Hacker News Reader

Comment by Urgo | Hacker News Reader

Really not sure why everyone is up in arms over this. The person buying the car knows exactly what they are buying when they order it. They just got some upgrades for free that they didn't pay for to try for a little bit. I think its great that Tesla includes them and is able to unlock them via software. The alternative is if you bought the low end car and later decided to upgrade you'd have to bring your car in, they'd have to tear apart seats/etc to upgrade the hardware, remove an old battery to put in a new one, etc. The system as it stands now may seem a little weird that you actually have hardware you didn't pay for but it's not unlike upgrading to get more features on some other service.

The fact of the matter again is the people who bought the cars after this update will get exactly what they paid for. If they want the upgraded version they could have either bought it from the start, or they can still upgrade.

View on HN

UPDATE:

Looking at the comment section on the Electrek [1] version of this story it looks like the people who will be effected by this WERE TOLD when they got the car that this would be happening. So they knew they were getting these features for free for now and it would be taken away unless they paid for them (a free trial). They could have refused the car right there and waited if they wanted to but preferred to get the car early and enjoyed their free trial. It seems the only people complaining about this are people who aren't effected by it.

"I have a M3 SR, This change is not unexpected and I knew what I was buying... having the additional features for a little while wasn't a problem. I'm glad that they started selling the SR earlier than waiting for the software to be ready." - FS21 [2]

[1] https://electrek.co/2019/06/07/tesla-downgrading-model-3-sta...

[2] https://electrek.co/2019/06/07/tesla-downgrading-model-3-sta...

The fact that Tesla can effectively modify "your" car after you bought it, to disable things that it can clearly do, is what's really troubling here.

They can also modify it to add features. I have a Model S I bought before auto pilot was released. I had prepaid for it though so when it was ready I got it. And over the years other features that weren't even announced I also got for free. It goes both ways. So is it troubling they can modify the car to add functionality?

I get it if they are modifying it to remove something you paid for, but that is NOT the case here.

Why is Tesla artificially limiting range to begin with?

"Sorry, but you only paid for 15mpg from your BMW".

Is that so much different than the common practice of “sorry, but you only paid for 150 HP” ?

Whether the updates are beneficial or enervating, the ability to modify what should be my car is precisely the reason I will never own a Tesla.

Your loss. Have had a Model S for almost 4 years and it is absolutely amazing.

Also I probably should point out that when the updates come out it is still up to the user, at least to some extent on whether they want to upgrade or not. I think it turns into a snooze game though but I know there were people that held out for years on software updates because they liked the old UX better. So you don't HAVE to update, its just pretty much universally preferred to upgrade.

Why not just say no to updates... if that's what you want?

So is it troubling they can modify the car to add functionality?

Absolutely yes. The problem is they are accessing and modifying something that they do not legally own (IANAL --- but the terminology they use when referring to paying and then being able to use a vehicle they made sounds very much not a rental or a lease), regardless of what that modification is.

To stretch the analogy, I would be just as pissed if GM decided to send someone to my house and replace the tires on my car with new ones, and I couldn't do anything to stop them.

Furthermore, the whole VW emissions thing shows what real ownership means --- they came up with an update to reduce emissions (and likely power or fuel economy...), and probably very strongly encouraged owners to get it, but ultimately if someone bought the car then they can't just go and "fix" it, even if they were found to be violating emissions laws, because they still need consent from the owner.

All computer/phone operating system providers these days release updates to add/remove features as well. They don't own the hardware either.

But almost always, the final decision on whether to install the update is the owner.

In Tesla's case, it sounds like the owner has no ability to say no.

Incorrect. I've had a Model S for almost 4 years now. In every case when an update comes out I have clicked "install now". If an update isn't desired you simply don't install it. The only thing I'll fault them on is the release notes aren't shown until after you install the update so its hard to know if you want it or not unless you look online. But in short, there IS a way to say no.

You have a Model S. The article talks about the Model 3.

Regardless, I find it very hard to believe that an update to remove features Tesla believes it hasn't been paid for will be anything but non-consensual.

Yes I am aware they are different cars but the upgrade process from my understanding is pretty much the same.

Also look at my UPDATE post. It looks like this is 100% consensual. As I expected the people who were effected by this knew when they accepted delivery of the car that these features were a sort of free trial. They could have declined the car and waited until the the features were locked out but they accepted it knowing they were a free trial.

How can something like seat heaters be considered a "free trial" if it requires hardware that was there when you bought the car and remains functional afterwards? Tesla is free to stop "trials" of services that require its continued attention, but to disable functionality built-in to the car when it was purchased, no matter how you spin it, is just plain wrong.

They already consented earlier so the question of consent was already covered. It’s not a non-consensual update. They can even change their mind if they would like to upgrade from the demo functionality to continued use.

Model 3 updates are opt in.

False, and a bit of a paranoid assumption to make. Updates are installed at the discretion of the car owner.

In this narrow case though the ability to say no was at the time of contract signing and it was made super clear up front (i.e. not in fine print) what was going to happen.

I install other distros of the OS on my phones. Upgrade are not automatic, I need to accept it, and I can always reinstall a previous version if I wanted.

You accept updates on Teslas also (there is a screen that pops up and asks if you're ready to install them now or later).

The people affected by this update accepted it when they bought their car and were told they would be receiving these features temporarily for free, and were told they would be removed when the software was ready.

It's troubling that they could add a feature to make Nyan Cat play continuously on the touchscreen and at high volume, and there's not a thing a Tesla owner could do to stop them. It's a relationship where they have all the leverage, and the person who paid for the car must rely on the manufacturer's continued benevolence.

(Most customers of consumer electronics products have the same relationship with the makers thereof, and that's a big part of why practically everything with a screen is on some level regarded as disposable garbage.)

On the other hand, if you drive around in an old Honda like I do, the worst thing Honda can do to me is stop manufacturing replacement parts, most of which probably have third-party alternatives anyways.

We have just started the fight for the "right to repair" and we now we are losing "ownership".

If you look at this sibling comment [0] you will see that supposedly the buyers were aware of this happening and OK with the trial.

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20137343

Many cars come with prepaid subscriptions to mobile services : traffic, remote unlock and so forth. On my BMW this lasted 4 years. I didn't know this until it stopped showing traffic on the map. I chose not to begin paying $10/month or whatever they wanted. Does that bother you too?

How does this work with their return policy, or with test drives? You can't effectively test the car you bought, only the "better" model. Depending on the features, not all customers might realize what they actually bought vs. what they're currently testing.

As I mentioned in another comment I'd be surprised if Tesla didn't tell people when they were handed the keys that they were getting extras to "try out".

That said you do have a good point on their return policy.

Test drives are a different beast altogether though. At least when I got my Tesla 4 years ago it wasn't common to test drive the same exact configuration you were ordering anyway since everything is custom built.

I guess for both of these items if they were to come up I'd hope Tesla would be generous, but I still see nothing wrong with them removing features people didn't pay for.

>I'd be surprised if Tesla didn't tell people when they were handed the keys that they were getting extras to "try out".

I've seen this happen with apps and SaaS services and I find it so annoying that I actively try to downgrade immediately where possible. Sadly this isn't always possible. Evaluation is subjective, and pain points are often only obvious once you run into them (i.e. passengers complain about cold seats).

>it wasn't common to test drive the same exact configuration you were ordering anyway since everything is custom built.

You're right that's common practice, not just for cars.

PagerDuty is very guilty of this. A bunch of features that look like they're included in your plan, and don't flag that they're not, then you can't downgrade your plan because "you're using features that aren't in the lower plan". You play whack a mole to find and eliminate them...

... and you can't downgrade anyway, because you're on a "old" plan that can't be changed to anything.

Me: Sign up for service, don't use it until the trial runs out, probably forget I signed up.

It just feels bad. The comments reflect that and there will be more in the future. It'll make the company look like some game company that sells DLC.

It's bad marketing.

It only feels bad because you (not saying you, but you know what I mean) thought you were getting away with getting something for free you didn't pay for and it's being taken back.

Nah, it feels back because you had something that will be taken away from you.

They shouldn't have given it to the people in the first place.

I'm with you on that. Ideally it shouldn't have been given at all. I just don't see any issue with Tesla updating things to match what the customer paid for. And again, the Tesla website is super easy to use and they detail everything. You know EXACTLY what you are ordering when you order it. I may be bummed if I got some free extras if I was one of these customers but I'd be totally fine if the extras went away since I hadn't paid for them.

I'm wondering if when the customers were handed the keys though if Tesla let them know about this "free trial" of sorts.

Don't take me wrong. I understand that they now get what they paid for. It's clear to everybody. It still FEELS bad and it looks bad. Can't do anything about it. That's what it is since you come to this world as a baby. If somebody takes something away from you, you cry.

If somebody else gets something for free that you yourself paid for, you also cry.

But less than the person who has it taken away. Kahneman and Tversky did a bunch of research in this area measuring loss aversion [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

It was the least bad option for Tesla at the time. Sure it may feel bad to you as a bystander but the other options would have felt worse to Tesla customers.

How so?

Not being able to produce and deliver promised 35k cars would have been a worse option. Doing so with the originally planned configurations would have been complex, disruptive, and possibly killed the company during a vulnerable time. Instead, customers are getting way better cars than originally planned (better seats, better roof, software-upgradable features).

It primarily feels bad because unlike a spotify subscription, people still expect to own the cars they buy for tens of thousands of dollars, and this very effectively demonstrates how people who own the software you use can change what your car does with the push of a remote.

If I buy a traditional car that accidentally came with a premium feature, is the cardealer going to come to my house and rip the seat out?

Wait until you learn about all the software out there with trial features, there's enough of it that you'll be raising the pitchfork for the rest of your life.

These buyers were informed upon taking ownership that this was a trial. No mistake or accident happened.

Maybe but that wasn't Tesla's plan, just how things turned out.

Initially, SR was supposed to be a different physical trim, with a smaller battery and some other cheaper parts.

However few people were buying SR (compared to SR+ trim which was only $2.5k more expensive) so Tesla adapted and dropped SR variant. Less variants means more efficient production means cheaper cars.

But they've already taken SR orders so instead of canceling them they decided to do right by the customers and instead gave them SR+ trim with software limit.

Given that it was a decision made late, they didn't have the code to limit features. Again they did right by customers by giving them the car right away and introducing the limits when the software was ready.

This will not happen in the future because from now on the software limit will be enabled from the beginning (not to mention that this trim is not available online; you have to know it exists and custom order it via phone which probably means that very few people are buying this version).

I understand that. I understand that they now get what they actually paid for but that's not the point I made. I tried to explain to op where the negativity comes from and it comes form the feeling you have if someone takes something away from you. Something you had before.

Can't do anything about it now I guess but it still will and does look bad for those who are affected and those who will read the articles about it in the next days. It may even become a meme.

It's a waste to not give the best software possible to the car. In a car, a higher price is only natural if the car is more expensive to produce or develop.

They're not actually limiting the software (except maybe the music I guess? but that's no different then just shutting off your siriusxm trial). They're just limiting the hardware that wasn't paid for via software.

Software that limits hardware that is included in the car means to not use the best possible software.

Who cares about the music, they reduced your range by 10%...that means your batteries can do it but Tesla decides to not let them.

Are they able to completely cut off the battery by 10% or just the range? If the latter, wouldn't this increase the battery long term life similar to the extra unallocated space on some SSDs (i.e. Intel)?

The batteries will have a longer life now too so that sort of balances things out a bit.

People here would probably have no problem with the music trial, because that's clearly a service being provided, and not the hardware that you've "bought" and ostensibly own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com