Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com