Hacker News Reader

Totally agree. At this point, even though theyre cool, I would never buy a Tesla for the simple reason that i am not going to pay 60k plus to not own the thing.

Tesla needs to come out and say, this software has a lifetime guarantee and we will never revoke the license. Anything short of that and you would be dumb to buy it.

But the software was never paid for. It was only enabled in the first place by accident.

If you don't have a software license, should you be able to use their software?

I agree you should be able to hack the car, write your own autopilot, or whatever, but I don't think you're entitled to someone else's software just because it exists.

Perhaps Tesla should eat the loss because this was their mistake, but this is not what is being discussed in this thread.

Well, it is whats being discussed. They should eat the loss. I cant imagine the couple thousand dollars is worth the bad PR

You misunderstand.. people like my parent are saying "if i bought it it should be mine" .. except they are discussing something that was never purchased.

If you scroll this thread, it's abundantly clear that many people are not reading the article and drawing their own conclusions based on the headline.

Based on my reading of the article, the customer bought the feature. Tesla didn't mean to sell them the feature, but they did. If there's another way of looking at this, I don't personally see it in the article text.

> When the dealer bought the car at auction from Tesla on November 15, it was optioned with both Enhanced Autopilot and Tesla’s confusingly-named Full Self Driving Capability; together, these options totaled $8,000. You can see them right on the Monroney sticker for the car:

To me, that reads as Tesla accidentally selling something that they didn't mean to sell, at a price they didn't mean to offer. But that doesn't change anything from the customer's point of view. The customer/dealer bought the addon package that was advertised by Tesla itself as included with the car.

A company shouldn't be able to sell me a device with features advertised as enabled, and then after the purchase is over retroactively decide, "we didn't mean to do that, so let's just pretend we didn't." What they're doing here is trying to retroactively alter part of the transaction, which is crazy. It's the corporate equivalent of me buying a car for $30,000, and then issuing a chargeback a month later because "that was an accident, I only meant to offer you $22,000. So let's pretend that you accepted that."

Edit: reading more comments, I'm seeing people say that Monroney stickers aren't applicable to used cars? Is the argument that the sticker on the car shouldn't be taken as advertised features? But even then -- wouldn't Tesla be required to tell the dealer what features the car actually had?

They way I understand it is this

1. Original Owner bought the feature

2. Original Owner traded in the car to Tesla

3. The used car dealer bought the used car @ auction from Tesla but did not "rebuy" the feature

4. Tesla screwed up by not "disabling" the feature before attempting to double-dip and recharge the dealer for something the original owner bought

5. a few days after the sale tesla did an audit and found they did not get their double-dip extortion fee and disabled the feature

6. the dealer sold the car thinking it was just a glitch

7. new owner not happy

More importantly: 4.5 > Tesla provides dealer with description of car including said features!

It was on the Monroney label so it's part of the car. How bad Tesla is at keeping track of what is paid for or not is irrelevant.

>but I don't think you're entitled to someone else's software just because it exists.

I think differently. IF I buy (A) in good faith (B) a perpetual license (C) manifested by the rights holder into physical media, THEN I am in fact entitled to it.

> owning a Tesla one of my medium-term life goals for the environmental benefits

Sorry to jump in but just in case keep in mind that pushing an old ICE car has usually a lesser impact than buying a new one, it can take years until the difference in consumption cover the impact of the building process and the materials extraction and transport.

The best option for the environment would be going without a car at all, like many people in Europe do. Unfortunately people have created environments and societies where they are chained to car ownership.

In Europe in dense cities. In France near Paris for example you can clearly see the distinction when you go further in the countryside[1]. Anecdotical but I know very few people under 40 who own a car in Paris:

[1] % of families having at least 1 car, 2012. Zoom on big cities (Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux...) to see the difference: http://map.datafrance.info/logement?coords.lat=48.8732963701...

> The best option for the environment would be going without a car at all

Indeed. This is what I do (in the US). The second-best option for the environment is to buy a used car. Environmentally speaking, a used ICE car beats a new electric one.

US is not really saying enough. I live with my gf in NYC and we had no need for a car. If I got one for free I would have tried to sell it as soon as possible.

Now we live in bay area suburbs with a dog, and one car is absolutely needed if you can afford it. If we had kids it would have been almost impossible without a car.

The real solution, at least in metro areas, is using public transport instead of driving. And that is another reason not to buy a Tesla, because of the Musk empire's ongoing crusade against public transportation. Dollars spent on Teslas are dollars available for advocating/subsidizing Loop-type and Boring Company projects that drain the public coffers for transportation infrastructure. I'm sure different people have different opinions on ethically how the anti-public-transport conflict of interest stacks up against the good done by making electric vehicles sexy, but for me they approximately cancel out and there's little virtue in buying a Tesla instead of a very efficient ICE or hybrid.

That's what I always say, if you want to be eco and you want to drive electric, by an electric bike.

They have tiny batteries compared to electric cars and thus an almost negligible impact in comparison, enough range for 90% of your commuting needs, can keep you moderately fit, and you still have enough money left to drive your ICE for longer stretches.

That’s not a very attractive option for those of us here in the north. Being buried in snow, slush, and ice for six months of the year makes biking very unattractive.

I live in Germany, and except for the occasional snow I find it easy to ride a bike most of the year.

And the countries further north I understand, but then those are a very small part of the world population, so I don't think the impact is that high, even if they drive ICE.

I live in Utah, and we're known for snow, yet the bike paths are clear most of the year. I bike most of the time, and honestly, I prefer biking in winter to the summer because it's easier to layer up than cool down. When it snows, I take mass transit because I hate driving or cycling in the snow.

I own a hybrid, which is a nice compromise between electric and ICE. I can go on long car trips without worrying about recharge stations and I save a ton on gas the rest of the time. I mostly use our car for shopping and family trips, and it often goes days without being used.

My bike currently isn't an ebike, but I'm considering getting a conversion kit, which is way more powerful than the ebikes available in stores (the store models need to follow the law, aftermarket parts leave that up to the user).

The US will never adopt public transportation as their primary means of mobility. Never.

There will be skyscrapers in the suburbs before Americans deign to ride a rail car to work en masse. We will have AR-based work-from-home before Americans wait at a bus stop in any meaningful size cohort.

There is simply too much mistrust in those systems and too much desire for independent mobility.

Additionally, US cities are built for individual, single-rider automobiles. It sucks real bad, but even if 100% of americans decided that we hate cars and driving, we’re still stuck physically with thousands of acres built upon individual mobility and no mixed-use whatsoever, situations where you have to drive 3+km just to buy a soda.

It’s madness, and the madness is actually encoded into the physical structures as a sunk cost. We have to work with and around that in any practical way forward, which is terrible.

> I no longer have the confidence that the legal, economic, nor, sadly, the modern moral system of the United States will provide sufficient protection to regular people anymore for these kinds of cases and trends.

This is echoed 100% in many consumers around me in meatspace.

what is meatspace

the real world; contrast with cyberspace

Oh God why

Ah, kids these days...

https://wordspy.com/index.php?word=meatspace

Weird to consider that what I consider common Internet idioms were invented before many current legal voters were conceived.

I’ll leave this link here:

https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...

> ...for the environmental benefits.

Is tesla really considered that enviromentally friendly?

Isn't the real reason to pick a tesla over another electric car, that teslas are considered cool and give higher social status?

I bought mine because it is quite fast and has the best charging network at the moment.

Don't really care what anyone else thinks about it. And I find it hard to believe that anybody really thinks Model 3s are cool. They look pretty goofy.

Yeah, they are a little goofy. But other car makers looked at it and said "I can top that". And they did. I don't know why car makers want to make their EVs look so bad.

Yep, same here. I planned to buy a Tesla for environmental reasons when my current 15-year-old car gives up the ghost, but I had no clue about the sort of shenanigans described here.

There is absolutely no way I'd knowingly "buy" a car [or other major product, for that matter] which was subject to this sort of postsale unilateral manipulation on the part of the manufacturer / seller.

To my way of thinking, it's similar, but much worse, than the situation with HOAs [which I also decline to support]

edit: I'd already started switching to bike for commute and errands; now I'm even more inclined to continue in that direction rather than look to EVs

Not just control, but they gather a huge amount of data from the cars as well, including video from all the cameras. Heck, for the Model 3, there's a camera inside the car pointed at the driver. It's very creepy.

Teslas do not upload their video anywhere. I have seen no proof otherwise, and nobody who monitors their car's wifi (watching for software updates) has noticed. Where have you found this information?

It's unlikely that the internal camera is used for data collection by Tesla. It's something they've put in the car to monitor passengers for their planned autonomous taxi service. Source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1113977924947009536

Here are Tesla's data collection policies, which includes remote image and video clip collection: Telematics log data: To improve our vehicles and services for you, we may collect certain telematics data regarding the performance, usage, operation, and condition of your Tesla vehicle, including: vehicle identification number; speed information; odometer readings; battery use management information; battery charging history; electrical system functions; software version information; infotainment system data; safety-related data and camera images (including information regarding the vehicle’s SRS systems, braking and acceleration, security, e-brake, and accidents); short video clips of accidents; information regarding the use and operation of Autopilot, Summon, and other features; and other data to assist in identifying issues and analyzing the performance of the vehicle. We may collect such information either in person (such as during a service appointment) or via remote access. Source: https://www.tesla.com/about/legal

Wait, what the f? They put an internal camera in it? And their data collection policies explicitly reserve the right to remotely access it - all all other data?

Hell to the nope. And to think people were scared of smart TVs! It sounds like this has literally everything bad that people were scared of with Smart TV ("infotainment system data"), with the added fun feature of filming you and tracking everywhere you go.

I am not reassured by "it's unlikely...". Tesla is not distinguishing itself in the field of restraint.

I share in these concerns. Tesla collects information during crashes but will not ordinarily release any of it directly to the owner of the vehicle[1].

All modern Teslas passively use the cameras outside of the vehicle to monitor your driving to compare and improve their own self-driving algorithms, which is part of the reason the hardware is present whether or not you paid for the upgrade[2].

There's also the problem of forced updates, where some updates (particularly safety updates) must be installed, whether you want them or not[3]. In an extreme case, such as the aftermath of the Tesla battery that caught fire in China, they are believed to have solved the problem by limiting the maximum charge of the battery in software, reducing range significantly for a minority of drivers[4].

In all of these cases, user-control is sorely lacking.

[1]:https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/tesla-blames-drivers-wh... [2]: https://medium.com/@trenteady/deepminds-ai-learned-to-play-s... [3]: https://www.wired.com/2012/09/tesla-over-the-air/ [4]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/4/20898741/tesla-cars-nhtsa...

> I had overlooked the degree of control Tesla has over their products and made owning a Tesla one of my medium-term life goals for the environmental benefits.

Less mad electric car manufacturers are available. Typically more environmentally friendly for most users, too; Tesla are very much on the heavy end, so you have a lot of sunk cost that's really only helpful to people who need as much range as possible.

> owning a Tesla one of my medium-term life goals for the environmental benefits.

Besides the fact that owning a Tesla is barely going to do anything for "environmental benefits" (but it will make you feel good), why not considering other EV makes? Tesla is all over the news but other models are available with almost the same performance and lower prices.

Out of curiosity, what other makes/models are equivalent to Tesla's lineup?

Porsche Taycan Turbo S is similar in terms of speed+acceleration to Model S, while lacking a bit in range (190-200 miles vs 370 miles) and being much more expensive overall ($79k vs $185k).

Unfortunately, that’s the closest comparable EV that is available today. I am not comparing to any vehicles that arent available yet on purpose.

Note: i intentionally picked the longest range models of both cars, but it was mostly to prop up Porsche, because even the cheapest Model 3 in production beats Taycan with 220 miles of range.

Note that's EPA range. The taycan dramatically beats it in real world use while Tesla tends to do worse than rated. There are a number of tests out right now showing the Taycan gets as good or better range than most Teslas (the difference is even more dramatic when you include charging time).

The only head-to-head range test that's been published to date shows that a brand new Taycan has about 3% less range than a 2-year old, used Model 3, at 95 mph on the Autobahn (and other tests show that the Model 3 has about 15% less range than a Model S).

The Taycan does significantly beat EPA in low-average-speed, "spirited driving" tests with the A/C and heater turned off (usually in the mountains, and never head-to-head against another EV that might also be its EPA). "Car people" are impressed by these tests because gas cars are known get poor MPGs in sprited mountain driving. "EV people" are unimpressed by these tests because they know the true test of an EV is high speed cruising, where aerodynamics matter and regen doesn't.

So, while it's impressive that the Taycan comes close to (but does not beat) its EPA range in real-world highway cruising, it still has less range for 3x the price.

Wait, so your "similar" car has half the range and is more than twice the price?

I know, right? The hypocrisy. Could've at-least went half the price and mention Chevy Bolt, Volt - whatever their naming scheme of GM cars sucks.

Then again it's from different users posting the replies.

Still, who suggests an electric porsche at twice the price and half the range. By buying an Tesla you get more value, brand equity and the feeling of "doing" more good than any Porsche purchase would be and you'll support an American company vs a company that shoes in an EV because they should.

That was the exact point I was trying to illustrate. The closest EV that comes to Tesla cars in specs is a car with half the range and more than twice the price.

I'd love to hear what you think is even close to performance/features per dollar.

Did you look at the Chevy Bolt?

I'm sure he has - I have too. It's not comparable. Sure, if you only care about range vs. dollars, it's close to a base model 3... but it feels like a cheap Chevy, doesn't have nearly the acceleration performance, and the driver assist isn't in the same league.

Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who owns Chevy Spark EV (the smaller, cheaper, precursor of the Bolt basically).

For a full replacement for ICE cars (instead of owning 1 ICE and 1 EV), there's really no substitute for a Tesla.

I'm on my second Spark EV and when it came time to go all electric replacing my Honda Fit I looked hard at the Bolt because I like small hatchbacks. Now every time I pass one in my Model 3 I'm glad not to have made that mistake. The Bolt isn't a bad car, but it's not at all comparable to a Model 3.

They already demonstrated the technology when they spontaneously upgraded cars in Florida during the hurricane.

Back then, it was a move benefiting drivers (and rightfully applauded), so no one seemed to stop and think how they were even able to do this. Now we're seeing the same technology in action to the detriment of the driver.

Big Brother and Big Mother were let in because people opened their wallets to buy Teslas, carry around iPhones to track them and install Ring to invade their neighborhoods. This is what anarcho-capitalism results in: political/institutional corruption that amplifies inverted totalitarianism for the nearly exclusive benefit of the very rich. Without sensible regulations (limits and protections), we are doomed. Some people need to clear this waxy build-up of libertarian utopian nonsense that was invented by the Koch's and their economist buddies lionizing Ayn Rand from between their ears before it causes any more damage to society.

You are very perceptive with the "subscription model of commerce" thing. I do not like it either. But as for this:

> I can accept unintended bugs, this is a risk I would be willing to take (and hopefully neither me nor my family would suffer terribly for)

I will never buy a car that has computer-controlled systems complex enough that a software bug could kill me.

This restricts your choices in the US to cars sold before 1998 when air bags became mandatory. Air bags, anti-lock brakes, and stability control are all controlled by complex computer systems and absolutely could kill you. Electronic fuel injection and engine management are also complex computer controlled systems, but less obviously lethal.

Out of curiosity, what do you drive now?

> Air bags, anti-lock brakes, and stability control are all controlled by complex computer systems and absolutely could kill you.

They are not complex in the way I was thinking. Functioning airbags and anti-lock brakes have been around since the 1980s. Analog sensors react to inputs, sometimes send it to a computer, which performs the right actions based on those simple inputs. Traction control has been around for almost as long.

I don't know for a fact that nobody has been killed by these simple systems malfunctioning, but I would be very surprised if anyone had.

I'll take any of your book recommendations, in return for mine: "Normal Accidents" by Charles Perrow. My takeaway from that book is: once you get past a level of system complexity that no _single person_ can reason about, system accidents are inevitable.

> Out of curiosity, what do you drive now?

1987 Mazda 323 GTX (4WD turbocharged hooligan edition of the 323/Familia). I am happy owning one of my dream cars :)

Airbags are not a simple system that just reacts to impacts. They have to categorize the impact and the occupants of the vehicle and decide which if any airbags to deploy and at what time. Getting this wrong absolutely has killed people. For example deploying a passenger airbag when the passenger is too small or out of position can be fatal. Failing to deploy the airbag because misjudging the position or size of the passenger or the nature of the crash can also be fatal. The systems to decide this are not at all simple and involve multiple accelerometers and and sensors throughout the car.

Hang onto that 323, sounds like a fun car.

If Tesla starts triggering airbags in the faces of people who fall behind on their car payments, I won't buy those cars either.

This seems like an overly dramatic response to what is a very unlikely scenario. If you check the Consumers Reports owner's ratings for Tesla vehicles you can see that they score very highly, even the model X with the flying doors. They must be doing something right to have such a high percentage of happy owners.