Hacker News Reader

Comment by siruncledrew | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> the end-user has no real control over

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?

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/lost-fsd-earlier-thi...

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.

But Tesla sold the car to the dealer as a NEW car, slightly defective, hence the sticker.

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

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.

> 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.

> That's one of the biggest negatives to having cars that can innately phone home to the manufacturer

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.

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.

"Had to leave the car behind and walk home"

Funny anecdote but imagine someone with mobility issues getting stuck in the same situation.

In this case, though, the "upgrade" was the loss of a core feature.

The chance of winning camping mode is not worth the risk of losing autopilot, for most people.

The guy didn't pay for autopilot...

He purchased a car which was advertised as including autopilot. That sounds a lot like paying for autopilot to me.

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 :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com