EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Avacee on February 07, 2020, 09:07:57 am
-
Apologies if posted elsewhere - please delete if so
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21127243/tesla-model-s-autopilot-disabled-remotely-used-car-update (https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21127243/tesla-model-s-autopilot-disabled-remotely-used-car-update)
TL;DR. Tesla sold a car at one of its own auctions with "Enhanced Auto-pilot" and "Full Self Driving Mode" Enabled - it was bought by a dealer - the Dealer sold it with those features advertised - in a later over-the-air-update Tesla disabled Auto-Pilot saying the buyer "did not pay for it". Tesla now wants $8,000 to re-enable the features.
Let the lawsuits begin!
Edit: Spelling.
-
I can sort of understand why many people use Silicon Valley's products for free, but why pay for becoming one with the botnet? :-DD
-
Thats the reason, soul and core of "cloud based" business is.
-
Apologies if posted elsewhere - please delete if so
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21127243/tesla-model-s-autopilot-disabled-remotely-used-car-update (https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21127243/tesla-model-s-autopilot-disabled-remotely-used-car-update)
TL;DR. Tesla sold a car at one of its own auctions with "Enhanced Auto-pilot" and "Full Self Driving Mode" Enabled - it was bought by a dealer - the Dealer sold it with those features advertised - in a later over-the-air-update Tesla disabled Auto-Pilot saying the buyer "did not pay for it". Tesla now wants $8,000 to re-enable the features.
Let the lawsuits begin!
Edit: Spelling.
My understanding of Tesla's statement is that NO used (Tesla) car buyer paid for any options so Tesla has the right to disable them, even if they were enabled with the buyer bought the car.
I wonder how long it will be before Tesla decides that even the original purchaser isn't entitled to those optional features after, say, one year?
Remind me to NEVER buy a Tesla! Or any other vehicle that can be reprogrammed without my expressed authorization.
-
I don't know the full story, but from what I've read:
1. This reduces the residual value of Tesla vehicles.
2. This underscores the importance of alternative self-driving methodologies like Openpilot.
I don't think it makes Tesla bad or good, it just reduces the residual value of the vehicles. Good for some folks, bad for others.
-
TL;DR. Tesla sold a car at one of its own auctions with "Enhanced Auto-pilot" and "Full Self Driving Mode" Enabled - it was bought by a dealer - the Dealer sold it with those features advertised - in a later over-the-air-update Tesla disabled Auto-Pilot saying the buyer "did not pay for it". Tesla now wants $8,000 to re-enable the features.
TL;DR. Apparently Tesla sold a car to the dealer at one of its own auctions without "Enhanced Auto-pilot" and "Full Self Driving Mode" but in practice it was functioning at the time. And was disabled shortly after but a bit too late so dealer sold it to customer as if car came with AP option.
In any case it should be dealer's who sold the car, not buyer's problem.
-
Both items were listed right on the sticker as it was sold by Tesla. $8000 was added to the price of the vehicle. They are not "services", they are one-time feature purchases just like any other vehicle option such as A/C, fancy wheels, etc.
-
Both items were listed right on the sticker as it was sold by Tesla.
Source please.
-
An invoice from Tesla later revealed that on November 18, three days after the car was sold to the dealer, Tesla conducted an “audit” of the car and decided the features had not been paid for. Consequently when the car received its next software update in December, those features were remotely removed from the vehicle.
-
An invoice from Tesla later revealed that on November 18, three days after the car was sold to the dealer, Tesla conducted an “audit” of the car and decided the features had not been paid for. Consequently when the car received its next software update in December, those features were remotely removed from the vehicle.
oh shnap...
-
That's like a dealer saying 3 days after the sale, "Oh by the way, the car we sold you with those fancy aluminum wheels wasn't really supposed to have them, so we sneaked on to your property in the middle of the night and swapped them for some cheap ones."
second picture.
https://jalopnik.com/tesla-remotely-removes-autopilot-features-from-customer-1841472617
-
After reading the Jalopnik (https://jalopnik.com/tesla-remotely-removes-autopilot-features-from-customer-1841472617?rev=1580941196331) article, it seems obvious to me that this episode has just one of two outcomes: 1) Tesla enables the features, or, 2) Tesla refunds $8000 to the end-buyer.
It was Tesla's auction and the features were listed right on the sticker. End of story.
-
second picture.
https://jalopnik.com/tesla-remotely-removes-autopilot-features-from-customer-1841472617
That's certainly not sticker car came with but some Photoshop reproduction at best. Also that's a price of a brand new car, not 2 year old used car. And if it is an accurate reproduction of an actual sticker present on a car, it was there since the car was new. I'd like to see an invoice of how much dealer actually paid to Tesla, and which options are present there. Again it should be dealer's problem. Either they take the car back, pay to Tesla for AP or compensate to the buyer.
-
After reading the Jalopnik (https://jalopnik.com/tesla-remotely-removes-autopilot-features-from-customer-1841472617?rev=1580941196331) article, it seems obvious to me that this episode has just one of two outcomes: 1) Tesla enables the features, or, 2) Tesla refunds $8000 to the end-buyer.
It was Tesla's auction and the features were listed right on the sticker. End of story.
No, buyer and Tesla do nothing. Dealer solves the problem.
2) Tesla refunds $8000 to the end-buyer.
Tesla is not the seller in this case and buyer paid nothing to them.
-
Did the original owner get to transfer his license over? Assuming he bought another tesla. If not that's shitty on Tesla. If he did it's just poor communication.
-
IMHO dealer simply plays dumb in this case.
-
So by the time car was sold there was no AP already :palm:. And Dealer certainly plays dumb. Note he never says that he purchased the features. He says "it worked". And in the end you can see he actually knew that features not paid for will likely be removed.
The dealership, United Traders, reached out to me to add some details and more information about the sale of the Tesla and what they knew of its features at the time of the sale:
I saw the Tesla story blowing up on your website and a few others as well. We are the dealership (United Traders) that sold the Tesla to Alec B_____.
I bought that vehicle personally, and used the full self drive on it multiple times. It was working fine. One day, a random message popped up saying your autopilot has been upgraded after a software update. Then it disappeared. I figured it was a glitch. I already had an agreement with Alec to purchase the vehicle.
He did come and test drive it a few days later, and we both agreed it was a technical difficulty or bug that would be fixed by next software update. Since then Tesla has been of no assistance to him, and I have been doing my best to get him some help in this case.
I sell dozens of Teslas a year, and sold my father in law a Model X P90D with ludicrous speed package. 60 days after the purchase of the car, Tesla removed his ludicrous speed package. Upon complaints to them they said he never paid for it. We have video evidence and multiple pictures of the vehicle with it. They even removed the line under the P90D. I am still shocked at these acts.
-
It sounds like both Tesla and the dealer are playing dumb to some degree. Tesla claims the vehicle was "incorrectly configured" and, therefore, disabled the features. So the features were enabled when they--Tesla--sold the vehicle but then later claim the vehicle was "incorrectly configured" and disabled the features.
I have to wonder how that is going to go over in court.
Unless the dealer is being disingenuous then I don't see how Tesla has a case. Maybe the dealer bought the car knowing it didn't come with the features but, if that's the case, I don't see how they would think they could get away with selling it as if it came with them. They would have to have known they wouldn't get away with it.
-
Rights and wrongs of this particular case aside, what it clearly demonstrates is that Tesla have no qualms in removing features from a car post market.
That's probably not a manufacturer I want to buy from.
Admittedly the only real distinction between Tesla and other manufacturers is that they are a bit further along the curve than most.
Anyway, give it 25 years or so and no-one will own a car; there will be a fleet of self-driving cars and you you summon one for the individual journey that you wish to make. Way more efficient than everyone owning a car (or more than one) and it being parked, unused, 95% of the time.
-
I wouldn't trust a car dealer as far as I could throw him. It's safe to assume every sentence contains some form of lie. The statement from the dealer confirms that. He is saying "the feature was working when I drove it therefore it is legit". He deals with Tesla, and also has seen Tesla withdraw features not paid for, so he already knows he is lying.
Tesla provide the grey area, dodgy salesmen will exploit it. There is a remote possibility that the dealer didn't know what he was buying at auction, but salesmen don't get far without knowing the real $ value of items they are selling, so I find that unlikely.
-
Anyway, give it 25 years or so and no-one will own a car; there will be a fleet of self-driving cars and you you summon one for the individual journey that you wish to make. Way more efficient than everyone owning a car (or more than one) and it being parked, unused, 95% of the time.
Offtopic: I doubt that will happen. Owning a (second hand) car which doesn't depreciate like crazy will always be cheaper to own even if it sits idle 95% of the time instead of renting. Also people will want to drive around in relatively new cars if they pay top dollar. Where do the older cars go to? Put some numbers on the idea and you'll see it will be a very expensive solution because at some point you'll need many cars at the same time.
-
I wouldn't trust a car dealer as far as I could throw him. It's safe to assume every sentence contains some form of lie. The statement from the dealer confirms that. He is saying "the feature was working when I drove it therefore it is legit". He deals with Tesla, and also has seen Tesla withdraw features not paid for, so he already knows he is lying.
Tesla provide the grey area, dodgy salesmen will exploit it. There is a remote possibility that the dealer didn't know what he was buying at auction, but salesmen don't get far without knowing the real $ value of items they are selling, so I find that unlikely.
Moreover as he already have seen features disabled, selling car with a premise AP will be fixed in software is basically fraud.
-
Tesla is probably doing the customer a favor here by disabling this crap anyway.
-
Tesla is probably doing the customer a favor here by disabling this crap anyway.
Exactly!
-
Anyway, give it 25 years or so and no-one will own a car; there will be a fleet of self-driving cars and you you summon one for the individual journey that you wish to make. Way more efficient than everyone owning a car (or more than one) and it being parked, unused, 95% of the time.
i rather not have to pay a 3rd party it's still WAY efficient time wise to have your own and ownership cost less...
every 10,000 miles in a uber would cost about $30,000
it cost me about $2800 including,maintenance,fuel,insurance and reg..
owning a car is still cheaper :-//
-
People have been stockpiling and restoring vintage vehicles for a long time. I don't expect that to stop either.
-
Aside from the arguments already mentioned, wouldn't that simply mean that the original buyer still has ownership of the software? I imagine there is more to this story, like maybe the original buyer decided to buy another Tesla vehicle and transferred the license. (Surely Tesla wouldn't just kill the license and make them buy a second license if they get another Tesla...)
-
Aside from the arguments already mentioned, wouldn't that simply mean that the original buyer still has ownership of the software?
I don't know. Do you still "own" the license to every version of Windows that you ever bought? If so, of how much use have they been?
I imagine there is more to this story, like maybe the original buyer decided to buy another Tesla vehicle and transferred the license. (Surely Tesla wouldn't just kill the license and make them buy a second license if they get another Tesla...)
What makes you think that Tesla wouldn't "kill" the old license and make you buy and new license along with the new car? (And make the buyer of your now used car buy another license?) MicroSoft does it all of the time. Go read your license agreement, it clearly states that it is only for one machine.
"I imagine there is more to this story, like maybe the original buyer decided to buy another Tesla vehicle and transferred the license. "
If that was the case, then why did Tesla transfer the car to the dealer with the "licensed" features still operational? If it was a matter of a license, then the features should have been deactivated the moment that the license was transferred to another vehicle. NO excuse; since since Tesla did have the car in their possession and since that could dis-able the features remotely.
Never underestimate the GREED of companies like MS and Tesla!
-
I don't like this idea at all, that there is essentially DRM on a car. If I buy a piece of hardware I want it to be mine, and controlled by me, and I don't want anyone to be able to start changing or disabling stuff on it. If the car has the physical capability of doing something, then don't take that feature away just because I'm not paying even more money. I already paid for the hardware that allows that feature to work.
I dread that this will becoming the norm over time. It's one of the reasons they are pushing 5G so much as the goal is to make everything IoT including cars. They are already doing this with consumer IoT stuff like home automation and security, that is just the start. People just accept having to be at the mercy of a 3rd party (and in some cases pay a fee per month) for the product you bought to work. The only way I think this is remotely acceptable is if the product is free. But even then, me personally I'm not a fan of renting, I want to own, and I want to fully own.
-
Oh, OK, I get it now. It's not a car, it's a phone! And the autopilot is an app! Yes, now it all makes sense!
:palm:
-
The original vehicle sticker plainly lists the EAP and FSD as individual line items with a price. This normally means the items would stay with the vehicle for life just as with any other optional equipment.
-
The original vehicle sticker plainly lists the EAP and FSD as individual line items with a price. This normally means the items would stay with the vehicle for life just as with any other optional equipment.
Car was since then returned to Tesla back and sold by Tesla again on auction to this dealer who scammed the buyer. And again, this is reproduction of sticker, not photo.
-
Yes. I did say normally. The sticker image could be fake and Tesla is free to do as they wish. You can't believe anything you see on the internet. Too bad that's where most of our information comes from.
-
Tesla are using the same DRM model as many other tech companies, e.g. Amazon Kindle. If you "buy" a book on Kindle, you get considerably less rights than with a physical book. You can't transfer your Kindle license to another person, and Amazon can disable Kindles remotely. Being old school, I consider this outrageous, and no one in their right mind would buy into such a scheme. But millions do, and seem mostly happy with it, apart from the odd few who find out the hard way.
We are at a transition between the old and the new, and soon if not already people will expect the new limited DRM style of accessing books, music, movies, software, apps, door bells etc etc as a matter of course. It's the new normal.
So we can rewrite "The original vehicle sticker plainly lists the EAP and FSD as individual line items with a price. This normally means the items would stay with the vehicle for life just as with any other optional equipment. "
as:
"The original vehicle sticker plainly lists the EAP and FSD as individual licensed items with a price. This normally means only the original purchaser is licensed to use those options, and the items would need to be re-licensed by a new owner, just as with any other optional software."
-
If you go poke around on Tesla forums you will see that no one really knows which way it works and apparently even Tesla doesn't seem to know (if you believe what people quote them as saying in emails and phone conversations).
-
Only a showoff or a mug buys Tesla. Virtue signalling is at its peak right now, no one is content unless you're vegan and driving an electric car. Sheesh. Idiocy has also peaked.
-
Keep in mind a license is NOT ownership. It's just a limited right, under a number of clauses, to use something. Pretty different.
-
Tesla are using the same DRM model as many other tech companies, e.g. Amazon Kindle. If you "buy" a book on Kindle, you get considerably less rights than with a physical book. You can't transfer your Kindle license to another person, and Amazon can disable Kindles remotely. Being old school, I consider this outrageous, and no one in their right mind would buy into such a scheme. But millions do, and seem mostly happy with it, apart from the odd few who find out the hard way.
Hence the reason why as much as possible I find electronic versions of files that I can store locally and use without special software, whether it be PDF, MP3, FLAC, MP4, and every other type of sound/video/text/graphic media I can think of without DRM. All electronic pay-per-copy distribution schemes today have DRM built in to some degree to restrict piracy, but once you own the copy you are stuck to the particular device or platform forever. If something ever happens you lose it all. There should be a way to allow you to make local copies of your own media downloads that are watermarked with your name all over it, so that if you share it with anyone or it gets out on the web, they know who leaked it. That should hopefully restrict people from sharing stuff they buy. But on the other hand, if someone got a hand on your computer or hacked your account, they could grab all your media and put into a public folder for everyone in the world to download, and it would look like you did it and get you in trouble. Double-edged sword I guess.
I see a couple of possible solutions to this Tesla-Dealer-Buyer menage-trois screw-up. Either the dealer refund $8000 to the buyer since they sold a car which is now no longer as described, or Tesla reinstates the $8000 worth of features to the buyer (for public relations purposes) and then slams the dealer with an $8000 bill or refuse to hand over any more cars to them. Or the owner will have to sue either Tesla, the Dealer or both and try to recoup the money (perhaps they split the difference... not sure exactly how much but I figure Tesla will probably take the bigger hit). There is probably something in the fine-print though for software that Tesla has the right to turn off or change things whenever they feel like and so they can probably legally wriggle their way out of this mess. However, it will be a public-relations nightmare and so Tesla is better off just reinstating the software and making sure they don't make this mistake again.
-
Keep in mind a license is NOT ownership. It's just a limited right, under a number of clauses, to use something. Pretty different.
The point is that Tesla is selling licences, not whether they can legally do this or not. It's indicative of a while different model which so far has never been in favour of the renter. You'll never be sure the car you start in the morning is the same car you left in the driveway last night. Thousands of dollars could have vapourized without the thing having moved. Remember how Adobe clients in certain countries initially got swindled out of their subscription fees thanks to the US government changing the rules on them? Now it can be done to your car too.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/7/20904030/adobe-venezuela-photoshop-behance-us-sanctions (https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/7/20904030/adobe-venezuela-photoshop-behance-us-sanctions)
-
Oh, OK, I get it now. It's not a car, it's a phone! And the autopilot is an app! Yes, now it all makes sense!
:palm:
And remember, same as cloud based software, should someday your bad luck strikes, and by the order of "other" country's leader, that doesn't like your country anymore, then while you're driving in the middle of no where, suddenly your car engine just stopped and will never can be started again, maybe until your country's change the political direction. :-DD -> The Fact & Proof (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/proof-that-software-as-servicecloud-based-will-never-work-for-long-term/)
-
They can also turn your steering wheel, floor the gas pedal, and disable the brakes, all OTA... :scared:
-
They can also turn your steering wheel, floor the gas pedal, and disable the brakes, all OTA... :scared:
Do you mean, turning your car into weapon ? Especially the car has advanced AI that can recognize vital and valuable military targets/objects, and of course where they're located. >:D
-
i rather not have to pay a 3rd party it's still WAY efficient time wise to have your own and ownership cost less...
every 10,000 miles in a uber would cost about $30,000
it cost me about $2800 including,maintenance,fuel,insurance and reg..
owning a car is still cheaper :-//
You are assuming that the cost would be similar to modern day Uber - where most of the cost is paying the driver, rather than the actual cost of the journey.
Also you are forgetting depreciation - and 28c a mile seems low for running costs TBH, though some of that might be that you guys still pay a ludicrously low price for gas.
Finally fewer and fewer people actually own cars anyway, financing has moved towards contract hire deals where you never own the vehicle - offer pay-by-ride at the right price and people will see the benefit of not having to give a car house room, feed it with fuel and/or electricity, get it serviced regularly, find a parking space at each end of the journey etc etc.
-
Only a showoff or a mug buys Tesla. Virtue signalling is at its peak right now, no one is content unless you're vegan and driving an electric car. Sheesh. Idiocy has also peaked.
I guess it escaped your notice that Teslas are some of the very fastest street-legal cars in existence (as in acceleration, not maximum speed)? Lots of people buy them because they’re fun to drive, even if they could afford a more expensive (but poorer performing) brand of car.
For some people, there are factors in buying a car that aren’t economy, virtue signaling,vanity, etc. Performance, quality, comfort, utility, and personal aesthetic preferences are just some. Nobody cares about all aspects, and not everyone will assign the same importance to different factors as you do.
Me, I have never been the kind of person to show off through my car. But I understand that others do, and that’s OK!
-
Finally fewer and fewer people actually own cars anyway
I did not notice that.... Each house in my neighbourhood has cars parked on the driveways, some have 2 and some have 3. My closest neighbours are a family of 4 adults, they have 4 cars. As to me i do not see myself calling Uber every time i need to go buy some grocceries . It is the freedom to move which people like and want.
-
Keep in mind a license is NOT ownership. It's just a limited right, under a number of clauses, to use something. Pretty different.
The point is that Tesla is selling licences, not whether they can legally do this or not.
Everybody is selling licenses these days. I don't see the link with ownership.
A license is again NOT ownership. You don't "own" a license. You're granted one, with contractual clauses. True ownership usually doesn't have any clause; once you own something, it's yours forever until you pass ownership to someone else. In that respect, a license is closer to renting than to ownership.
Is licensing a proper model for cars, and for hardware devices in general? Probably not. Is it legal? So far, I think so. It's just a contract. You accept it or you don't. If you buy a Tesla car with some parts that are licensed to you (which means you don't "own" those parts), you are warned when you sign. Of course if those licensed parts are *essential* to the use of the bought item, then you could reasonably sue if you stop being licensed for any reason. But if those parts are "accessories", then I don't think you'd really have any ground to sue. You just accept it when you sign. And in the case of resold used cars, it's the responsibility of the reseller to warn you that some licensed parts are or are not transferable. So for the OP's case, there is likely ground to sue - probably for wrong description of the good.
Of course it's a landmine.
Note that we're mainly talking about (embedded) software here, but with electric cars, for the time being, you will NEVER be sure you can keep using the car for as long as you keep maintaining it. Batteries are the first culprit. You're totally tied to the vendor. When you batteries die, if the vendor doesn't exist anymore, you're basically screwed, all the more that there is no standard that I know of so far, so you can't just replace them with equivalent parts. If electric vehicles are getting more pervasive, this is likely to change - we'll probably start seeing standards and laws to protect the consumers - but for now, you definitely never really OWN an electric car in the true sense. You just own the hardware of the car (usually except the batteries), and nothing much else. So whether this is for the batteries or for software licensing reasons, the car can just eventually become a pile of dead shit - even if it's in perfect condition.
-
I guess it escaped your notice that Teslas are some of the very fastest street-legal cars in existence (as in acceleration, not maximum speed)?
Model 3 performance can do 0-60 mph (0-95.5 kmh) in <3 seconds (3.2 advertised), top speed 162 mph (261 km/h).
Long range AWD 0-60 mph in 3.9s, top speed 233 kmh.
Standard Range Plus (which is the cheapest) 0-60 mph in 5.3s, top speed 225kmh
They were a bit less quick a year ago, but since then there were 2 software updates each increasing performance a bit.
-
i rather not have to pay a 3rd party it's still WAY efficient time wise to have your own and ownership cost less...
every 10,000 miles in a uber would cost about $30,000
it cost me about $2800 including,maintenance,fuel,insurance and reg..
owning a car is still cheaper :-//
You are assuming that the cost would be similar to modern day Uber - where most of the cost is paying the driver, rather than the actual cost of the journey.
Also you are forgetting depreciation - and 28c a mile seems low for running costs TBH, though some of that might be that you guys still pay a ludicrously low price for gas.
28ct per mile (16 euroct / km) is not out of the ordinary. I'm around the 17euroct to 18euroct /km mark myself. It all comes to buying a car which is cheap to maintain (reliable engine and cheap suspension parts).
Finally fewer and fewer people actually own cars anyway, financing has moved towards contract hire deals where you never own the vehicle
Better put some numbers on this. I think this shift is caused by people who would previously 'buy' a car and borrow the money from the car dealer. Since the credit-crunch rules for loans have become much stricter so it is likely car dealers don't want the hassle of handling credit applications. A private lease construction is subject to much less rules.
-
Anyway, give it 25 years or so and no-one will own a car; there will be a fleet of self-driving cars and you you summon one for the individual journey that you wish to make. Way more efficient than everyone owning a car (or more than one) and it being parked, unused, 95% of the time.
Offtopic: I doubt that will happen. Owning a (second hand) car which doesn't depreciate like crazy will always be cheaper to own even if it sits idle 95% of the time instead of renting.
Agreed. Our cars spend probably 97.5% of the time idle (avg 6K miles per year on one and 4K mi/yr on the other). One is a 2005 Honda bought in 2012. For 40K miles, we’ve put about $4K in gas, $300 in oil changes, $1200 in outsourced repairs, $500 in tires, $400 in parts for DIY repairs, paid $4K in insurance, paid a few hundred for registrations and inspections, and it’s probably worth $4K less than we paid. 40K miles around $15K in expenses. $0.37/mi all in.
No way are we going to use Uber every time we need to go somewhere, even if it was only $0.40/mi, let alone a significant multiple of that!
-
I like owning a car because it's a toy I can tinker with, fix it up, customize it to my liking, I want to own things, I don't rent anything.
That said, I struggle to think of any car made in the last 15 years that I would want if it were offered to me for free. The last 10 years especially, they seem to be in a race to design the most hideously ugly thing possible while also making it boring to drive. Modern cars just have no soul, they're all designed according to the same algorithms and they're all the same.
-
Ridiculous, there's plenty of choice ! See this :
[attach=1]
-
That said, I struggle to think of any car made in the last 15 years that I would want if it were offered to me for free. The last 10 years especially, they seem to be in a race to design the most hideously ugly thing possible while also making it boring to drive. Modern cars just have no soul, they're all designed according to the same algorithms and they're all the same.
If anyone's giving them away, I'd love to have a 997 Turbo [or even a 991 Turbo], 458, or 488.
-
It is the freedom to move which people like and want.
Hear hear!
-
I guess it escaped your notice that Teslas are some of the very fastest street-legal cars in existence (as in acceleration, not maximum speed)?
Model 3 performance can do 0-60 mph (0-95.5 kmh) in <3 seconds (3.2 advertised), top speed 162 mph (261 km/h).
Long range AWD 0-60 mph in 3.9s, top speed 233 kmh.
Standard Range Plus (which is the cheapest) 0-60 mph in 5.3s, top speed 225kmh
They were a bit less quick a year ago, but since then there were 2 software updates each increasing performance a bit.
That's all true (and awesome), but I wasn't asking what the specs were. ;)
-
I'm a bit late, but I wanted to add that the original controversy over the deletion of the Auto-Pilot would be an interesting discussion--if we actually had all the facts. The original window sticker has been purportedly been shown as evidence of what the car had when originally sold and Tesla's actions have been compared to stealing wheels. However...
First, the car was apparently originally sold with those options--this appears to be undisputed whether or not you believe that whatever version of the sticker you are looking at is genuine. The one I saw appeared to have correct pricing for the options at the time. The car then developed several defects that were not remedied and the owner demanded action under the California Song-Beverly act (lemon law). Tesla took the car back and issued either a replacement or a refund--I believe it was a replacement, but I'm not sure. At this point the car belongs to Tesla and they are free to remove options, whether it be AutoPilot or fancy wheels, before selling it or disposing of it how they see fit.
The car was then sold to an independent dealer at a wholesale auction, who then resold it to a customer. Apparently the Autopilot functioned at the time of the wholesale transaction but stopped working shortly thereafter. Here is where we run short of facts. The sole issue as I see it would be what representations were made to the dealer by Tesla at the time of that sale. If, as I suspect, essentially no representations were made but the dealer had the opportunity to inspect the car before bidding and determined that the car did have AutoPilot, then you have some interesting legal arguments. On the other hand, if it was made clear by the seller that the car either did or didn't include AP, then the case is pretty simple. It would be nice if the buyer(s) in this case would share this information instead of trying to whip up public outrage over what may be a weak or nonexistent case.
My takeaway from this is that Tesla may be ahead in technology, but they are behind the curve in other areas. The whole CPO/used/lemon-law issue has to be as carefully managed as any other aspect of the business and there's plenty of other indications that they lack the capacity to do this well.
-
As I understood it, Tesla represented it at auction as possessing those options, and the dealer bought it on the basis of it including them, and then sold it to the consumer on the same basis. Assuming that's accurate, Tesla doesn't have a legal foot to stand on, I suspect.
You're totally right that Tesla can do whatever they want with it while it's under their ownership, but if they themselves sell it with the claim that it includes the options, then removing them after the sale is, plain and simply, wrong.
-
As I understood it, Tesla represented it at auction as possessing those options,
I'm sure that is what the dealer wants people to assume, but I've seen no evidence of that so far. I would think if they had that evidence, they'd be showing it.
-
As I understood it, Tesla represented it at auction as possessing those options, and the dealer bought it on the basis of it including them,
I think neither the dealer nor second customer have claimed that. What the dealer claimed is that Autopilot was "working" when he took possession, but stopped working before final delivery to customer. The dealer and customer both observed AP was NOT working, but the dealer managed to persuade him it was "just a glitch" (yeah right) despite the dealer knowing that Tesla can and do withdraw features after sale.
The problem is compounded by the habit of Tesla providing free trials of AP which are supposed to last for a month, then if you don't purchase the feature disappears. Another issue is Tesla hate dealers, and won't let them login and check what options the car has, only a registered end user can do that.
What we don't have is proof of what Tesla actually sold at auction to the dealer. Normally stuff at auction is sold "as seen", but how do you tell if AP should be there or not, or is a limited free trial?
-
That's the problem in a nutshell isn't it? "Sold as seen" no longer holds value when matters can be changed after the fact.
-
Everybody is selling licenses these days. I don't see the link with ownership.
A license is again NOT ownership. You don't "own" a license. You're granted one, with contractual clauses. True ownership usually doesn't have any clause; once you own something, it's yours forever until you pass ownership to someone else. In that respect, a license is closer to renting than to ownership.
Is licensing a proper model for cars, and for hardware devices in general? Probably not. Is it legal? So far, I think so. It's just a contract. You accept it or you don't. If you buy a Tesla car with some parts that are licensed to you (which means you don't "own" those parts), you are warned when you sign. Of course if those licensed parts are *essential* to the use of the bought item, then you could reasonably sue if you stop being licensed for any reason. But if those parts are "accessories", then I don't think you'd really have any ground to sue. You just accept it when you sign. And in the case of resold used cars, it's the responsibility of the reseller to warn you that some licensed parts are or are not transferable. So for the OP's case, there is likely ground to sue - probably for wrong description of the good.
Of course it's a landmine.
Note that we're mainly talking about (embedded) software here, but with electric cars, for the time being, you will NEVER be sure you can keep using the car for as long as you keep maintaining it. Batteries are the first culprit. You're totally tied to the vendor. When you batteries die, if the vendor doesn't exist anymore, you're basically screwed, all the more that there is no standard that I know of so far, so you can't just replace them with equivalent parts. If electric vehicles are getting more pervasive, this is likely to change - we'll probably start seeing standards and laws to protect the consumers - but for now, you definitely never really OWN an electric car in the true sense. You just own the hardware of the car (usually except the batteries), and nothing much else. So whether this is for the batteries or for software licensing reasons, the car can just eventually become a pile of dead shit - even if it's in perfect condition.
Everybody selling licences and not seeing the link with ownership is exactly the issue. You pay as if you'd buy it but without actually buying it.
-
That said, I struggle to think of any car made in the last 15 years that I would want if it were offered to me for free. The last 10 years especially, they seem to be in a race to design the most hideously ugly thing possible while also making it boring to drive. Modern cars just have no soul, they're all designed according to the same algorithms and they're all the same.
If anyone's giving them away, I'd love to have a 997 Turbo [or even a 991 Turbo], 458, or 488.
True, I wouldn't turn it down, but I'd take an aircooled 911 over any of those.
-
I like owning a car because it's a toy I can tinker with, fix it up, customize it to my liking, I want to own things, I don't rent anything.
That said, I struggle to think of any car made in the last 15 years that I would want if it were offered to me for free. The last 10 years especially, they seem to be in a race to design the most hideously ugly thing possible while also making it boring to drive. Modern cars just have no soul, they're all designed according to the same algorithms and they're all the same.
Damn those laws of physics and our advancing understanding of them leading to similar solutions for the same problems and subsequent legal requirements.
-
I like owning a car because it's a toy I can tinker with, fix it up, customize it to my liking, I want to own things, I don't rent anything.
That said, I struggle to think of any car made in the last 15 years that I would want if it were offered to me for free. The last 10 years especially, they seem to be in a race to design the most hideously ugly thing possible while also making it boring to drive. Modern cars just have no soul, they're all designed according to the same algorithms and they're all the same.
Damn those laws of physics and our advancing understanding of them leading to similar solutions for the same problems and subsequent legal requirements.
Bullshit.
Yes car design is encumbered by overregulation of almost every aspect but more so than that the design is driven by fads. Tell me what physics demands rudiculous 20" rims with rubber band tires on a family car. What requirements mandate every car be styled as huge tall fake SUV? Cars look the way they are because they have been optimized to appeal to the broadest range of consumers possible, the middle of the bell curve, the ubiquitous crossover is sort of a car, sort of a station wagon, sort of an SUV, it does none of these things well but it's popular with the average consumer because no matter what they are looking for it looks vaguely like that. Everyone else just copies what is selling best and soon you can hardly buy anything else. While I would love to roll back a lot of the regulations (hey I can buy a motorcycle so why can't I buy a car without a zillion airbags?) it's absolutely possible to make a car that isn't yet another POS crossover within the current system. How about we start with bringing back actual shock mounted bumpers that protect the bodywork so a minor parking lot bump doesn't cost $3k to repair?
People like me who want something different are left out in the cold, gone are the days when manufactures made a bunch of unique stuff aiming for a hit, now they just take the safe route and make more of the same. It's exactly the same reason Hollywood is pumping out so many sequels, prequels and reboots, most of it is unimaginative garbage, but it sells so they make more and more of it, and it displaces more and more interesting stuff. You can't blame that on physics and government regulation, it's just an unfortunate result of capitalism.
-
Some regulations (like how bumpers must behave when colliding with pedestrians, or headlamp design) directly result in convergent evolution.
But another one is simply that developing a car platform costs several billion dollars. As such, lots of models are simply the same platform, skinned a bit differently depending on what marque it's selling under.
I agree that it's a bit of a shame that nobody is willing to take a chance on really unique designs, but given a) how much money is at stake, and b) how cooly the market has responded to the more creative recent models, can you blame them?
-
Yes car design is encumbered by overregulation of almost every aspect but more so than that the design is driven by fads. Tell me what physics demands rudiculous 20" rims with rubber band tires on a family car. What requirements mandate every car be styled as huge tall fake SUV? Cars look the way they are because they have been optimized to appeal to the broadest range of consumers possible, the middle of the bell curve, the ubiquitous crossover
If this where true then every manufacturer would just make one model. The reality is that all manufacturers make a broad range of cars and for some models even a sedan, station wagon and hatchback. And then there are also manufacturers (Volkswagen, PSA) who make cars under several brands which all aim at the same market segment. SUVs (I think it stands for 'Slow Use Vehicles' because everyone seems to drive them slow) are just a part of the range.
-
Bullshit.
Yes car design is encumbered by overregulation of almost every aspect but more so than that the design is driven by fads. Tell me what physics demands rudiculous 20" rims with rubber band tires on a family car. What requirements mandate every car be styled as huge tall fake SUV? Cars look the way they are because they have been optimized to appeal to the broadest range of consumers possible, the middle of the bell curve, the ubiquitous crossover is sort of a car, sort of a station wagon, sort of an SUV, it does none of these things well but it's popular with the average consumer because no matter what they are looking for it looks vaguely like that. Everyone else just copies what is selling best and soon you can hardly buy anything else. While I would love to roll back a lot of the regulations (hey I can buy a motorcycle so why can't I buy a car without a zillion airbags?) it's absolutely possible to make a car that isn't yet another POS crossover within the current system. How about we start with bringing back actual shock mounted bumpers that protect the bodywork so a minor parking lot bump doesn't cost $3k to repair?
People like me who want something different are left out in the cold, gone are the days when manufactures made a bunch of unique stuff aiming for a hit, now they just take the safe route and make more of the same. It's exactly the same reason Hollywood is pumping out so many sequels, prequels and reboots, most of it is unimaginative garbage, but it sells so they make more and more of it, and it displaces more and more interesting stuff. You can't blame that on physics and government regulation, it's just an unfortunate result of capitalism.
If you can't accept that the shape of a car is predominantly dictated by physics and legal or safety requirements I don't think there's much left to discuss. All cars of a similar size and mass will be similarly shaped due to these requirements. Bumpers are soft foam filled affairs which are often integrated because of the increased focus on pedestrian safety. That's not great for fender benders in the parking lot but it does decrease the damage done to pedestrians. I won't deny that fashion is also a factor. The dominance of SUV sized vehicles despite that class being fundamentally and intrinsically less safe is the result of that. You can hardly blame manufacturers for this. They merely respond to the constraints of the market from both the legal perspective and the demand. I'd also like to object to the notion of overregulation when vehicle safety and accident survivability has undeniably been improving a lot over the years. Not all regulation is equally successful but as a whole it's definitely a worthwhile endeavour.
-
Finally fewer and fewer people actually own cars anyway
I did not notice that.... Each house in my neighbourhood has cars parked on the driveways, some have 2 and some have 3.
Note that I said own, not "have".
Finally fewer and fewer people actually own cars anyway, financing has moved towards contract hire deals where you never own the vehicle
Better put some numbers on this. I think this shift is caused by people who would previously 'buy' a car and borrow the money from the car dealer. Since the credit-crunch rules for loans have become much stricter so it is likely car dealers don't want the hassle of handling credit applications. A private lease construction is subject to much less rules.
OK, fair call I don't have numbers - BUT I've just bought a car (not on finance) and the contract hire deals are the ones front and centre on the manufacturers websites and are, on the face of it, cheaper per month so which option are most people going to go for?
You never own the vehicle on these deals, just rent it.
I like owning a car because it's a toy I can tinker with, fix it up, customize it to my liking, I want to own things, I don't rent anything.
Yes, sure, I agree on both the "tinkering" and "dislike rental/credit" front - in fact I suspect this whole forum is populated with people who have a similar opinion.
Agreed. Our cars spend probably 97.5% of the time idle (avg 6K miles per year on one and 4K mi/yr on the other). One is a 2005 Honda bought in 2012. For 40K miles, we’ve put about $4K in gas, $300 in oil changes, $1200 in outsourced repairs, $500 in tires, $400 in parts for DIY repairs, paid $4K in insurance, paid a few hundred for registrations and inspections, and it’s probably worth $4K less than we paid. 40K miles around $15K in expenses. $0.37/mi all in.
For the UK double the gas price I suspect, average is about £5.80 (=$7.45) per (imperial) gallon, say 35mpg is £0.165/mi (=$0.27) just in fuel.
I drive (well, drove until three days ago) an '06 Toyota Celica - say 28-30mpg so my fuel only cost is £0.20/mi (=$0.26), annual mileage 6-8k; servicing, insurance, road tax, tyres, depreciation - realistically £1400 ($1800) pa, lets say £0.20 or $0.26/mi - so my total is a bit more than $0.50/mi - it's not a million miles from your estimate, the difference in fuel will be a lot of it - but I think lends some weight to my comment that $0.28 seems pretty cheap. For reference the UK tax allowance for business car miles is £0.45/mi - I suspect the revenue has a pretty fair idea of realistic running costs.
Like you I tend not to buy new cars so my depreciation is low - if you do buy new the costs can be quite high, looking a a Citroën C1 - pretty small city car, new OTR price £13560 is £169/mo (=£2028 or $2616 a year) before you have put fuel in, paid road tax or insured it.
No way are we going to use Uber every time we need to go somewhere, even if it was only $0.40/mi, let alone a significant multiple of that!
Maybe not - today at any rate, but I'm not talking about today.
There are other things in play as well as the financing, one is that from 2022 all cars sold in the EU (and the UK) will have to have mandatory safety features such as GPS based speed limiters, lane assist etc - that goes some way to the car doing the driving. Chances are more automation will be added so you will get to the situation (say 2035 ish) where it will not be a big step to 100% automation, at which point it will probably be illegal to tinker with your car in any way at all (well, you might still be allowed fluffy dice).
So, by 2040-2045 (I did say 25 years) you might well have a fleet of autonomous vehicles which are total black boxes and which all drive pretty much the same - why bother "owning" one just for your personal use?
That turned out to be a long post - perhaps a separate "future of private motoring" thread?
-
In short, a future that will be worse.
-
An interesting point made on the Reddit thread is doesn't software follow the car or the user? It would be nasty if a company can sell the feature multiple times every time a car transfers ownership. Then again, it's software not hardware. I think the way forward which could mitigate this issue is to sell a monthly subscription or annual subscription to autopilot. Whoever the new owner is will need to sign up and pay. It should not be sold as a "bulk" one time purchase.
One day what if for some reason government regulators determine some major flaw and force all autopilot features on all cars disabled or crippled in capacity in some way. In this scenario, you feel like you paid $8000 for one thing and then get a reduced feature set later. Also, it is a hefty upfront fee and you may own the car for many years and through multiple iterations of software improvements... you've used the feature longer than a new owner and benefited from it. If Tesla required a subscription, say $1200 per year or $99.99 a month, you could decide to use it or not, just cancel subscription. You could activate it any time. After less than 7 years you've paid the $8000 so Tesla keeps raking in the dough. On the other hand, it is not a "must have" feature as they clearly sell cars without it. So if you feel the cost is too steep or you don't need it, then don't use it.
They could even charge you based on number of miles or minutes the autopilot feature is engaged. For example it would be like paying for a "private driver" or taxi service. Every time it is engaged the meter starts ticking. Maybe a flat monthly rate plus usage fees. If you never use it you pay minimal maintenance software fees just for having the convenience of it being instantly available. If you use it a lot (and perhaps increase liability risk to Tesla in case of a problem) then you pay a greater share for the autopilot "program". Again this would fall better perhaps into other subscription based services and not this one-time upfront purchase on a car... it could perhaps solve issues like the one discussed in this thread and other potential problems Tesla and drivers could face in the future.
-
They could even charge you based on number of miles or minutes the autopilot feature is engaged. For example it would be like paying for a "private driver" or taxi service. Every time it is engaged the meter starts ticking. Maybe a flat monthly rate plus usage fees. If you never use it you pay minimal maintenance software fees just for having the convenience of it being instantly available. If you use it a lot (and perhaps increase liability risk to Tesla in case of a problem) then you pay a greater share for the autopilot "program". Again this would fall better perhaps into other subscription based services and not this one-time upfront purchase on a car... it could perhaps solve issues like the one discussed in this thread and other potential problems Tesla and drivers could face in the future.
By that time we'll have open source self driving car software.
-
They could even charge you based on number of miles or minutes the autopilot feature is engaged. For example it would be like paying for a "private driver" or taxi service. Every time it is engaged the meter starts ticking. Maybe a flat monthly rate plus usage fees. If you never use it you pay minimal maintenance software fees just for having the convenience of it being instantly available. If you use it a lot (and perhaps increase liability risk to Tesla in case of a problem) then you pay a greater share for the autopilot "program". Again this would fall better perhaps into other subscription based services and not this one-time upfront purchase on a car... it could perhaps solve issues like the one discussed in this thread and other potential problems Tesla and drivers could face in the future.
By that time we'll have open source self driving car software.
Umm. Nope. Government mandated emissions controls and safety requirements will make sure that open source never happens. unless you're willing to spend say, $2,000,000 to PROVE that your open source car meets those requirements.
Frankly I'd be happen if there was open source for the AC control or the radio in my vehicle but I haven't even seen that yet.
-
They could even charge you based on number of miles or minutes the autopilot feature is engaged. For example it would be like paying for a "private driver" or taxi service. Every time it is engaged the meter starts ticking. Maybe a flat monthly rate plus usage fees. If you never use it you pay minimal maintenance software fees just for having the convenience of it being instantly available. If you use it a lot (and perhaps increase liability risk to Tesla in case of a problem) then you pay a greater share for the autopilot "program". Again this would fall better perhaps into other subscription based services and not this one-time upfront purchase on a car... it could perhaps solve issues like the one discussed in this thread and other potential problems Tesla and drivers could face in the future.
By that time we'll have open source self driving car software.
Umm. Nope. Government mandated emissions controls and safety requirements will make sure that open source never happens. unless you're willing to spend say, $2,000,000 to PROVE that your open source car meets those requirements.
Frankly I'd be happen if there was open source for the AC control or the radio in my vehicle but I haven't even seen that yet.
Maybe some day somebody will reinvent the DIN slot, it was specifically designed to allow people to install whatever radio they want.
I'm sure it's wishful thinking but I'd love to see a trend toward minimalist cars. I don't mean just removing all the useful controls from the dash to make it look "clean" then hiding everything in a Byzantine menu structure on a TFT, I mean a stripped down basic car that you could customize to your liking, the way it used to be to some degree.
Car makers wonder why millennials don't seem to care about cars. Why would they care? Cars are boring now, they're just transportation appliances, you can choose between differently shapes fake styling elements glued to the outside and that's about it.
-
Yes car design is encumbered by overregulation of almost every aspect but more so than that the design is driven by fads. Tell me what physics demands rudiculous 20" rims with rubber band tires on a family car. What requirements mandate every car be styled as huge tall fake SUV? Cars look the way they are because they have been optimized to appeal to the broadest range of consumers possible, the middle of the bell curve, the ubiquitous crossover
If this where true then every manufacturer would just make one model. The reality is that all manufacturers make a broad range of cars and for some models even a sedan, station wagon and hatchback. And then there are also manufacturers (Volkswagen, PSA) who make cars under several brands which all aim at the same market segment. SUVs (I think it stands for 'Slow Use Vehicles' because everyone seems to drive them slow) are just a part of the range.
They practically do. Have you not noticed that the bulk of what most makes offer are 2-3 different sizes of very similar looking crossovers? On the bus to and from work I observe a sea of virtually identical looking fake SUVs. Occasionally there is the rare thing that is a bit different, the current fads still mandate an absurdly huge fake grill and ridiculously big wheels on thin tires that give a harsh ride and you blow the tire and bend a rim if you hit a pot hole though so that kills any interest I'd have.
I just hope I can keep finding 80s-90s cars for as long as I need a car, otherwise I'll have to hold my nose and pick up some newer shitbox to have as a daily beater.
-
They practically do. Have you not noticed that the bulk of what most makes offer are 2-3 different sizes of very similar looking crossovers? On the bus to and from work I observe a sea of virtually identical looking fake SUVs. Occasionally there is the rare thing that is a bit different, the current fads still mandate an absurdly huge fake grill and ridiculously big wheels on thin tires that give a harsh ride and you blow the tire and bend a rim if you hit a pot hole though so that kills any interest I'd have.
I just hope I can keep finding 80s-90s cars for as long as I need a car, otherwise I'll have to hold my nose and pick up some newer shitbox to have as a daily beater.
Even if it wasn't a hyperbole it seems odd to knock vehicles due to a part that's easy and cheap to change even for non tinkerers.
-
[Car makers wonder why millennials don't seem to care about cars. Why would they care? Cars are boring now, they're just transportation appliances, you can choose between differently shapes fake styling elements glued to the outside and that's about it.
Millennials don’t care about new cars because they don’t have the money for new cars. It’s not their fault they graduated into an economy that screwed them [over] from the front AND back...
-
They practically do. Have you not noticed that the bulk of what most makes offer are 2-3 different sizes of very similar looking crossovers? On the bus to and from work I observe a sea of virtually identical looking fake SUVs. Occasionally there is the rare thing that is a bit different, the current fads still mandate an absurdly huge fake grill and ridiculously big wheels on thin tires that give a harsh ride and you blow the tire and bend a rim if you hit a pot hole though so that kills any interest I'd have.
I just hope I can keep finding 80s-90s cars for as long as I need a car, otherwise I'll have to hold my nose and pick up some newer shitbox to have as a daily beater.
Even if it wasn't a hyperbole it seems odd to knock vehicles due to a part that's easy and cheap to change even for non tinkerers.
And which part would that be? It's easy and cheap to change that ridiculous huge fake grill? Maybe you're referring to the rims and tires? Tell me how easy and cheap that is after you hit a pot hole and wreck a $800 factory wheel and need $500 worth of tires because you normally have to replace at least two at a time. Huge wheels and thin tires are probably great on a race track, but I don't drive on a race track, I drive on real world roads that are full of cracks and holes.
That's really just the tip of the iceberg too, every time I have to drive a modern car I find myself cursing at the piss-poor visibility, the lack of tactile controls, features I need buried in menus, hundreds of pounds of gadgets and bloat. A lot of them now even have a ridiculous display that looks like somebody glued an iPad to the middle of the dash. Every one of them has been garbage, and I cannot think of one that is not hideously ugly, even the Teslas look like toys designed for 12 year old boys, at least they're unique though, I'll give them credit for that, althoubj even Tesla has succumbed to the market pressure to build a fake SUV like everyone else.
-
And which part would that be? It's easy and cheap to change that ridiculous huge fake grill? Maybe you're referring to the rims and tires? Tell me how easy and cheap that is after you hit a pot hole and wreck a $800 factory wheel and need $500 worth of tires because you normally have to replace at least two at a time. Huge wheels and thin tires are probably great on a race track, but I don't drive on a race track, I drive on real world roads that are full of cracks and holes.
That's really just the tip of the iceberg too, every time I have to drive a modern car I find myself cursing at the piss-poor visibility, the lack of tactile controls, features I need buried in menus, hundreds of pounds of gadgets and bloat. A lot of them now even have a ridiculous display that looks like somebody glued an iPad to the middle of the dash. Every one of them has been garbage, and I cannot think of one that is not hideously ugly, even the Teslas look like toys designed for 12 year old boys, at least they're unique though, I'll give them credit for that, althoubj even Tesla has succumbed to the market pressure to build a fake SUV like everyone else.
You typically pay extra for the kind of alloy wheels you're talking about but if they come standard you can easily sell them and buy some een replacement steelies for naught or even a tidy profit. It's not exactly rocket science either.