self-driving algorithms, which is part of the reason the hardware is present whether or not you paid for the upgrade[2].
There's also the problem of forced updates, where some updates (particularly safety updates) must be installed, whether you want them or not[3]. In an extreme case, such as the aftermath of the Tesla battery that caught fire in China, they are believed to have solved the problem by limiting the maximum charge of the battery in software, reducing range significantly for a minority of drivers[4].
In all of these cases, user-control is sorely lacking.
This seems like an overly dramatic response to what is a very unlikely scenario. If you check the Consumers Reports owner's ratings for Tesla vehicles you can see that they score very highly, even the model X with the flying doors. They must be doing something right to have such a high percentage of happy owners.
This restricts your choices in the US to cars sold before 1998 when air bags became mandatory. Air bags, anti-lock brakes, and stability control are all controlled by complex computer systems and absolutely could kill you. Electronic fuel injection and engine management are also complex computer controlled systems, but less obviously lethal.
> Air bags, anti-lock brakes, and stability control are all controlled by complex computer systems and absolutely could kill you.
They are not complex in the way I was thinking. Functioning airbags and anti-lock brakes have been around since the 1980s. Analog sensors react to inputs, sometimes send it to a computer, which performs the right actions based on those simple inputs. Traction control has been around for almost as long.
I don't know for a fact that nobody has been killed by these simple systems malfunctioning, but I would be very surprised if anyone had.
I'll take any of your book recommendations, in return for mine: "Normal Accidents" by Charles Perrow. My takeaway from that book is: once you get past a level of system complexity that no _single person_ can reason about, system accidents are inevitable.
> Out of curiosity, what do you drive now?
1987 Mazda 323 GTX (4WD turbocharged hooligan edition of the 323/Familia). I am happy owning one of my dream cars :)
Airbags are not a simple system that just reacts to impacts. They have to categorize the impact and the occupants of the vehicle and decide which if any airbags to deploy and at what time. Getting this wrong absolutely has killed people. For example deploying a passenger airbag when the passenger is too small or out of position can be fatal. Failing to deploy the airbag because misjudging the position or size of the passenger or the nature of the crash can also be fatal. The systems to decide this are not at all simple and involve multiple accelerometers and and sensors throughout the car.
They already demonstrated the technology when they spontaneously upgraded cars in Florida during the hurricane.
Back then, it was a move benefiting drivers (and rightfully applauded), so no one seemed to stop and think how they were even able to do this. Now we're seeing the same technology in action to the detriment of the driver.
Tesla already has a history of retroactively taking stuff from you - especially if it's a salvaged car.
Here's what a comment on Tesla Motors Club says you should be prepared to lose on a salvaged car:
>For anyone purchasing as salvaged Tesla, they should assume Tesla will cut them off from supercharging, software updates, Internet access, and internet use by the media player & navigation system - until Tesla has re-certified the car. Until then preparing for other charging options is prudent.
At least to me that sounds like a lot of things that they can just take away from your car with a flag.
These are all subscription services which are not covered on any car.
In my case (not a tesla): software updates are only installed iff there is a recall notice. One time they installed an update because they had to wait anyways but that was not guaranteed and a service from the mechanic.
Most internet uses in cars (if not all) are bound the a person, not a car. Selling it most likely voids that subscription. In my case the uses are free for 5 years for the first buyer and a paid subscription afterwards. Most likely tesla does something similar.
Supercharging: See internet. Though I see plenty of them advertised with it. Maybe this is different in the EU.
Features (as in, bought features in feature packs or options) on the other hand are something of value (even if only software) added to the car and cannot be taken away without compensation or reimbursement. Unless you had a subscription but that is not the case in this instance.
But they still sell the car for a whole lot of money. The more honest approach would be to only offer rental/subscription cars, if essential features such as charging your friggin electric car can't even be guaranteed after purchasing the damn thing.
Using an apologetic tone for the scummy and exploitative business tactics employed by these companies is exactly why people like GP don't have faith that "...the modern moral system of the United States will provide sufficient protection..." anymore.
They don't remove charging. They remove the ability to charge your car for free. I completely understand that.
Think about it. Somebody could buy a Tesla charger circuit, install it to another car, and get free charging for life.
The same happened with 3G enabled Kindles.
Okay, the point about free charging is fair, I didn't know that. But as far as I understand Tesla Superchargers are so superior to conventional charging in terms of speed that not having them available is a huge drawback to a Tesla owner. Maybe I'm wrong on this as well.
>Somebody could buy a Tesla charger circuit, install it to another car, and get free charging for life. The same happened with 3G enabled Kindles.
That sounds like the way it's supposed to be. It's how cars have been handled for decades and the tinkering and experimenting I'm sure lead a whole lot of people to find fulfilling interests, hobbies, maybe even carreers. It's funny, on the one hand companies seem to have no interest in funding the education of their employees anymore but on the other they also want to completely control access to their tech and how it's used.
EDIT: Made the same mistake again. Of course I don't advocate for people just mooching off of Tesla's superchargers, but the ability to be able to do with my property as I please.
I'm all about "you buy it you own it" and rights to repair. I wouldn't make a fuss if somebody unlocked the autopilot or the full capacity of their battery (yes, that's a software lock too).
You don't own the supercharge network it's an external service.
>But as far as I understand Tesla Superchargers are so superior to conventional charging in terms of speed that not having them available is a huge drawback to a Tesla owner.
That's highly dependent on your use-case. For the average driver, you install and use a level 2 charger at home every night and wake up to a full battery. Superchargers typically only come into play on long road trips, and you can still pay to use them outside of the complimentary charging they provide for new sales.
> Somebody could buy a Tesla charger circuit, install it to another car, and get free charging for life.
Who owns that Tesla charger circuit? Somebody paid $5000 for free supercharging for life, and presumably the "key" or whatever is loaded onto something.
The thing is: Tesla wants to be a scummy company and remotely take away that key from its users upon sale of the vehicle. Is not "free supercharging for life" implied to be tied to the car (or more specifically, the car's charging circuit)??
If it is tied to the car itself, then the "key" should be tied to some component that "defines" the car, like maybe the motors or the battery pack. The software can check to see if its still connected to the same battery-pack token or whatever if you really want to verify things (with logic used every 10 years whenever battery packs are replaced).
-----
If Tesla wants both, they can have both with proper engineering effort. However, they're being lazy if they are just cutting off users without any recourse.
I understand your point, but they talking about salvaged cars. Usually, they are built from multiple cars. If you cut two teslas in half. One has autopilot one has free charging. Then you make a two cars from one part of each car. What features should get the new cars?
If the key tied to the charging circuit. Would it be fair to pay that extra $5000 if the charging circuit fails and you have to buy a new one? And if you can transfer that, what happens when somebody fixes the old one?
What I want to point out that "for life" services shouldn't be tied to complex things.
I agree that these are all subscription services that are per-user and not per-vehicle, but there comes a point where such subscription services are vital to basic operation of the vehicle. Imagine for a moment that one has to have a subscription for a gasoline-powered car to enable pumps at gas stations. Without the subscription, the driver would be forced to buy fuel from stations not affiliated with the subscription service, likely at a much higher charge or more difficult transaction. At the extreme of this example, one would have to carry gas cans with them to fill at these non-sanctioned pumps and later fill their car from the cans, because the non-subscription pumps are forced to use a different size nozzle that doesn't fit the car.
This sounds extreme, but it's the direction we are going with electric cars and and manufacturer-controlled and locked down vehicle systems. I am 100% on board with electric vehicles (I've gone as far as planning out a gas to electric conversion for an older truck), but not at the expense of true ownership of one's vehicle. If Tesla wants to put their brand image above and beyond my complete ownership of a vehicle I purchased outright, I simply won't ever own a Tesla even if they become less expensive than the non-electric equivalent.
I have zero issue with features being lost in a salvaged car. those are entirely at your risk purchases and worse some salvage cars are just unsafe for both driver and others sharing the same road.
that they can be sold and be allowed back on the road opens the manufacturer to a whole host of liabilities. The insurance company declared it not worthy of repair so if state laws permit them to be titled why should the manufacturer provide any support or be compelled to do so?
anecdotal, we have a neighbor in our subdivision with two salvaged cars. both have been given plates by the county to allow them to be driven. both have body damage including a Nissan Rogue which has no back window and one rear passenger window is gone. So who is liable for mechanical failure or even software failure when this car is in accident? I am not even sure it has functioning air bags.
* for clarity - I am against a car being sold and losing features as shown in the article, that car was not a salvage title
> why should the manufacturer provide any support or be compelled to do so
I don't think anyone is asking for that.
The ask is 'don't disable existing paid-for features on the car, thanks'.
The legal reductionist version of this situation is buying a house and finding that 2 rooms got demolished because the builder had a lease agreement on those with the previous owner.
Once that car is yours, the software on the car is yours, too.
It boggles my mind how the manufacturer modifying a car they don't own isn't computer trespass and/or straight theft as they deprive you of the rights of ownership.
They'll make some assertion along the lines of granting a license to specific configurations of the control software of the car.
This is part and parcel of why I think IP on software is increasingly rearing it's head as an anti-pattern. Right of First Sale goes right out the window with the "marriage" model of smart appliance ownership we seem to be converging on via contract law.
It's also bizarre that people, especially on here, in this thread, think it's ok for a business to retroactively take away a feature that was already paid for. That price you paid on the used car has those features priced in.
This is some weird crabs-in-a-bucket behavior but driven towards protecting a corporation.
Except vehicles are salvaged when the cost of repairing whatever damage was done exceeds most of the FMV according to the insurance company's appraisal process.
It's often entirely disconnected from the vehicle's safe operation. Some vehicles/damages are just expensive to repair and/or don't hold their value well.
I'm currently sitting on a vehicle which was in a minor fender bender but since they creased the quarter panel the insurance company totaled it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the car besides a cosmetic dent, I drive it daily, its operation is unchanged.
If it were a Tesla, apparently I'd be losing access to all sorts of stuff I purchased like unlimited supercharging just because someone dented my car and the insurance determined it was too expensive to fix.
That's unacceptable in my view, but I already would never buy a car riddled with surveillance systems and unattended OTA software "updates", I'm definitely not in the target market for Tesla.
> opens the manufacturer to a whole host of liabilities
I don't think so. How would the manufacturer be liable for a failure due to a repair made by someone else? Has there ever been an incident of such a case?
Doesn’t Tesla understand that this behavior diminishes the value of their current customers’ cars. If I currently own a Tesla and want to sell it, who would want to buy it knowing that Tesla could remove features anytime. They have just decimated the value of their cars. The market will correct their behavior.
If Tesla were thinking ahead, they'd have already realized that FSD should be offered as a license assigned to the user, not the car. Someone who has $7K of sunk cost into the brand itself is definitely going to lean towards a Tesla as their next vehicle, if buying a Ford/Kia/Hyundia/Jaguar/Audi/Porsche/whatever means losing that license.
I wouldn't mind it. I would be fair and square.
You could have two options:
1. Buy a car as is: Pay your car upfront. No updates after purchase
2. VaaS: No upfront cost. Constant updates, monthly payment.
This current situation why I hate IoT devices. You pay upfront and hope they still provide the service after n years. It makes no sense for me, why would somebody provide a service without an ongoing revenue.
I recall a documentary where they had a bunch of Electric vehicles out on lease. The company wanted to take all the vehicles back off the market so they went to all the owners to take the cars away.
The owners liked the vehicles so much they offered to buy them outright from the company so they could at least keep the cars they liked.
They raised the few million needed to pay off everyone's lease.
Company refused and took all the cars away anyway.
I remember that story. Basically GM ran a little EV business for a while, then cancelled the project. Then were attacked and hated far more than, say, everyone else in the world who never bothered making EV's in the first place. Always seemed warped to me.
Brazilian here. An Uber driver told me he's on a rolling rental from a big car rental company.
Montly payments. Insurance and all maintenance included.
May switch the car for another in the same category anytime for any reason or no reason. (Slightly annoying noise in the glove compartment lock? Switch it!)
May deliver a car in any branch in the nation and pick the other up in any branch in the nation, allowing to virtually take your car over air travel to any served city.
Seemed like a really good deal, and I'll definitely look into it before buying myself a car again.
No. It requires an over-the-air update to be installed. Car must be parked. There are some YouTubers who have managed to start an update while driving.. It's obviously not recommended. The update install doesn't start without the driver pushing a button though.
Nothing wrong with protecting the integrity of their product.
Those looking for a scam or those wanting to scan someone else can just get a Ford or GM product.
I'll stay with Tesla. Elon is a genius.
I'm surprised that they removed it because it's on the monroney sticker.
I bought a BMW that was supposed to get the new/shorter 36 month maintenance included. But the sticker was still referencing the 48 month plan. I didn't even notice.
BMW must have ran an audit, and know what they did? They honored the sticker and said something like "Your monro sticker was wrong and said you get 48 months maintenance, so you get 48 months maintenance"
I think this just goes back to how they are inexperienced and not a real dealer. I'd expect they'd lose any court battle surrounding it. It's the whole point of the sticker.
Surprised why? Companies do illegal shit all the time and get away with it. Just recently Lenovo did not cancel my order for a p1 laptop after almost two months, way longer than the 30 days of their estimate and allowed buy federal law. What can I do? Nothing. Just like the guy in this story. He has no recourse against Tesla and I doubt he'll get it from the dealer either. They will definitely win in court. The dealer probably will too. The customer will get stuck with this.
When laws aren't enforced, their existence is irrelevant. We are seeing this with this monroney sticker and I'm sure this is the standard, default policy of Tesla. Hell, even if there's a class action lawsuit, Tesla will not admit fault, they will not change, and the only people who will get actual compensation are the lawyers. It won't hurt Tesla so civil penalties are just as ineffective as the law in this case. Corporate profits over everything is the norm. Let's not pretend that the law or civil suits get in the way of that now. Hell, can you even sue Tesla, or do they require arbitration?
They are refusing to refund it. Yes, I can charge back and will. But I was referring to what can I do in response to Lenovo. There is a law but it's useless. So I just get fucked over with no recourse. I can't sue then and the ftc doesn't give a fuck and won't pursue the issue so they will keep fucking people over since there is no recourse. I cannot get justice.
On a brand new car it's not negotiable, the Monroney sticker always wins. Always. No manufacturer would have been any different because there is plenty of precedent and they would have lost 100% of the time. But in the case of a used car, that sticker is no longer legally binding, which is why this Tesla situation is even a scandal to begin with.
476 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 308 ms ] threadWhether you believe Tesla, is another matter but it's not like they remove features people paid for.
They don't think it's a good idea but they do it regardless?
Someone in the chain that handled this ticket probably just didn't realize this was a case of broken process that would lead to a newsworthy bad outcome so they didn't escalate it and instead did what the process told them to. Maybe there was a perceived bigger fire to fight that day or something. It's really hard to build a support system that is highly averse to any perceived risk or monetary loss to the company without having things like these slip through the inevitable cracks in your processes.
All the more reason to avoid Teslas and any other equipment that can be modified remotely after the sale.
And probably lose several future customers as well.
I think they're implying the original owner may not have paid for autopilot, and perhaps had it activated through illicit means, like persuading an employee to tweak a database.
That's what the dealer claims.
Tesla claims this feature was never bought for this car.
You can choose to believe one party or the other, but don't present that belief as a fact.
It is a bit confusing that some are marked included and some have a price tag, but if you add up all the price tags you get the advertised price, so I think it's reasonable to assume that everything listed there is included in the purchase.
There are also screenshots, supposedly from the car, showing that the car has those features activated.
Now, I'm not going to independently verify the claims the article makes and I'm for now assuming it's presenting the case in a fairly unbiased way.
It seems to me then that Tesla's position is that since the activation was done without payment and their knowledge (again, I believe the article for now), then they have the right to deactivate it.
And I would agree with them if anyone other than Tesla themselves had sold the car at the auction. But they did, they said the features were there and they have the authority to add them, so they should. They didn't verify the car properly before selling and that's on them.
Legally, I think that leaves them in the same position as if they'd intended to remove the premium interior but sold it on before doing so - tough.
I think any reasonable take here is “no, you did not”.
A Tesla is a computer that just happens to have wheels.
In this case, it sounds like someone bought a second hand computer that happened to have an unlicensed installation of some software, and the license was revoked. Perhaps the car was ex-demo before the owner who auctioned it off did so.
Now, there’s a separate question around the communications over this, and the dealer/end customer being mis-sold, and they’ve stumbled there, but this is more of a gap between expectations (it’s a car!) vs reality (it’s a computer).
Hell yes you transferred that license.
As far as I'm concerned, someone's property is what they can defend as their property. If someone has access to a license that you didn't intend to sell them, but also doesn't impair your ability to use it, then you now both have that property.
Otherwise, if you clearly communicate that it's part of the deal, but then keep a backdoor in, and remove the software from the person's new computer, that's theft.
The only way I'd argue that the software would remain yours after the transaction and when you forgot to exclude it, is if you maintained access to it somehow. Whether the person keeps it or not is up to their goodwill or ability to use the licenses. In the old days, if a computer came with a Photoshop license on it, it's yours.
Its like buying a PC with an internet activated piece of software which is later deactivated remotely because the software detected it was never licensed.
BUT Tesla and others in the chain should not have listed it as an extra and those are now required to make this right. This could mean accept the return of this product, or leave the feature activated
If you want to stick with the computer metaphor, it's like Tesla sold you a computer with some paid-for firmware options enabled, tied to that device, that cannot be transferred to any other device, then pulls them post-resale.
Tesla needs to pick: either it's software licensed to you as a person and therefore transferrable to another car, or it's software tied to a specific car and therefore transferrable to another person.
Mind you that this is not legal in Europe. Licenses are transferable regardless of what American corporations say.
The entire "Autopilot" feature is technical ability driven by marketing to pump more money out of their car sales. Good business for Tesla, but a shitty thing to do to consumers to treat autopilot as an owner-dependent feature and not as a feature that could be handed off. That's one of the biggest negatives to having cars that can innately phone home to the manufacturer - it gives Tesla the power to giveth and taketh away at their discretion, and leave the car and consumer S.O.L.
Versus buying a dumb car and never getting upgrades?
I'll take the "risk" to get sentry/dog/camping mode as free updates vs having to buy a new car every time I want a new feature.
Next day in the morning I tried to start it up and it actually worked again. The display just shortly displayed 'update complete'. Made me laugh. I believe the error was related to the battery being low while it was really cold outside and the update notification was unrelated. But I guess you could call that "camping mode".
Still left me with an appreciation for my old car, which is too old and stupid to receive updates and is really dependable without me treating it that well.
Funny anecdote but imagine someone with mobility issues getting stuck in the same situation.
The chance of winning camping mode is not worth the risk of losing autopilot, for most people.
My car is so dumb that it doesn't brick itself when I change the suspension or put a bigger turbo on it. Though it might send a piston into orbit.
You don't need to be nannied by your car.
Further, it takes a naive level of trust to be okay with an "essential", non-subscription item depending on the benevolent existence of a 3rd party. Be it vehicles, machinery, firearms, combine harvesters or front door lock.
End user has the same control as over any feature of the car.
If you buy Tesla and then buy FSD and then sell that car to someone else, FSD stays with the car. It would be absurd if it worked any other way.
In this case, the car was sold back to Tesla, a dealer bought it from Tesla and sold it to someone. Tesla determined that the car was configured with FSD even though the user never paid for it.
Now it's a he said / she said situation.
The user got screwed because he lost FSD that he thought he had.
The question is: was he screwed by the dealer (who mis-represented availability of FSD) or was he screwed by Tesla (who mis-represented availability of FSD to the dealer). Or maybe the dealer misunderstood.
Either way, this should be straightforward to resolve.
The buyer should be made whole by the dealer, because dealer sold the car.
The dealer should be made whole by Tesla (if Tesla indeed misrepresented the car).
All parties have relevant documents so it should be clear who's responsible for what.
People are having FSD disappear from their cars and having to produce invoices showing they bought it in order to have it restored. How do you do that when you bought it used?
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/lost-fsd-earlier-thi...
> In this case, the car was sold back to Tesla, a dealer bought it from Tesla and sold it to someone. Tesla determined that the car was configured with FSD even though the user never paid for it.
The dealer purchased the car from the manufacturer and the window sticker (required by law to be provided by the manufacturer to prevent dealer fraud) listed the “FSD” feature as included with the device. The purchaser bought it with the understanding that that list of features was correct. The dealer had no say in the matter either way.
You don’t have to take my word for this: the Monroney sticker is actually in the linked article.
Legally this is unambiguously fraud by the manufacturer.
The customer needs to go to the dealership and get their money back, and the dealership needs to go to Tesla and get their own money back
I think it was correct for Tesla to include it and I think their policy of non-transferable licenses is exploitative. Not legal in the EU but they can get away with that crap in the USA.
e.g. https://www.consumereurope.dk/menu/laws/danish-laws/danish-s... § 42 onwards.
For example, shrink wrap EULAs have not been considered binding here.
If this optional upgrade can be renegotiated at time of future sale, then any and all other upgrades must necessarily be renegotiable too.
I don't think Tesla wants to have to replace interiors every time someone resells a vehicle.
For example, Autodesk turned their 3ds max from $5k once into a $6k annual subscription. As a result, people started buying used perpetual licenses to avoid the overpriced subscription. Autodesk is denying those used license transfers in the US, but they have to tolerate it in the EU.
As a result, advertisement, movie and CGI studios in Europe gained a competitive advantage over US companies because the weak US laws failed to protect their own studios from predatory pricing.
And for a CGI animator making $3k monthly, those $6k in annual software fees really add 16% to the gross price, so enough to drive customers elsewhere.
The notion of "registering an app" ("зарегистрировать приложение") in Russian means "finding a crack".
A plumber has the choice of buying the MegaPlumberPlus (making it up) for a high price but that makes them 10% more efficient, or weld together their Plumbathon. Doesn't matter what the cost of the MPP(tm) is, it can not justify stealing (pirating in sw) it. Not in a moral, nor legal way.
For a private person doing private stuff on their own computer perhaps many would say morally this is grey, but if you live from it? Pay'em or don't use it.
> The car was sold at auction as a result of a California Lemon Law buyback, as the car suffered from a well-known issue where the center-stack screen developed a noticeable yellow border.
makes me think that soon (say the next 2 years) there will be a shitload of Teslas - which were bought during their mass adaption time - which will start malfunctioning because of wear, and the company will be in pretty deep shit, with a lot of customers with no cars and long waiting times for the service. Hmm, and how is their parts distribution network?
I mean, you're incentivizing the behavior by extending them the funding to operate. "The Market" is you, and you are "the Market".
I have no plans to ever work for Amazon even as a software developer - but I wish I had bought the stock.
I held Wells Fargo for awhile - specifically because they bragged about how good they are about extracting fees from customers. I would never bank with them, I use credit unions exclusively.
With the Trump deregulation mania encouraging stuff like this (https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/us/florida-weed-killer-sprayi...) I will need lots of money to escape as a climate refugee.
We're probably going to start seeing this more and more with "truly smart" devices... Though we do need ways to re-sell software licenses for firmware and stuff while they are still supported, even if separately from the actual hardware.
I _have_ paid for it. I may not have paid list price or as much as you like, but you can't say "Oh, it wasn't paid for".
"Includes FSD, $x"
"Sorry we meant 'does not include FSD, $x'" _AFTER_ two sales.
When you buy FSD and sell the car, the FSD stays with the car.
This is a muddy situation where car was sold back to Tesla, dealer bought it from Tesla and sold to a third party.
Dealer claims it bought the car with FSD from Tesla. Tesla claims the car never had FSD and it was enabled by mistake.
Someone is lying but it's a one off situation.
You don't loose $7k feature when you sell the car, it stays with the car.
How on earth can the car both never had FSD and having FSD enabled by mistake? The car either had FSD, or it didn't.
What if a customer ordered a car without the multifunction steering wheel and BMW accidentally built it with it. Couple of years forwards and someone notices that for some reason, the order sheet and the build sheet do not match. The owner takes their car to be serviced and the BMW technician switches the multifunction steering wheel panel with the blank steering wheel panel.
How can BMW at that point explain that the customer never paid for cruise control and therefore they never had it? The manufacturer shouldn't punish the consumer for their mistakes.
This is like them saying "Oh, we forgot to charge your dealer you for the premium interior and lighting" (which is listed on the same sheet as a $5000 option) - your response would quite rightly be "Tough, I bought it from the dealer at the agreed price based on the features listed, it's mine now"
And a system's audit revealed the discrepancy, and rather than just eating the loss, they decided to turn off the feature.
Or maybe it wasn't malicious, and the OTA update system had it listed as non-FSD and sent it an update which bricked the FSD.
Well, seems like FSD is not something that is really tied to the car but a checkbox in some configuration for the car.
Tesla gives, Tesla takes.
That's kind of scary.
(sometimes accidently)
They fucked up, too bad, so sad, try again next time.
The latter is much easier, but not an iota less illegal from the viewpoint of the law.
... revokable with a change in the EULA? Does the EULA have an arbitration clause?
It would be a dumb move to pull this trick, but then again, what they did here was a dumb move. You can't trust the bean-counters to be reasonable when they see a way to get more beans.
Doesn't matter. The fact that Tesla can alter the vehicle according to their whims makes the car undesirable to me.
Heated seats? Leather? Why should we treat meat space items differently than digital space ones?
> Why should we treat meat space items differently than digital space ones?
Because they are different? Because people want to?
Seems like a good reason to disallow OTA up and down grades
Should any non-subscription upgrades to said refrigerator be invalidated because ownership changed?
Should Samsung be able to disable supercooling mode?
What if the fridge was recertified by Samsung and they turned supercooling on and forgot to turn it off before reselling it?
If Im buying a refrigerator and the conversation turns to licenses, im just going to nope out of that, I just want something that works
Neither way to do it is wrong and suggesting so is just dumb, the same trade-off exists all over the place in other industries as well.
I guess it's why we have fake news, just say it once.
It's clearly a mix-up they will fix.
It's probably when software updates happen it checks to see what to update on the account and deletes everything else.
But lets not think to hard. Not like anyone here has made a mistake coding or had to deal with middle managers.
And there are clearly issues with the ability to remote delete, Kindles had their OMG Amazon is deleting books period, and it sorted itself out.
It also allows you to get updates, that's pretty OMG too quite frankly.
Perhaps. But speaking for myself, that's not the point. The point is that this is a great example of the risks of having stuff that can be updated by the manufacturer. We see similar things happening (albeit at lower price points) in software all the time.
This is an example of why I object to software that phones home and/or engages in automatic updates. It puts far too much control in the hands of companies.
But Tesla's don't auto update. So it's not on topic.
We have to stay in reality.
Updates push us forward. It comes with risks but so far the rewards outweight the risk.
Elon made a car that can update! That's fucking amazing. It's what he does. Changes the game. Makes NEW things that push everything forward. It's a new way of thinking.
These comments seem straight from TSLAQ but sadly don't seem to be from that intelligent evil which would be interesting! just seems like stupidity.
A $50 billion+ company that works on reputation will ruin that for $7000?
Good to know -- so users can simply elect not to accept updates? What about when Tesla changes the operating characteristics of the car, is that always optional? Is accepting the change this article is talking about optional?
If so, then I have no objections, although I will still never buy a Tesla or any other vehicle that phones home.
> Updates push us forward. It comes with risks but so far the rewards outweight the risk.
Perhaps. But as long as it's the owners who get to decide whether or not the risk is worth it, that's fine. If the manufacturer gets to make that decision, that's not fine at all.
Yes, they do not give you any value on a trade-in for things like FSD. This car in particular, however, was a lemon buy-back, not a trade-in.
Car with a good maintenance should last 20 years. Not like a phone that gets thrown away every 5 years.
If not... you know they’re made in the USA? And have you ever heard of John Deere tractors?
Unless its changed even more recently - they _do_ publish a parts catalog.
And every single item, down to the most commodity screw/bolt doesn't list a price, just says "Contact Tesla for Sales". And according to at least a few people who have indeed contacted them, "Sorry, that part is not purchasable".
Basically as if a state said they had to make parts available to be (potentially) purchased online, and they had followed the very letter of the law.
Turning FSD into a subscription solves this: allowing customers to take the functionality to their next car keeps the current customer base happy and avoids messing up resale value if Tesla does not manage to deliver FSD on current hardware. It also creates a huge incentive for current owners to make their next car also a Tesla.
Tesla is already starting to offer premium functionality such as entertainment on a subscription model. As soon as FSD is good enough that people actually want to pay monthly for it (and not just the promise of it), I expect Tesla will do the same for FSD (and maybe even for other things like performance upgrades).
"Permanent" does not mean the same thing as "we can reverse this at whim, but only when it suits us and not you."
A slippery slope we're standing on.
Obviously not. But that's the crux of the issue, FSD is not assigned to the owner but the car, apparently. But the article claims that it does not stay with the car.
Or the car got an OTA update for the tranche without FSD, because that system had it as non-fsd.
(All sides now have to check the contracts carefully to find out who actually bought what)
However, upon seeing how they exert the control they have over a vehicle's functions remotely has caused me to rethink whether or not I trust them enough to purchase a product. I can accept unintended bugs, this is a risk I would be willing to take (and hopefully neither me nor my family would suffer terribly for), but for the vehicle itself to have a feature enabled upon sale and then have it disabled after an audit is beyond what I can find acceptable. I understand some fault may rest on the dealer if they misrepresented how they were allowed to sell the car, I'm not talking about "did the customer pay for this feature or not". I'm talking about how such a significant, and expensive, feature of a car can be arbitrarily, and unilaterally, toggled at the whim of the manufacturer.
Frankly, I no longer have the confidence that the legal, economic, nor, sadly, the modern moral system of the United States will provide sufficient protection to regular people anymore for these kinds of cases and trends. The encroaching subscription model of commerce is slowly taking ownership away from individuals of the very things they rely on in their daily lives and I don't like it.
Sorry to jump in but just in case keep in mind that pushing an old ICE car has usually a lesser impact than buying a new one, it can take years until the difference in consumption cover the impact of the building process and the materials extraction and transport.
[1] % of families having at least 1 car, 2012. Zoom on big cities (Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux...) to see the difference: http://map.datafrance.info/logement?coords.lat=48.8732963701...
Indeed. This is what I do (in the US). The second-best option for the environment is to buy a used car. Environmentally speaking, a used ICE car beats a new electric one.
Now we live in bay area suburbs with a dog, and one car is absolutely needed if you can afford it. If we had kids it would have been almost impossible without a car.
They have tiny batteries compared to electric cars and thus an almost negligible impact in comparison, enough range for 90% of your commuting needs, can keep you moderately fit, and you still have enough money left to drive your ICE for longer stretches.
And the countries further north I understand, but then those are a very small part of the world population, so I don't think the impact is that high, even if they drive ICE.
I own a hybrid, which is a nice compromise between electric and ICE. I can go on long car trips without worrying about recharge stations and I save a ton on gas the rest of the time. I mostly use our car for shopping and family trips, and it often goes days without being used.
My bike currently isn't an ebike, but I'm considering getting a conversion kit, which is way more powerful than the ebikes available in stores (the store models need to follow the law, aftermarket parts leave that up to the user).
There will be skyscrapers in the suburbs before Americans deign to ride a rail car to work en masse. We will have AR-based work-from-home before Americans wait at a bus stop in any meaningful size cohort.
There is simply too much mistrust in those systems and too much desire for independent mobility.
It’s madness, and the madness is actually encoded into the physical structures as a sunk cost. We have to work with and around that in any practical way forward, which is terrible.
Less mad electric car manufacturers are available. Typically more environmentally friendly for most users, too; Tesla are very much on the heavy end, so you have a lot of sunk cost that's really only helpful to people who need as much range as possible.
This is echoed 100% in many consumers around me in meatspace.
https://wordspy.com/index.php?word=meatspace
Weird to consider that what I consider common Internet idioms were invented before many current legal voters were conceived.
https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...
Is tesla really considered that enviromentally friendly?
Isn't the real reason to pick a tesla over another electric car, that teslas are considered cool and give higher social status?
Don't really care what anyone else thinks about it. And I find it hard to believe that anybody really thinks Model 3s are cool. They look pretty goofy.
Tesla needs to come out and say, this software has a lifetime guarantee and we will never revoke the license. Anything short of that and you would be dumb to buy it.
If you don't have a software license, should you be able to use their software?
I agree you should be able to hack the car, write your own autopilot, or whatever, but I don't think you're entitled to someone else's software just because it exists.
Perhaps Tesla should eat the loss because this was their mistake, but this is not what is being discussed in this thread.
If you scroll this thread, it's abundantly clear that many people are not reading the article and drawing their own conclusions based on the headline.
> When the dealer bought the car at auction from Tesla on November 15, it was optioned with both Enhanced Autopilot and Tesla’s confusingly-named Full Self Driving Capability; together, these options totaled $8,000. You can see them right on the Monroney sticker for the car:
To me, that reads as Tesla accidentally selling something that they didn't mean to sell, at a price they didn't mean to offer. But that doesn't change anything from the customer's point of view. The customer/dealer bought the addon package that was advertised by Tesla itself as included with the car.
A company shouldn't be able to sell me a device with features advertised as enabled, and then after the purchase is over retroactively decide, "we didn't mean to do that, so let's just pretend we didn't." What they're doing here is trying to retroactively alter part of the transaction, which is crazy. It's the corporate equivalent of me buying a car for $30,000, and then issuing a chargeback a month later because "that was an accident, I only meant to offer you $22,000. So let's pretend that you accepted that."
Edit: reading more comments, I'm seeing people say that Monroney stickers aren't applicable to used cars? Is the argument that the sticker on the car shouldn't be taken as advertised features? But even then -- wouldn't Tesla be required to tell the dealer what features the car actually had?
1. Original Owner bought the feature
2. Original Owner traded in the car to Tesla
3. The used car dealer bought the used car @ auction from Tesla but did not "rebuy" the feature
4. Tesla screwed up by not "disabling" the feature before attempting to double-dip and recharge the dealer for something the original owner bought
5. a few days after the sale tesla did an audit and found they did not get their double-dip extortion fee and disabled the feature
6. the dealer sold the car thinking it was just a glitch
7. new owner not happy
I think differently. IF I buy (A) in good faith (B) a perpetual license (C) manifested by the rights holder into physical media, THEN I am in fact entitled to it.
Besides the fact that owning a Tesla is barely going to do anything for "environmental benefits" (but it will make you feel good), why not considering other EV makes? Tesla is all over the news but other models are available with almost the same performance and lower prices.
Unfortunately, that’s the closest comparable EV that is available today. I am not comparing to any vehicles that arent available yet on purpose.
Note: i intentionally picked the longest range models of both cars, but it was mostly to prop up Porsche, because even the cheapest Model 3 in production beats Taycan with 220 miles of range.
The Taycan does significantly beat EPA in low-average-speed, "spirited driving" tests with the A/C and heater turned off (usually in the mountains, and never head-to-head against another EV that might also be its EPA). "Car people" are impressed by these tests because gas cars are known get poor MPGs in sprited mountain driving. "EV people" are unimpressed by these tests because they know the true test of an EV is high speed cruising, where aerodynamics matter and regen doesn't.
So, while it's impressive that the Taycan comes close to (but does not beat) its EPA range in real-world highway cruising, it still has less range for 3x the price.
Then again it's from different users posting the replies.
Still, who suggests an electric porsche at twice the price and half the range. By buying an Tesla you get more value, brand equity and the feeling of "doing" more good than any Porsche purchase would be and you'll support an American company vs a company that shoes in an EV because they should.
Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who owns Chevy Spark EV (the smaller, cheaper, precursor of the Bolt basically).
For a full replacement for ICE cars (instead of owning 1 ICE and 1 EV), there's really no substitute for a Tesla.
There is absolutely no way I'd knowingly "buy" a car [or other major product, for that matter] which was subject to this sort of postsale unilateral manipulation on the part of the manufacturer / seller.
To my way of thinking, it's similar, but much worse, than the situation with HOAs [which I also decline to support]
edit: I'd already started switching to bike for commute and errands; now I'm even more inclined to continue in that direction rather than look to EVs
Here are Tesla's data collection policies, which includes remote image and video clip collection: Telematics log data: To improve our vehicles and services for you, we may collect certain telematics data regarding the performance, usage, operation, and condition of your Tesla vehicle, including: vehicle identification number; speed information; odometer readings; battery use management information; battery charging history; electrical system functions; software version information; infotainment system data; safety-related data and camera images (including information regarding the vehicle’s SRS systems, braking and acceleration, security, e-brake, and accidents); short video clips of accidents; information regarding the use and operation of Autopilot, Summon, and other features; and other data to assist in identifying issues and analyzing the performance of the vehicle. We may collect such information either in person (such as during a service appointment) or via remote access. Source: https://www.tesla.com/about/legal
Hell to the nope. And to think people were scared of smart TVs! It sounds like this has literally everything bad that people were scared of with Smart TV ("infotainment system data"), with the added fun feature of filming you and tracking everywhere you go.
I am not reassured by "it's unlikely...". Tesla is not distinguishing itself in the field of restraint.
All modern Teslas passively use the cameras outside of the vehicle to monitor your driving to compare and improve their own self-driving algorithms, which is part of the reason the hardware is present whether or not you paid for the upgrade[2].
There's also the problem of forced updates, where some updates (particularly safety updates) must be installed, whether you want them or not[3]. In an extreme case, such as the aftermath of the Tesla battery that caught fire in China, they are believed to have solved the problem by limiting the maximum charge of the battery in software, reducing range significantly for a minority of drivers[4].
In all of these cases, user-control is sorely lacking.
[1]:https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/tesla-blames-drivers-wh... [2]: https://medium.com/@trenteady/deepminds-ai-learned-to-play-s... [3]: https://www.wired.com/2012/09/tesla-over-the-air/ [4]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/4/20898741/tesla-cars-nhtsa...
> I can accept unintended bugs, this is a risk I would be willing to take (and hopefully neither me nor my family would suffer terribly for)
I will never buy a car that has computer-controlled systems complex enough that a software bug could kill me.
Out of curiosity, what do you drive now?
They are not complex in the way I was thinking. Functioning airbags and anti-lock brakes have been around since the 1980s. Analog sensors react to inputs, sometimes send it to a computer, which performs the right actions based on those simple inputs. Traction control has been around for almost as long.
I don't know for a fact that nobody has been killed by these simple systems malfunctioning, but I would be very surprised if anyone had.
I'll take any of your book recommendations, in return for mine: "Normal Accidents" by Charles Perrow. My takeaway from that book is: once you get past a level of system complexity that no _single person_ can reason about, system accidents are inevitable.
> Out of curiosity, what do you drive now?
1987 Mazda 323 GTX (4WD turbocharged hooligan edition of the 323/Familia). I am happy owning one of my dream cars :)
Hang onto that 323, sounds like a fun car.
Back then, it was a move benefiting drivers (and rightfully applauded), so no one seemed to stop and think how they were even able to do this. Now we're seeing the same technology in action to the detriment of the driver.
Here's what a comment on Tesla Motors Club says you should be prepared to lose on a salvaged car:
>For anyone purchasing as salvaged Tesla, they should assume Tesla will cut them off from supercharging, software updates, Internet access, and internet use by the media player & navigation system - until Tesla has re-certified the car. Until then preparing for other charging options is prudent.
At least to me that sounds like a lot of things that they can just take away from your car with a flag.
In my case (not a tesla): software updates are only installed iff there is a recall notice. One time they installed an update because they had to wait anyways but that was not guaranteed and a service from the mechanic.
Most internet uses in cars (if not all) are bound the a person, not a car. Selling it most likely voids that subscription. In my case the uses are free for 5 years for the first buyer and a paid subscription afterwards. Most likely tesla does something similar.
Supercharging: See internet. Though I see plenty of them advertised with it. Maybe this is different in the EU.
Features (as in, bought features in feature packs or options) on the other hand are something of value (even if only software) added to the car and cannot be taken away without compensation or reimbursement. Unless you had a subscription but that is not the case in this instance.
Using an apologetic tone for the scummy and exploitative business tactics employed by these companies is exactly why people like GP don't have faith that "...the modern moral system of the United States will provide sufficient protection..." anymore.
Think about it. Somebody could buy a Tesla charger circuit, install it to another car, and get free charging for life. The same happened with 3G enabled Kindles.
>Somebody could buy a Tesla charger circuit, install it to another car, and get free charging for life. The same happened with 3G enabled Kindles.
That sounds like the way it's supposed to be. It's how cars have been handled for decades and the tinkering and experimenting I'm sure lead a whole lot of people to find fulfilling interests, hobbies, maybe even carreers. It's funny, on the one hand companies seem to have no interest in funding the education of their employees anymore but on the other they also want to completely control access to their tech and how it's used.
EDIT: Made the same mistake again. Of course I don't advocate for people just mooching off of Tesla's superchargers, but the ability to be able to do with my property as I please.
That's highly dependent on your use-case. For the average driver, you install and use a level 2 charger at home every night and wake up to a full battery. Superchargers typically only come into play on long road trips, and you can still pay to use them outside of the complimentary charging they provide for new sales.
Who owns that Tesla charger circuit? Somebody paid $5000 for free supercharging for life, and presumably the "key" or whatever is loaded onto something.
The thing is: Tesla wants to be a scummy company and remotely take away that key from its users upon sale of the vehicle. Is not "free supercharging for life" implied to be tied to the car (or more specifically, the car's charging circuit)??
If it is tied to the car itself, then the "key" should be tied to some component that "defines" the car, like maybe the motors or the battery pack. The software can check to see if its still connected to the same battery-pack token or whatever if you really want to verify things (with logic used every 10 years whenever battery packs are replaced).
-----
If Tesla wants both, they can have both with proper engineering effort. However, they're being lazy if they are just cutting off users without any recourse.
If the key tied to the charging circuit. Would it be fair to pay that extra $5000 if the charging circuit fails and you have to buy a new one? And if you can transfer that, what happens when somebody fixes the old one?
What I want to point out that "for life" services shouldn't be tied to complex things.
https://youtu.be/okLgtYgnd7A
This sounds extreme, but it's the direction we are going with electric cars and and manufacturer-controlled and locked down vehicle systems. I am 100% on board with electric vehicles (I've gone as far as planning out a gas to electric conversion for an older truck), but not at the expense of true ownership of one's vehicle. If Tesla wants to put their brand image above and beyond my complete ownership of a vehicle I purchased outright, I simply won't ever own a Tesla even if they become less expensive than the non-electric equivalent.
that they can be sold and be allowed back on the road opens the manufacturer to a whole host of liabilities. The insurance company declared it not worthy of repair so if state laws permit them to be titled why should the manufacturer provide any support or be compelled to do so?
anecdotal, we have a neighbor in our subdivision with two salvaged cars. both have been given plates by the county to allow them to be driven. both have body damage including a Nissan Rogue which has no back window and one rear passenger window is gone. So who is liable for mechanical failure or even software failure when this car is in accident? I am not even sure it has functioning air bags.
* for clarity - I am against a car being sold and losing features as shown in the article, that car was not a salvage title
I don't think anyone is asking for that.
The ask is 'don't disable existing paid-for features on the car, thanks'.
The legal reductionist version of this situation is buying a house and finding that 2 rooms got demolished because the builder had a lease agreement on those with the previous owner.
It boggles my mind how the manufacturer modifying a car they don't own isn't computer trespass and/or straight theft as they deprive you of the rights of ownership.
This is part and parcel of why I think IP on software is increasingly rearing it's head as an anti-pattern. Right of First Sale goes right out the window with the "marriage" model of smart appliance ownership we seem to be converging on via contract law.
It's often entirely disconnected from the vehicle's safe operation. Some vehicles/damages are just expensive to repair and/or don't hold their value well.
I'm currently sitting on a vehicle which was in a minor fender bender but since they creased the quarter panel the insurance company totaled it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the car besides a cosmetic dent, I drive it daily, its operation is unchanged.
If it were a Tesla, apparently I'd be losing access to all sorts of stuff I purchased like unlimited supercharging just because someone dented my car and the insurance determined it was too expensive to fix.
That's unacceptable in my view, but I already would never buy a car riddled with surveillance systems and unattended OTA software "updates", I'm definitely not in the target market for Tesla.
I don't think so. How would the manufacturer be liable for a failure due to a repair made by someone else? Has there ever been an incident of such a case?
> We're taking the 18s back. Here are some 16" steelies
Pretty sure you'd get shot in some parts of the world for trying that.
Tesla sells vehicle, original owner doesn't buy FSD. Sells vehicle back to Tesla.
Telsa turns FSD on, maybe as part of the recertification process, and forgets to turn it off.
Telsa resells vehicle to dealer, listed with FSD. Dealer resells to current owner, with FSD.
Systems audit at Tesla reconciles the sales data with the car features data, and rather than just eating their mistake, they turn off FSD.
1. Buy a car as is: Pay your car upfront. No updates after purchase
2. VaaS: No upfront cost. Constant updates, monthly payment.
This current situation why I hate IoT devices. You pay upfront and hope they still provide the service after n years. It makes no sense for me, why would somebody provide a service without an ongoing revenue.
The owners liked the vehicles so much they offered to buy them outright from the company so they could at least keep the cars they liked.
They raised the few million needed to pay off everyone's lease.
Company refused and took all the cars away anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
https://www.bookbycadillac.com/
I bought a BMW that was supposed to get the new/shorter 36 month maintenance included. But the sticker was still referencing the 48 month plan. I didn't even notice.
BMW must have ran an audit, and know what they did? They honored the sticker and said something like "Your monro sticker was wrong and said you get 48 months maintenance, so you get 48 months maintenance"
I think this just goes back to how they are inexperienced and not a real dealer. I'd expect they'd lose any court battle surrounding it. It's the whole point of the sticker.
When laws aren't enforced, their existence is irrelevant. We are seeing this with this monroney sticker and I'm sure this is the standard, default policy of Tesla. Hell, even if there's a class action lawsuit, Tesla will not admit fault, they will not change, and the only people who will get actual compensation are the lawyers. It won't hurt Tesla so civil penalties are just as ineffective as the law in this case. Corporate profits over everything is the norm. Let's not pretend that the law or civil suits get in the way of that now. Hell, can you even sue Tesla, or do they require arbitration?
I assume you used a credit card? Seems quite likely they can take care of that for you.