6 ms·
Seems like a stretch to (repeatedly) characterize your parent's post as a "lie". You're both characterizing the same practice in different ways. I'm inclined
by tempestn 8y ago
Seems like a stretch to (repeatedly) characterize your parent's post as a "lie". You're both characterizing the same practice in different ways. I'm inclined to agree with everything else you said (although I dislike the barriers to independent maintenance of Teslas in general), but the parent's post was a spin, not a lie.
- cptskippy 8y agoCalling it ransom isn't spin, it's disingenuous. They paid for x range and received x range. They were given a standing offer to increase that range for a cost significantly less than the cost of replacing or physically upgrading the battery. Now if they had paid for 120kwh batteries and received 120kwh batteries that would only deliver 100kwh of range then we'd be having and entirely different conversation.
- jtbayly 8y agoBut they did. They paid for and received larger capacity batteries in their vehicles that are artificially hampered to a lower capacity.
- Latteland 8y agoThey also stopped doing this practice, the new mid range m 3 have fewer batteries and are not software upgradeable. Is this better? Not sure.
- arcticbull 8y agoNet-net probably? Less batteries, lower weight, better performance, lower environmental impact from the waste of mining and throwing away that extra lithium you didn't pay to unlock...
- cptskippy 8y agoIf you buy a 4 piece of chicken nuggets at McDonalds and they're out of 4 piece boxes so they put your 4 nuggets in a 9 piece box for you, have they cheated you out of 5 nuggets? No. Then why, if you pay for 100 kWh capacity, and they give it to you in a battery capable of 120 kWh capacity are they suddenly cheating you? Did you pay for the higher capacity? No. Did you get the capacity you paid for? Yes. Are you able to buy up to the higher capacity? Yes.
- ddingus 8y agoThey put 6 nuggets in the 4 nugget box. You paid to eat 4. Those other two cost a little extra to eat. You can't eat them, until you pay for a catalyst that renders them edible.
- cptskippy 8y agoThat's one way to look at it but it belies the fact that the box was designed and intended for 6, not 4. They didn't force and extra 2 in the box, it's not out of spec.
- ddingus 8y agoActually, the box is either 4 or 10, but just a quibble. I do not care that Tesla shipped more battery personally. Just got sucked into the analogy here.
- wtetzner 8y agoIt’s a purely artificial limitation. You’re not getting anything new when paying for the upgrade, just effectively flipping a boolean.
- cptskippy 8y agoYes. And the person paid for 60 kWh of battery capacity. They didn't pay for 75 kWh of battery capacity. The true capacity of the battery is irrelevant so long as it delivers the capacity the person paid for. Tesla didn't sell the vehicle as having a different curb weight, or a specified number of 18650 cells contained in the battery pack. They sold it based on having a 60 kWh capacity which it does. Why do you feel entitled to the additional 15 kWh?
- arcticbull 8y agoIt's not about entitlement, it's about the fact it's there. It's about how it feels. It's different when someone sells you something that does 2 things, then tells you that unless you pay them more it'll only do one, forever. It's a nagging feeling. It's mine now, not theirs. Then they ask for tons of money, don't give you anything new or different, just enable the product to do what it could already do -- what I "already paid for." Cost to deliver: $0. Charge: $$$. It's not rational, but it's how people behave and think. You're not getting downvoted because you're wrong. We know you're right. But you're telling us our feelings are wrong, and people don't take that well haha. We all agree on the facts.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- collyw 8y agoIts the opposite of the hacking spirit where you make something do more than it is supposed to. Something many people here take an interest in - its in the name Hacker news.
- arcticbull 8y ago
- tempestn 8y agoFor what it's worth, I disagree with you but don't think you should be down voted for this reply, since you're explaining your position clearly.
- sam_goody 8y agoFWIW, if HN would offer a disagree and flag button as two options, we would have far better conversations here. Flag / downvote is essential, or we would just get spam or become Reddit. But currently there is no way to disagree without punishing. As it is, many are afraid to post anything other than echo-chamber because they might get downvoted.
- tempestn 8y agoYeah, it's an idea. Either that or they could more enthusiastically push the idea that if you disagree you should explain why, rather than down voting.
- cptskippy 8y agoGenerally if someone makes a solid argument or valid points, regardless of whether or not I agree with them then I upvote them. If I disagree I try to reply and explain my perspective. I reserve downvotes for absurd or baseless remarks, attacks, and other noise. People like to downvote off topic or sarcastic remarks, I generally ignore them (neither upvote/downvote) because I think making light of topics isn't necessarily a bad thing and can engage people in a discussion. * I say generally because no one is perfect and I don't strictly adhere to the above.
- tempestn 8y agoThat's pretty much exactly how I operate as well. I think it would be a good thing if HN tried to encourage this behaviour, perhaps by reinforcing the initial guidelines on signup with things like reminders when down-voting controversial comments.
- 8y ago