"Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year."
* It's all really just off-the-shelf cameras, sensors, processors etc sourced from various suppliers. Of course we should acknowledge that the validation and alignment of these parts plays an important role, but there's not really any secret sauce there.
What I am saying is that Apple sells you a product. You own it. You can do whatever you want with it. Feel free to alter any part of it, just don't expect it to work or keep your warrantee. The fact the product has limitations out of the box is a different matter. (Kind of like no one complains that kitchen timer can't boil water, or doesn't have nanoseconds precision — you want those things, you buy a different thing or make your own.)
What Apple doesn't do is to restrict you in how you use their product. There's no such thing like "you can only non-commercially photograph your family" or "never resell your iPhone", or "detaching screen is illegal".
And, more importantly, there is nothing Apple can do to stop you from doing any of those things.
You own your iPhone and you rent your Tesla Autopilot it seems.
Vehicle insurance like today can't be used because incentives aren't aligned. Fully self-driving cars will come with an insurance package, and the company will need to control its insurable risk, or there will be no self-driving cars at all. If it's against the law, the law will change, not the model.
I'm sorry, but society will demand it. You will not and cannot have full ownership control over a self-driving car.
Volvo CEO said already in 2015 that Volvo will accept full liability whenever one of its cars is in autonomous mode.
http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-c...
Why does this argument hold true only for self-driving cars, and not current cars ? As such, self-driving cars are just a point in continuous evolution. Current cars are already quite different from what they were a few decades ago. Why is now a good time to draw a line ? Every change in this eveolution goes through government approval. If it is approved, it should be safe enough for everyone.
When you cede control of the steering, braking, acceleration, and even watching the road to software, you are no longer driving.
They're also restricting their customers' actions in meatspace (you can't drive people around in exchange for money) while the Office restrictions (you can't create business-related files) are IP-related.
A more accurate analogy would be if Microsoft banned you from using a Surface for business purposes (or for business purposes while running Windows, but it's impossible to install a different OS).
IANAL so I don't know if Tesla is on solid legal ground (I would guess that probably they are), but I think there's certainly a clear philosophical distinction.
If I buy a car and want to take the engine out, or a light and resell it - I would be very stupid, but, it is my property and I should be able to.
If Tesla want to lend instead of sell you something - fine, just be honest!
It's a lot like our allowing people to sell patent medicines as "supplements". In both cases, we let people distort the meaning of regular words for commercial gain.
Now, I'm not saying we get rid of all laws. End of copyright will not allow me to put a maliciously crafted copy of Microsoft Windows or Google chrome online in order to deceive users into thinking they are genuine. I still may not misrepresent when I copy things. In fact, I think these laws need strengthening which we can if we ditch copyright.
Assuming Tesla eventually "catches" someone using a Tesla for ride sharing profit outside of their network they could remotely disable the car, at which point they will surely be sued and the courts will decide.
And they will very likely decide against Tesla, IMO. The immediate reaction to this statement is bound to cause people who work purely in the software realm to protest, but to most courts software is still a very nebulous thing. Disabling someone's car (after selling it to them outright) because they did something with it that you didn't like is EASY to understand, anathema to the entire history of car ownership and I really don't think it'll fly.
- investing in such a fleet would be like investing in any other kind of business: it's easier if you have the money, but if not you can go to any bank and get a loan.
- prices for a trip with a self-driving taxi will drop immensely, this is probably going to be a big liability if you would start the aforementioned business
- other effects that I can't think of right now
It is true that in a lot of places rich people have an edge on the less-wealthy (it's easier getting/staying rich if you are rich), but that's more of a generic problem than something that would be amplified by change to self-driving cars.
The "you don't actually own the hardware you paid for" model is slowly becoming untenable for hardware sold to individuals.
Autopilot is a service.