9 ms·

If you go to the order page of the Model S, it says for the "Full Self-Driving Hardware": >Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and

If you go to the order page of the Model S, it says for the "Full Self-Driving Hardware": >Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year. Interesting decision.

blhack 10y ago
Whoa...reading that doesn't rub me the right way at all. I trust Tesla, though, so maybe I'm misreading/misinterpreting it.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Why do you trust Tesla? In what ways are their interests aligned with yours?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - huihe9849hjjgkg 10y ago
    Trying to save the planet would be one way.
  - 2bitencryption 10y ago
    Why would you not trust Tesla? Are their interests not aligned with yours?
    - serge2k 10y ago
      Clearly they aren't, they are trying to limit what I can do with my vehicle.
      - imtringued 10y ago
        From an economic perspective there is no difference between a product that can't do X and a product that could do X but it's not enabled or limited in some way. Implementing logic in an ASIC which cannot be modified and implementing logic with an embedded processor where the software can be modified but this feature is disabled is the same thing. Both are intended to be black boxes that just do one thing and nothing else. Yet for some reason you expect to be able to modify the embedded processor.
    - amadvance 10y ago
      Usually companies are mainly interested on getting money from me...
  - Symmetry 10y ago
    It's easy to assume that because Tesla is idealistic about climate change they're also idealistic about free software.
dyarosla 10y ago
So is this confirmation that they are launching essentially a driverless Tesla-brand Uber competitor?
- jfoster 10y ago
  That was already confirmed. https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux "You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it generate income for you while you're at work or on vacation"
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    ... and perhaps legal liability for you, if it's involved in a crash or a passenger injury.
    - jfoster 10y ago
      That wouldn't make much sense. Unless you were negligent in some way (modifications, maintenance not done, etc.), I would expect Tesla to be the liable party. The owner is just using a Tesla feature in the way the company intended.
      - jellicle 10y ago
        That is charmingly optimistic.
        sjwright 10y ago
        A significant incident will occur shortly after the network is switched on and Tesla's reaction to that incident will affirm his optimism... Or it will cause their whole business model to fail overnight. Either way.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Passenger claims that they severely sprained their ankle by tepping on a kid's toy as they got in. The claim is against the car owner, not Tesla. In the case of Uber, the driver is there as a witness to dispute their account. In the Tesla case, nobody saw it.
mcmatterson 10y ago
This is a big deal, actually. It's a EULA for cars.
- bpicolo 10y ago
  Which will only last if they're the only ones that can make self-driving cars I would think. Edit: Though you can have your car join that network sooo. Mostly just means they don't want to sell to Uber, heh.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    Nah, the other companies will slap them on too. People need to fight this BS.
    - femto 10y ago
      Cue Stallman. This is precisely the motivation for GNU software. How long before GNU (or other prxoy) has an autonomous driving project? Part of the issue is that the dataset is as important as the software. First step would seem to be the construction of a "GNU" hardware pack for autonomous driving and people start driving around with it mounted on their cars, gathering (GPL'd) data.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        I'd rather lease a fully autonomous Tesla out in the next 2-3 years in a ridesharing fleet, not wait 5-10 years for an open source version.
        stass 10y ago
        "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." This seems like an appropriate quote here. If we want to protect our rights we should not settle for conveniences. The software world in 90s is a good example of what happens.
dzhiurgis 10y ago
Buy buying this car you actually hailing it from Tesla.
Klathmon 10y ago
That's a really fucking shitty thing to do, and is gonna cause some pretty big waves IMO if they follow through with it. The issues with not being able to modify your own stuff is already really shitty, but its not something that the average Joe really can understand easily, and even less care about it. But not being able to USE your car for some things? That just screams easy headlines and it's a reason I might not get a Tesla in the future.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  The most interesting thing about self-driving vehicles is that there is a legitimate reason people should never be able to modify the firmware on their vehicles. The risks would be very high. There is also the entire liability and planed obsolescent issues not being dealt with. Will Tesla support these cars forever? Will 10 year old models still get software updates?
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. Cars are already extremely risky to modify, but it is still possible (and it's even a protected consumer right). I can go out and accidentally cut the breaks on my own car while changing the tire, if it causes harm, we already have a system in place to deal with it. Why should software be any different?
    - hash-set 10y ago
      Oh baloney. Have you any experience with current car tech? It's pretty freaking basic, all things considered. Anyone who codes enterprise applications for a living can deal with a car's ECU, including ABS, traction control, all of it. The autonomous stuff is "scary AI" but if it's not open sourced, I don't want it.
    - tcpekin 10y ago
      I would argue that cars are not extremely risky to modify mechanically - the parts are usually large, almost everything you'd want to do on your car has youtube videos and forum threads with people doing the exact same procedure, and you have pretty immediate feedback if you really messed anything up/the car is inoperable. I don't think that is the same for self-driving software if you were allowed to hack it. It is easy to test if your brakes work, I think it may be harder to test modified software with the huge number of interactions it must deal with.
oska 10y ago
Note that they say “using a self-driving Tesla”, not “using a Tesla”. Perhaps it means that they don't want you to use the Tesla in its self-driving mode for revenue purposes but it's still fine to use the Tesla for such purposes if you drive it without using the self-driving features.
- manmal 10y ago
  Sure. Or else you would see no Uber Teslas right now.
logn 10y ago
What if you install self-driving linux.
- kuschku 10y ago
  Then they threaten to sue you for industrial espionage, you don’t own the car, only a license to use it (there was a previous HN discussion with someone who got that threatening phone call)
Tempest1981 10y ago
Do you think that a) Tesla may want to enter that market on their own, or b) Tesla is worried that use in that market may sully their reputation if problems arise?
- usrusr 10y ago
  From their site: "doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year" This does not leave much room for speculation regarding a), this is basically an announcement of intending to introduce "the Tesla Network" as a player in that market.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
I expect, and one of the lawyers reading can probably clarify, that Tesla's liability and risk changes if you're using the car for a commercial venture with their blessing. This specifically says you can't do that, so you're in violation of the terms of service and presumably that is enough to shield them.
- tinalumfoil 10y ago
  If Tesla isn't confident enough in their self-driving service to accept the liability then I doubt it's good enough to be approved for road-use anyway. It sounds like they're trying to set a precedent to kill competition before it starts. Hopefully other self-driving car manufacturers force their hand or kill their business.
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    Perhaps, but it is not uncommon for example for chip manufacturers to specifically say their parts cannot be used in safety systems without their express written authorization. They are certainly confident their chips work, and they sell them by the bucket full, but if someone dies as a result of using their product that their chips are in, they don't want to be liable. They use those disclaimers to shift liability to the person who designed it in.
    - misja111 10y ago
      There is a funny example of such a disclaimer in the Java license agreement, it says: "You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility"
      - Tharkun 10y ago
        I wonder whether that's some kind of odd safety clause, or an even odder anti-proliferation clause?
      - wodenokoto 10y ago
castratikron 10y ago
It's the same rationale that companies like Microsoft use when they say a certain version of Word is for "Home Use Only". I think I'll wait 15 years until a GPL autopilot comes out. AutGNUpilot?
6stringmerc 10y ago
Oooooh, is this another "you didn't buy it you're licensing it from us" type of situation a la John Deere tractors? Interesting.

blhack 10y ago

Whoa...reading that doesn't rub me the right way at all. I trust Tesla, though, so maybe I'm misreading/misinterpreting it.

ams6110 10y ago
Why do you trust Tesla? In what ways are their interests aligned with yours?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- huihe9849hjjgkg 10y ago
  Trying to save the planet would be one way.
- 2bitencryption 10y ago
  Why would you not trust Tesla? Are their interests not aligned with yours?
  - serge2k 10y ago
    Clearly they aren't, they are trying to limit what I can do with my vehicle.
    - imtringued 10y ago
      From an economic perspective there is no difference between a product that can't do X and a product that could do X but it's not enabled or limited in some way. Implementing logic in an ASIC which cannot be modified and implementing logic with an embedded processor where the software can be modified but this feature is disabled is the same thing. Both are intended to be black boxes that just do one thing and nothing else. Yet for some reason you expect to be able to modify the embedded processor.
  - amadvance 10y ago
    Usually companies are mainly interested on getting money from me...
- Symmetry 10y ago
  It's easy to assume that because Tesla is idealistic about climate change they're also idealistic about free software.

dyarosla 10y ago

So is this confirmation that they are launching essentially a driverless Tesla-brand Uber competitor?

jfoster 10y ago
That was already confirmed. https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux "You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it generate income for you while you're at work or on vacation"
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  ... and perhaps legal liability for you, if it's involved in a crash or a passenger injury.
  - jfoster 10y ago
    That wouldn't make much sense. Unless you were negligent in some way (modifications, maintenance not done, etc.), I would expect Tesla to be the liable party. The owner is just using a Tesla feature in the way the company intended.
    - jellicle 10y ago
      That is charmingly optimistic.
      - sjwright 10y ago
        A significant incident will occur shortly after the network is switched on and Tesla's reaction to that incident will affirm his optimism... Or it will cause their whole business model to fail overnight. Either way.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Passenger claims that they severely sprained their ankle by tepping on a kid's toy as they got in. The claim is against the car owner, not Tesla. In the case of Uber, the driver is there as a witness to dispute their account. In the Tesla case, nobody saw it.

mcmatterson 10y ago

This is a big deal, actually. It's a EULA for cars.

bpicolo 10y ago
Which will only last if they're the only ones that can make self-driving cars I would think. Edit: Though you can have your car join that network sooo. Mostly just means they don't want to sell to Uber, heh.
- serge2k 10y ago
  Nah, the other companies will slap them on too. People need to fight this BS.
  - femto 10y ago
    Cue Stallman. This is precisely the motivation for GNU software. How long before GNU (or other prxoy) has an autonomous driving project? Part of the issue is that the dataset is as important as the software. First step would seem to be the construction of a "GNU" hardware pack for autonomous driving and people start driving around with it mounted on their cars, gathering (GPL'd) data.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      I'd rather lease a fully autonomous Tesla out in the next 2-3 years in a ridesharing fleet, not wait 5-10 years for an open source version.
      - stass 10y ago
        "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." This seems like an appropriate quote here. If we want to protect our rights we should not settle for conveniences. The software world in 90s is a good example of what happens.

dzhiurgis 10y ago

Buy buying this car you actually hailing it from Tesla.

Klathmon 10y ago

That's a really fucking shitty thing to do, and is gonna cause some pretty big waves IMO if they follow through with it. The issues with not being able to modify your own stuff is already really shitty, but its not something that the average Joe really can understand easily, and even less care about it. But not being able to USE your car for some things? That just screams easy headlines and it's a reason I might not get a Tesla in the future.

djsumdog 10y ago
The most interesting thing about self-driving vehicles is that there is a legitimate reason people should never be able to modify the firmware on their vehicles. The risks would be very high. There is also the entire liability and planed obsolescent issues not being dealt with. Will Tesla support these cars forever? Will 10 year old models still get software updates?
- Klathmon 10y ago
  I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. Cars are already extremely risky to modify, but it is still possible (and it's even a protected consumer right). I can go out and accidentally cut the breaks on my own car while changing the tire, if it causes harm, we already have a system in place to deal with it. Why should software be any different?
  - hash-set 10y ago
    Oh baloney. Have you any experience with current car tech? It's pretty freaking basic, all things considered. Anyone who codes enterprise applications for a living can deal with a car's ECU, including ABS, traction control, all of it. The autonomous stuff is "scary AI" but if it's not open sourced, I don't want it.
  - tcpekin 10y ago
    I would argue that cars are not extremely risky to modify mechanically - the parts are usually large, almost everything you'd want to do on your car has youtube videos and forum threads with people doing the exact same procedure, and you have pretty immediate feedback if you really messed anything up/the car is inoperable. I don't think that is the same for self-driving software if you were allowed to hack it. It is easy to test if your brakes work, I think it may be harder to test modified software with the huge number of interactions it must deal with.

oska 10y ago

Note that they say “using a self-driving Tesla”, not “using a Tesla”. Perhaps it means that they don't want you to use the Tesla in its self-driving mode for revenue purposes but it's still fine to use the Tesla for such purposes if you drive it without using the self-driving features.

manmal 10y ago
Sure. Or else you would see no Uber Teslas right now.

logn 10y ago

What if you install self-driving linux.

kuschku 10y ago
Then they threaten to sue you for industrial espionage, you don’t own the car, only a license to use it (there was a previous HN discussion with someone who got that threatening phone call)

Tempest1981 10y ago

Do you think that a) Tesla may want to enter that market on their own, or b) Tesla is worried that use in that market may sully their reputation if problems arise?

usrusr 10y ago
From their site: "doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year" This does not leave much room for speculation regarding a), this is basically an announcement of intending to introduce "the Tesla Network" as a player in that market.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I expect, and one of the lawyers reading can probably clarify, that Tesla's liability and risk changes if you're using the car for a commercial venture with their blessing. This specifically says you can't do that, so you're in violation of the terms of service and presumably that is enough to shield them.

tinalumfoil 10y ago
If Tesla isn't confident enough in their self-driving service to accept the liability then I doubt it's good enough to be approved for road-use anyway. It sounds like they're trying to set a precedent to kill competition before it starts. Hopefully other self-driving car manufacturers force their hand or kill their business.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  Perhaps, but it is not uncommon for example for chip manufacturers to specifically say their parts cannot be used in safety systems without their express written authorization. They are certainly confident their chips work, and they sell them by the bucket full, but if someone dies as a result of using their product that their chips are in, they don't want to be liable. They use those disclaimers to shift liability to the person who designed it in.
  - misja111 10y ago
    There is a funny example of such a disclaimer in the Java license agreement, it says: "You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility"
    - Tharkun 10y ago
      I wonder whether that's some kind of odd safety clause, or an even odder anti-proliferation clause?
    - wodenokoto 10y ago

castratikron 10y ago

It's the same rationale that companies like Microsoft use when they say a certain version of Word is for "Home Use Only". I think I'll wait 15 years until a GPL autopilot comes out. AutGNUpilot?

6stringmerc 10y ago

Oooooh, is this another "you didn't buy it you're licensing it from us" type of situation a la John Deere tractors? Interesting.