Comment by dcow | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcow | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I only own one Tesla so I guess I don't win in that department.

Anyway, this was all before the subscription package. Things are not the same as they were in 2016 with the introduction of the 200/mo subscription. By saying "your cars have the hardware to do FSD" it means they're fitted with all the required accessories. If Tesla needs to give them a more powerful computer as a complementary upgrade once they purchase FSD, so be it. It doesn't make sense for Tesla to just ship out a bunch of the more powerful chips to people who never intend on using FSD. And like we've already covered, if you purchase FSD in full, the chip is entirely free.

I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather have a subscription or not. Either FSD remains only accessible in a "bulk purchase attached to the car" capacity, or Telsa figures out how to work the economics of adding in a subscription model. I tend to think this subscription model opens up FSD to more people than not having it, so I think it's a net positive.

>Things are not the same as they were in 2016 with the introduction of the 200/mo subscription.

This does not change the fundamental fact that Tesla promised something and then did not deliver it. That is, they promised that the hardware shipping with the vehicles 2016 onward were FSD capable. They are not. Remember —- they took investor cash after this announcement. That matters.

> It doesn't make sense for Tesla to just ship out a bunch of the more powerful chips to people who never intend on using FSD.

By this you mean: “It isn’t in Tesla’s best immediate financial interest.” But we have laws and norms in place in the US to counter balance the interest of corporations vs that of customers. Two of those laws and norms is not lying to your customers and making them whole whole whenever you make a mistake.

As well, cars go through several owners. People purchased Teslas after the announcement with the value calculation that it was FSD capable. Tesla essentially robbed those customers of $1500 of resale value. That is, the customers expected to buy a car they could resell as FSD capable. Now they can’t.

Would it be better optics if they just amortized the cost of those old HW upgrades into the recurring monthly price or if they had a minimum 6 mo commitment for the subscription FSD?

Amortizing the cost would be better, without telling the user. Just charge everyone the same and factor in the cost of the free upgrade to the users with HW2.5. It’s not like this isn’t how it’s done elsewhere. High margin buyers subsidize low margin buyers all the time.

Perhaps this is true. I suspect there's a strong preference to convert low margin buyers to high margin buyers, though. And as a high margin buyer it doesn't sit well with me knowing Tesla is subsidizing free HW upgrades out of my purchase price so it just feels like moving the problem around not actually solving it. That was my point, really. The money has to come from somewhere it seems Tesla wasn't as tactical as they could have been when considering the optics here. And the good thing is it's not hard to change and they have demonstrated history of correcting for price fluctuations in FSD costs, so there's fair hope they'll address any perceived gaps. Personally I think a 6 mo minimum subscription term or a "you get 6 months free with purchase of the hardware" promotion would be a great middle ground that lets purchasers attach long enough to fund the upgrade naturally.

I don’t mean to be blunt, so please don’t take offense when I say this in response:

>And as a high margin buyer it doesn't sit well with me knowing Tesla is subsidizing free HW upgrades out of my purchase price so it just feels like moving the problem around not actually solving it.

You shouldn’t buy high margin products if you care what the company does with the high margin. The same goes for Apple products. Apple’s high margin goes to pay devs and for decades long R+D products, many of them will fail. It also goes to pay settlements when they fuck up. Them’s the breaks.

Yes, generally I don't care and I understand that how a company chooses to spend its money is not my concern. My point is essentially that it's not particularly your concern either.

The only reason the topic came up is because you lead with "low margin buyers are subsidized all the time so they should also be subsidized by high margin buyers in this case". While a company may choose to do that, and I really don't care if they do, in the context of an external discussion about which strategy is better, I do care to respond to that point when presented as part of an argument by an equally outside party.

This is how the specific point comes off to me:

Alice: I'm annoyed Tesla's new subscription requires a $1500 upgrade for my older model, Tesla said it was FSD capable. Make me whole.

Bob: I already paid in full for my FSD subscription and got the hardware included, why should you get it for free?

Alice: Because Tesla could use revenue from people who have already purchased FSD in full to fund my hardware upgrade.

Bob: Sure, they could. But now my "investment" in FSD doesn't go as far as I thought it would and I'm "out" $1500. Make me whole.

...

Anyway that's just why I think some sort of compromise makes tons of sense so that nobody perceives themselves as being out anything and people who want to use the subscription can get the HW for "free" rather than the up front $1500. You've changed my mind on that front (:

Reply on news.ycombinator.com