6 ms·

I understand changing the policy for new sales going forward, but changing it unilaterally from used sales seems wrong.

by moonka 9y ago

hackcrafter 9y ago
But it does prevent a business trying to run off of free supercharger power from just buying up used Teslas...
- sowbug 9y ago
  I don't think that was the point of the post you're replying to. The point was that you might be annoyed that an invisible hand reached out and plucked away part of the value of the thing you owned and were about to sell to someone.
  - rebuilder 9y ago
    This is a lesson we seem to be learning over an over: Don't rely on services provided by others continuing to exist indefinitely. Whether it's your social media account or free charging for your car, if you aren't prepared for losing access to that service, you are guaranteed to have a bad experience somewhere down the line. Which is why I'm not terribly sanguine about the current everything-as-a-service model. Going off a bit here, but aren't we kind of becoming serfs again, with ownership and power flowing into the hands of the corporations renting us their services?
    - Naritai 9y ago
      To riff on your concept, I met a woman in SF who was signing up for a lease at an apartment building. Knowing that she'd just moved from the midwest, and therefore not used to living in a big city, I asked her how parking was. "Oh, I don't have a spot", she said, "but the apartment comes with a subscription to Luxe (the on-demand valet service)". A year later, Luxe went out of business - now I wonder how her parking situation is.
    - mseebach 9y ago
      No, we're not becoming serfs, we're riding the tip of the wave, where more things are tried out and thus more things fail. There can be no progress without failure. The gas for your not-Tesla has been provided as-a-service since the first internal combustion engine was invented, and gas has occasionally been unavailable for periods of time (and the price has risen to levels unimaginable just a few decades ago). You're not a serf because you don't stick to a horse and buggy (and keep a workshop for the buggy and a paddock for the horse on your own, private, non-mortgaged property), you're a citizen in a modern economy. Let's not even speak of how you get food. All these things need to be worked out and be reliable and eventually they will be. Today, alas, was not that day.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        I think the issue is of product vs. service. Most of the things you deal with still function as products - you pay for your food / car / gasoline up front, and you consume it when and how you wish. The gasoline you bought won't magically disappear from your car because its provider decided to change the mixture or update their TOS. You don't have to worry that your supermarket prohibits you from making french fries from potatoes, because your tier only allows boiling them. You don't need to enter into long-term relationships with businesses to access basic consumables; a purchase is a one-time operation, no strings attached. I don't see it as an issue of reliability - which will always be a problem, because it's only natural for a business to eventually screw you over in the process of wringing out more profits from you. I see replacing products with services as something that limits your ability to live the way you'd like. It forces you to have a stable cashflow to support those services, since you no longer have a product that you can use until it wears out. It forces you to treat physical objects as black boxes - not tools that manipulate reality, but only tokens of services you subscribe to that you cannot open, cannot control, and cannot use beyond what's outlined in TOS. It forces you to engage in unnecessary business relationships with other people. All of that makes your life much more fragile. Maybe this is a good fit for average middle/upper-class, healthy and mentally stable consumers, especially those without any curiosity and creativity to use items beyond their designated purpose. But it's not a good fit for everyone. Now, if that was just an option, it'll be great - one could choose the ratio of products to services in their lives. But the market doesn't ask you what you'd like; you choose from what's available. Services are better than products from businesses' point of view, and therefore that's what's being offered (and with extra profit margins over products, services can dupe people into them by the virtue of being cheaper at the moment of signing a contract). I fear that eventually, we'll be left with pretty much everything delivered as a service, with companies dictating how you need to live your life (and screwing you over with impunity).
- grkvlt 9y ago
  But 'buying up used Teslas' is not some dodgy scheme, only to be considered by sketch operations. Buying used stuff is actually pretty common as a strategy for many businesses. It allows them to obtain things they need, but minimise capital costs. In this (hypothetical) case it'd also be giving a saving on operating expenses, which would be attractive - but I can see why Tesla would be worried about their costs rising from the superchargers being used by taxis. In general it seems fair not to allow businesses to abuse them since the pattern of use would be much more frequent and probably drawing more power. They're a perk for everyday drivers, not a way for Tesla to subsidise the operating costs of small businesses for free.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Actually, paying a driver to wait at a supercharger costs more than the electricity is worth. So yes, it's totally dodgy.
    - martin_bech 9y ago
      But charging at a regular charger would take 5-6x longer.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        Almost all regular charging happens overnight, with no one waiting.
        dillondoyle 9y ago
        But if car is resource not to be wasted it would be driving Uber pax 24/7 minus charging and maintenance. Maybe 3 drivers per car. Sure, fewer pax at 5am but probably dependent on what city/market.
        martin_bech 9y ago
        Yes for regular use, but if you want to use the cars commercially, supercharging will in many cases be better/much faster.
greglindahl 9y ago
Some Tesla features are written into contracts and some are not. For example, Tesla is not charging anyone for cellphone service for the car. That's not written into the contract, but they kinda have to provide it for free: they need access to vehicle logs for roadside service, and the car needs software updates for safety reasons. As an owner, I have absolutely no idea what the contract ever said about supercharging. I also know that this change doesn't affect me, other than making it more likely that I can supercharge without waiting.
- cma 9y ago
  It hurts your resale value.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    It might increase my resale value, if most buyers are like me (not commercial owners who always supercharge.) Which they are.
    - Vik1ng 9y ago
      And? For those nothing changes, but overall there will be less demand.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        Less congestion at superchargers == more value.
  - sjwright 9y ago
    That's irrelevant, legally speaking. Car companies can do plenty of things that hurt your resale value which are completely legal. They do it every time they lower the price, or bundle in more standard features. They do it every time they release the next model. They do it when hidden engineering short-cuts mean expensive repairs are necessary a few years after the warranty expires...
- 9y ago

I understand changing the policy for new sales going forward, but changing it unilaterally from used sales seems wrong.

by moonka 9y ago

I understand changing the policy for new sales going forward, but changing it unilaterally from used sales seems wrong.

hackcrafter 9y ago

But it does prevent a business trying to run off of free supercharger power from just buying up used Teslas...

sowbug 9y ago
I don't think that was the point of the post you're replying to. The point was that you might be annoyed that an invisible hand reached out and plucked away part of the value of the thing you owned and were about to sell to someone.
- rebuilder 9y ago
  This is a lesson we seem to be learning over an over: Don't rely on services provided by others continuing to exist indefinitely. Whether it's your social media account or free charging for your car, if you aren't prepared for losing access to that service, you are guaranteed to have a bad experience somewhere down the line. Which is why I'm not terribly sanguine about the current everything-as-a-service model. Going off a bit here, but aren't we kind of becoming serfs again, with ownership and power flowing into the hands of the corporations renting us their services?
  - Naritai 9y ago
    To riff on your concept, I met a woman in SF who was signing up for a lease at an apartment building. Knowing that she'd just moved from the midwest, and therefore not used to living in a big city, I asked her how parking was. "Oh, I don't have a spot", she said, "but the apartment comes with a subscription to Luxe (the on-demand valet service)". A year later, Luxe went out of business - now I wonder how her parking situation is.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    No, we're not becoming serfs, we're riding the tip of the wave, where more things are tried out and thus more things fail. There can be no progress without failure. The gas for your not-Tesla has been provided as-a-service since the first internal combustion engine was invented, and gas has occasionally been unavailable for periods of time (and the price has risen to levels unimaginable just a few decades ago). You're not a serf because you don't stick to a horse and buggy (and keep a workshop for the buggy and a paddock for the horse on your own, private, non-mortgaged property), you're a citizen in a modern economy. Let's not even speak of how you get food. All these things need to be worked out and be reliable and eventually they will be. Today, alas, was not that day.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I think the issue is of product vs. service. Most of the things you deal with still function as products - you pay for your food / car / gasoline up front, and you consume it when and how you wish. The gasoline you bought won't magically disappear from your car because its provider decided to change the mixture or update their TOS. You don't have to worry that your supermarket prohibits you from making french fries from potatoes, because your tier only allows boiling them. You don't need to enter into long-term relationships with businesses to access basic consumables; a purchase is a one-time operation, no strings attached. I don't see it as an issue of reliability - which will always be a problem, because it's only natural for a business to eventually screw you over in the process of wringing out more profits from you. I see replacing products with services as something that limits your ability to live the way you'd like. It forces you to have a stable cashflow to support those services, since you no longer have a product that you can use until it wears out. It forces you to treat physical objects as black boxes - not tools that manipulate reality, but only tokens of services you subscribe to that you cannot open, cannot control, and cannot use beyond what's outlined in TOS. It forces you to engage in unnecessary business relationships with other people. All of that makes your life much more fragile. Maybe this is a good fit for average middle/upper-class, healthy and mentally stable consumers, especially those without any curiosity and creativity to use items beyond their designated purpose. But it's not a good fit for everyone. Now, if that was just an option, it'll be great - one could choose the ratio of products to services in their lives. But the market doesn't ask you what you'd like; you choose from what's available. Services are better than products from businesses' point of view, and therefore that's what's being offered (and with extra profit margins over products, services can dupe people into them by the virtue of being cheaper at the moment of signing a contract). I fear that eventually, we'll be left with pretty much everything delivered as a service, with companies dictating how you need to live your life (and screwing you over with impunity).
grkvlt 9y ago
But 'buying up used Teslas' is not some dodgy scheme, only to be considered by sketch operations. Buying used stuff is actually pretty common as a strategy for many businesses. It allows them to obtain things they need, but minimise capital costs. In this (hypothetical) case it'd also be giving a saving on operating expenses, which would be attractive - but I can see why Tesla would be worried about their costs rising from the superchargers being used by taxis. In general it seems fair not to allow businesses to abuse them since the pattern of use would be much more frequent and probably drawing more power. They're a perk for everyday drivers, not a way for Tesla to subsidise the operating costs of small businesses for free.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Actually, paying a driver to wait at a supercharger costs more than the electricity is worth. So yes, it's totally dodgy.
  - martin_bech 9y ago
    But charging at a regular charger would take 5-6x longer.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      Almost all regular charging happens overnight, with no one waiting.
      - dillondoyle 9y ago
        But if car is resource not to be wasted it would be driving Uber pax 24/7 minus charging and maintenance. Maybe 3 drivers per car. Sure, fewer pax at 5am but probably dependent on what city/market.
      - martin_bech 9y ago
        Yes for regular use, but if you want to use the cars commercially, supercharging will in many cases be better/much faster.

greglindahl 9y ago

Some Tesla features are written into contracts and some are not. For example, Tesla is not charging anyone for cellphone service for the car. That's not written into the contract, but they kinda have to provide it for free: they need access to vehicle logs for roadside service, and the car needs software updates for safety reasons. As an owner, I have absolutely no idea what the contract ever said about supercharging. I also know that this change doesn't affect me, other than making it more likely that I can supercharge without waiting.

cma 9y ago
It hurts your resale value.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  It might increase my resale value, if most buyers are like me (not commercial owners who always supercharge.) Which they are.
  - Vik1ng 9y ago
    And? For those nothing changes, but overall there will be less demand.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      Less congestion at superchargers == more value.
- sjwright 9y ago
  That's irrelevant, legally speaking. Car companies can do plenty of things that hurt your resale value which are completely legal. They do it every time they lower the price, or bundle in more standard features. They do it every time they release the next model. They do it when hidden engineering short-cuts mean expensive repairs are necessary a few years after the warranty expires...
9y ago