6 ms·

I just don't see how this is not ownership. You aren't renting, you're paying a standard purchase price for a good which has some restrictions on its use. Do yo

I just don't see how this is not ownership. You aren't renting, you're paying a standard purchase price for a good which has some restrictions on its use. Do you think that Tesla should have to make sure that its self-driving software is compatible with every ridesharing app that any random person comes up with? How will that work with liability if somebody sends their self-driving Tesla out to work under a ridesharing app that feeds bad inputs to it?

lucideer 10y ago
I think this really gets to the crux of the conditions that motivate and lead to this sort of product culture: a litigious society. If people feel its desirable to combat this trend, they need to be willing to take more legal responsibility for how they choose to use their products. Otherwise, compromising on full unrestricted ownership is the price paid to cover manufacturers' insurance costs. Note: this isn't absolute - there are many cases of corporations simply abusing this outright, like snowwrestler's Amazon example - but it's certainly the case for Tesla and a lot of others.
- snrplfth 10y ago
  Of course it would be nice if Tesla could just release some sort of API for giving inputs to their cars, coupled with a cast-iron waiver that makes clear that they are not responsible for any consequences or damages. However, they know that won't hold up in the court of public awareness/opinion, and that if people messing with their Teslas end up causing lots of problems, that legislatures and regulators are more likely to clamp down on self-driving cars generally. Which is the opposite of what they want.
  - lucideer 10y ago
    Exactly. This is not something that is solvable by Tesla. It's a deeply rooted societal/legislative/legal-precedence problem.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Tesla has a history of aggressive behavior, so I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it out. Witness the guy who plugged into his ethernet port, found references to the Model 3, only to have Tesla remote in, downgrade his vehicle firmware to one that didn't have more references, so he couldn't discover more information, then disable his ethernet port completely, and send him a letter about his "unauthorized use of the car". That wasn't protecting themselves from litigation. That's saying "this car is ours, you just get to use it, and we control how". Just like you cannot get a service manual for Tesla vehicles. Except in MA, where it's required by law. Where you have to make an appointment, go into their office, and view the manual on-site, and can't take it with you. I believe you also have to pay a fee to do so, or at least did.
csallen 10y ago
Oh it's not about Tesla building compatibility into their software. If that was necessary, then they wouldn't need to issue a warning to Teslas owners telling them not to drive for Uber/Lyft. What matters is how Tesla will respond when someone inevitably figures out a way to automate Uber/Lyft rides without needing any help from Tesla. If their response is merely, "Okay, but we're not responsible for damages," then that's great, who cares. But if they take any sort of measure to remotely disable your car or to hamstring your car's software, that would be a very slippery slope to start down.
- snrplfth 10y ago
  But saying "Okay, but we're not responsible for damages" will not fly with regulators, legislators, public opinion or the integrity of their brand. If someone modifies their Tesla to accept input from Uber, and Tesla does nothing to stop them, and it causes a crash or other problems, then there'll be headlines ("Tesla self-driving car stops in middle of highway!"), technology-ignorant bureaucrats will clamp down on self-driving cars rather than the modder who caused the problem, and Tesla will have to spend their time and resources dealing with the problems of unapproved inputs, rather than their core tasks. Easier to say, "just don't do it."
  - csallen 10y ago
    We're not talking about modifying the self-driving algorithms. I assume those are a totally closed black box. We're merely talking about inputting destination addresses. What Tesla is saying with this no-Uber rule is, "This is where you can and cannot go." What happens when they, say, strike a deal with McDonald's and ban drivers from going to Burger King locations? It sounds far-fetched, but I don't see any difference. Where we take our cars and why should not be Tesla's business.
    - snrplfth 10y ago
      But even just inputting destination addresses has its problems. What happens when an Uber-like app freaks out and spams the self-driving algos with a hundred destinations a second? Or screws up the location and sends a passenger a dozen miles from their intended destination? Or where the Tesla algos find a route it's been given to be undriveable and just turn back? Sure, you and I would rightly hold the modder accountable, but that's because we understand how this stuff works. Everybody else will see "Tesla cars" not working right, and that's a huge headache and liability for Tesla. We don't know exactly how "black box" their system is, and how easily it can be made immune to spurious (or even malicious!) inputs, while also leaving it open to third-party apps. I would guess it's just a risk that they don't want to take. And I don't think they'll ever ban people from going to places - as long as you use approved Tesla tools to request that destination.
qb45 10y ago
> I just don't see how this is not ownership [...] you're paying a standard purchase price for a good which has some restrictions on its use. You described exactly the problem people have with this idea :) > Do you think that Tesla should have to make sure that its self-driving software is compatible with every ridesharing app that any random person comes up with? How will that work with liability if somebody sends their self-driving Tesla out to work under a ridesharing app that feeds bad inputs to it? Then they should prohibit interfacing the car with 3rd party software quoting relevant regulations (or at least a generic "for safety reasons"), not put a blanket ban on commercial use of the self-driving functionality. For now it seems that they don't even want me to physically sit there in the driver's seat and do something else while the car is driving, which puts your whole speculation about Tesla's motives into question. And BTW, what if somebody breaks this rule and hacks his car into an autonomous Uber slave? By your logic, if something bad happens Tesla will still get blamed. All they accomplished is CYA and for that a warning about dangers of interfacing with unauthorized software would be sufficient. Even better in fact, because not all unauthorized software must be commercial.
- snrplfth 10y ago
  I felt that their aim in excluding third party software was reasonably clear when they noted that Tesla Network would be handling self-driving for revenue. If they really mean no self-driving for cash payment, not affecting the car otherwise, I am less enthused about that, but I maintain that they can write this into the use of the software if they ensure that people are adequately informed. There are frequently limits put on use by sellers even when things are sold outright. You can purchase prescription drugs, but you can't just give them to anyone, or resell them without limits. You can often get software licenses for educational purposes that are not to be used for business. You may not like such restrictions, and certainly I don't think they should be made mandatory for everybody by law, but I don't think making it illegal for a company to make such rules is a very good idea. The easiest solution is simply to not purchase the offending product. Edit: as regards the commercal/non-commercial mods, I think it's reasonable to imagine that they are trying to avoid the commercial insurance snafus that have entangled ride-sharing apps. When you accept money for a service you put yourself into a bunch of liability positions. And in this case, the liability is on the creator of the self-driving program.
Pica_soO 10y ago
That concept of some restrictions has a specialized word for it - government.
- snrplfth 10y ago
  You can avoid the restrictions on Teslas by not purchasing a Tesla. You can avoid the restrictions set by government by...well, you can't really, unless you want to leave where you are.
  - Pica_soO 10y ago
    but you can?
serge2k 10y ago
> How will that work with liability if somebody sends their self-driving Tesla out to work under a ridesharing app that feeds bad inputs to it? Okay, Tesla's reasonable licensing agreement has a liability waiver when using the app for ride-sharing outside of certified applications. That's a pretty reasonable piece of licensing. It's also not unheard of to state that a piece of equipment is not warrantied or you waive liability if used in commercial ventures, or outside of normal operation. I'd be fine with that. It places responsibility on the owner of the car. edit: I also have no problem with Tesla not facilitating ride sharing. If the limitation to their network is just because the software makes it difficult to use a third party app then so be it.

lucideer 10y ago

I think this really gets to the crux of the conditions that motivate and lead to this sort of product culture: a litigious society. If people feel its desirable to combat this trend, they need to be willing to take more legal responsibility for how they choose to use their products. Otherwise, compromising on full unrestricted ownership is the price paid to cover manufacturers' insurance costs. Note: this isn't absolute - there are many cases of corporations simply abusing this outright, like snowwrestler's Amazon example - but it's certainly the case for Tesla and a lot of others.

snrplfth 10y ago
Of course it would be nice if Tesla could just release some sort of API for giving inputs to their cars, coupled with a cast-iron waiver that makes clear that they are not responsible for any consequences or damages. However, they know that won't hold up in the court of public awareness/opinion, and that if people messing with their Teslas end up causing lots of problems, that legislatures and regulators are more likely to clamp down on self-driving cars generally. Which is the opposite of what they want.
- lucideer 10y ago
  Exactly. This is not something that is solvable by Tesla. It's a deeply rooted societal/legislative/legal-precedence problem.
FireBeyond 10y ago
Tesla has a history of aggressive behavior, so I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it out. Witness the guy who plugged into his ethernet port, found references to the Model 3, only to have Tesla remote in, downgrade his vehicle firmware to one that didn't have more references, so he couldn't discover more information, then disable his ethernet port completely, and send him a letter about his "unauthorized use of the car". That wasn't protecting themselves from litigation. That's saying "this car is ours, you just get to use it, and we control how". Just like you cannot get a service manual for Tesla vehicles. Except in MA, where it's required by law. Where you have to make an appointment, go into their office, and view the manual on-site, and can't take it with you. I believe you also have to pay a fee to do so, or at least did.

csallen 10y ago

Oh it's not about Tesla building compatibility into their software. If that was necessary, then they wouldn't need to issue a warning to Teslas owners telling them not to drive for Uber/Lyft. What matters is how Tesla will respond when someone inevitably figures out a way to automate Uber/Lyft rides without needing any help from Tesla. If their response is merely, "Okay, but we're not responsible for damages," then that's great, who cares. But if they take any sort of measure to remotely disable your car or to hamstring your car's software, that would be a very slippery slope to start down.

snrplfth 10y ago
But saying "Okay, but we're not responsible for damages" will not fly with regulators, legislators, public opinion or the integrity of their brand. If someone modifies their Tesla to accept input from Uber, and Tesla does nothing to stop them, and it causes a crash or other problems, then there'll be headlines ("Tesla self-driving car stops in middle of highway!"), technology-ignorant bureaucrats will clamp down on self-driving cars rather than the modder who caused the problem, and Tesla will have to spend their time and resources dealing with the problems of unapproved inputs, rather than their core tasks. Easier to say, "just don't do it."
- csallen 10y ago
  We're not talking about modifying the self-driving algorithms. I assume those are a totally closed black box. We're merely talking about inputting destination addresses. What Tesla is saying with this no-Uber rule is, "This is where you can and cannot go." What happens when they, say, strike a deal with McDonald's and ban drivers from going to Burger King locations? It sounds far-fetched, but I don't see any difference. Where we take our cars and why should not be Tesla's business.
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    But even just inputting destination addresses has its problems. What happens when an Uber-like app freaks out and spams the self-driving algos with a hundred destinations a second? Or screws up the location and sends a passenger a dozen miles from their intended destination? Or where the Tesla algos find a route it's been given to be undriveable and just turn back? Sure, you and I would rightly hold the modder accountable, but that's because we understand how this stuff works. Everybody else will see "Tesla cars" not working right, and that's a huge headache and liability for Tesla. We don't know exactly how "black box" their system is, and how easily it can be made immune to spurious (or even malicious!) inputs, while also leaving it open to third-party apps. I would guess it's just a risk that they don't want to take. And I don't think they'll ever ban people from going to places - as long as you use approved Tesla tools to request that destination.

qb45 10y ago

> I just don't see how this is not ownership [...] you're paying a standard purchase price for a good which has some restrictions on its use. You described exactly the problem people have with this idea :) > Do you think that Tesla should have to make sure that its self-driving software is compatible with every ridesharing app that any random person comes up with? How will that work with liability if somebody sends their self-driving Tesla out to work under a ridesharing app that feeds bad inputs to it? Then they should prohibit interfacing the car with 3rd party software quoting relevant regulations (or at least a generic "for safety reasons"), not put a blanket ban on commercial use of the self-driving functionality. For now it seems that they don't even want me to physically sit there in the driver's seat and do something else while the car is driving, which puts your whole speculation about Tesla's motives into question. And BTW, what if somebody breaks this rule and hacks his car into an autonomous Uber slave? By your logic, if something bad happens Tesla will still get blamed. All they accomplished is CYA and for that a warning about dangers of interfacing with unauthorized software would be sufficient. Even better in fact, because not all unauthorized software must be commercial.

snrplfth 10y ago
I felt that their aim in excluding third party software was reasonably clear when they noted that Tesla Network would be handling self-driving for revenue. If they really mean no self-driving for cash payment, not affecting the car otherwise, I am less enthused about that, but I maintain that they can write this into the use of the software if they ensure that people are adequately informed. There are frequently limits put on use by sellers even when things are sold outright. You can purchase prescription drugs, but you can't just give them to anyone, or resell them without limits. You can often get software licenses for educational purposes that are not to be used for business. You may not like such restrictions, and certainly I don't think they should be made mandatory for everybody by law, but I don't think making it illegal for a company to make such rules is a very good idea. The easiest solution is simply to not purchase the offending product. Edit: as regards the commercal/non-commercial mods, I think it's reasonable to imagine that they are trying to avoid the commercial insurance snafus that have entangled ride-sharing apps. When you accept money for a service you put yourself into a bunch of liability positions. And in this case, the liability is on the creator of the self-driving program.

Pica_soO 10y ago

That concept of some restrictions has a specialized word for it - government.

snrplfth 10y ago
You can avoid the restrictions on Teslas by not purchasing a Tesla. You can avoid the restrictions set by government by...well, you can't really, unless you want to leave where you are.
- Pica_soO 10y ago
  but you can?

serge2k 10y ago

> How will that work with liability if somebody sends their self-driving Tesla out to work under a ridesharing app that feeds bad inputs to it? Okay, Tesla's reasonable licensing agreement has a liability waiver when using the app for ride-sharing outside of certified applications. That's a pretty reasonable piece of licensing. It's also not unheard of to state that a piece of equipment is not warrantied or you waive liability if used in commercial ventures, or outside of normal operation. I'd be fine with that. It places responsibility on the owner of the car. edit: I also have no problem with Tesla not facilitating ride sharing. If the limitation to their network is just because the software makes it difficult to use a third party app then so be it.