4 ms·

You've misquoted them the same way as the other guy. They aren't saying the car has that capability. > if you sell me something you say is capable of full sel

You've misquoted them the same way as the other guy. They aren't saying the car has that capability. > if you sell me something you say is capable of full self driving As I pointed out, they haven't said that. They've said it's got the hardware needed for it. Compare: This iPhone is capable of 16-way FaceTime calls. …to: This iPhone has the hardware necessary for 16-way FaceTime calls. When iOS 12 was released, one was true but the other wasn't. It wasn't until Apple released iOS 12.1 that iPhones were capable of making 16-way FaceTime calls. Hardware support is necessary but not sufficient. What Tesla are saying on that page is that when you buy the car, you've got all the hardware needed, but the software that is needed is yet to come, at an uncertain future date. Right now, Tesla are saying that you've got all the hardware, you just need the software, and the software isn't ready yet. This isn't at all the same thing as saying that the car has this capability right now. Those are two quite distinct claims and I think that page is clear on saying the former not the latter. If you're saying that Tesla claiming hardware support is tantamount to claiming full functionality, then how do you suggest they describe the situation? Do you think they should be banned from mentioning the hardware support? Does this apply to other manufacturers like Apple as well?

neotek 8y ago
>If you're saying that Tesla claiming hardware support is tantamount to claiming full functionality, then how do you suggest they describe the situation? Less dishonestly. Your entire argument boils down to "people should be expected to parse Tesla's (intentionally, I might add) obfuscated language". There's a very good reason why the language used in marketing is regulated in just about every country on the planet.
- JimDabell 8y ago
  > Your entire argument boils down to "people should be expected to parse Tesla's (intentionally, I might add) obfuscated language". No, my argument is as follows: 1. It is reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality. 2. It's necessary for them to make this distinction in order to offer the hardware upgrades for pre-sale. 3. Other vendors do this without people complaining. Do you disagree with any of those?
  - neotek 8y ago
    I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really don't understand that the way you say something is different from what you're saying. It's completely irrelevant whether or not it's reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality, the way they are describing it is demonstrably and indisputably leading consumers to believe their cars are actively capable of full self-driving, which is absolutely not the case. Tesla are misleading consumers, their intention is thoroughly irrelevant.
    - JimDabell 8y ago
      > I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really don't understand that the way you say something is different from what you're saying. I understand that, but I get the impression that no way of saying it will satisfy you. This is why I asked how you think they should describe it. This is why I asked if you actually disagree with any of those points. Do you? > the way they are describing it is demonstrably and indisputably leading consumers to believe their cars are actively capable of full self-driving Is it? I mean, there's obviously going to be idiot outliers for any product. A drunk person using awful judgement does not qualify as "demonstrably and indisputably" in my view. Has anybody actually demonstrated this is actually misleading to the average person?
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >Is it? I mean, there's obviously going to be idiot outliers for any product. Well, the people at Tesla who assumed a Vulcan like understanding of their marketing language from buyers are either malicious marketeers or idiots themselves.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >1. It is reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality. No, it's not. Not in any way that can be misconstrued, and not in marketing copy for existing products, for which the "hardware capability" alone means shit. In fact, the very distinction is BS. Either the car can autopilot or not. Whether the hardware can but needs the software which is not available is of interest to noone. It might even be totally wrong as a claim too (e.g. if the software is eventually finalized they might very well discover it actually needs some more sensors to be safe, which means the hardware wasn't ready actually). >It's necessary for them to make this distinction in order to offer the hardware upgrades for pre-sale. They shouldn't be preseling updates of hardware that supports something for which they don't have the software yet. >3. Other vendors do this without people complaining. No excuse, if they do those other vendors are bad actors too.
close04 8y ago
I HAVE PROOF THAT TESLA HW IS NOT CAPABLE OF FSD. [1] Tesla says “Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars”. The implication is clearly that the cars are perfectly capable of fully self driving. Hence the misleading advertisement. The claim is not substantiated in any way. Simply the assumption that technically a few cameras, sensors, and a not very powerful processing unit are enough to enable FSD. To this point there is no actual evidence that the statement is true. My phone has all the hardware needed to crack any non quantum encryption. Also to solve the teleportation problem, world hunger, and is able to cut any cake in perfectly equal slices. It just needs the right software and perhaps infinite retries. All Tesla has to do is provide in eqully large typeface and placement evidence that the HW indeed can do it but not at this time. And in case you’re wondering yes, all manufacturers should advertise clearly what the product can and cannot do, and when. Whataboutism is not an argument that the problem isn’t there, just that we should ignore it because that other guy does it. [1] Proof only available under certain conditions and subject to local regulatory approval.
- JimDabell 8y ago
  > Tesla says “Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars”. The implication is clearly that the cars are perfectly capable of fully self driving. What they have said explicitly is that they cars are not capable of fully self driving until the software and regulatory approvals are ready. Explicit trumps whatever you think is implicit. A Tesla car is not just hardware. It's software as well. You are equating claims that are explicitly about the hardware as if they are about the car as a whole, when the page in question clearly makes the distinction between them. How do you suggest they describe the situation? Do you think they should be banned from mentioning the hardware support? > Whataboutism is not an argument that the problem isn’t thee, just that we should ignore it because that other guy does it. So do you think that Apple were wrong to talk about 16-way FaceTime before iOS 12.1 was released? If this is so unreasonable, why didn't anybody complain that Apple were lying about iPhone functionality? My argument is not that we should ignore wrongdoing because other people do it. My argument is that the reason people do ignore it for other vendors is because it's not wrongdoing.
  - close04 8y ago
notahacker 8y ago
Sure, it would have been misleading and dishonest for Apple to have marketed "hardware capable of 16 way calls" as a feature when the software for 16 way calls didn't exist and wasn't even close to being ready, particularly if it was far from certain that 16 way calls were a technically achievable feat and many experts in the field doubted the adequacy of the iPhone's hardware for that purpose. Should they have been able to make the same claim about the iPhone 4? I mean, it's got the theoretically necessary camera and audio hardware, if you overlook minor details like Apple not actually introducing 16 way calls until that device was basically obsolete, and then not in a software update that would actually run on it.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Well, they haven't marketed it as such. And even if they did, it wouldn't kill anyone to take it for granted.
tmd83 8y ago
You are comparing iPhone's marketing material to a life and death aspect of a self driving car and placing them at the same level. I think that says clearly how bad the Tesla material is. The standard for both shouldn't even me remotely comparable. Even then it's fairly clear doing the 16 way call wasn't a fundamental challenge for Apple and they did it fairly short order. Things are not so cut and dry with self driving technology. It is quite clear from the marketing material that Tesla knows that average people don't understand plane Autopilot. And the name gives people illusion of more capability than for real and at the same time allows them to point that plane autopilot is fairly limited so they are not misleading people. Their original language was way worse and it is clear from the changes they are trying to make sure they can point out to the fine print to say we didn't really say it can self drive. Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval. This is clearly meant to suggest to the unsuspecting customer that they have the whole thing ready and just waiting for pesky regulatory approvals. This is beyond shameful specially when they are doing this literally for years.
IanCal 8y ago
It's a shame people are downvoting this because it's a reasonable response. However, I think you're making two mistakes. One, I think to most people they absolutely are making that claim. Two, as I say they may technically be the accurate claims but they're extremely misleading and designed to hide the fact that the cars do not have this ability right now in a usable form. > They aren't saying the car has that capability. They have this as a headline: "Full Self-Driving Capability". Under it it says "Build upon Enhanced Autopilot and order Full Self-Driving Capability on your Tesla." I am not cutting sentences in half or anything, they very explicitly say that I can order full self-driving capability on my tesla. So I can order full self driving capability on a Tesla. They say I can buy a car with that capability. They say parts of it may not be available, depending where I am (though I'm on a country specific page where they know full well that it is not usable). One of the first things on the page is a video showing self driving! I feel if I list a series of functionalities on a product I'm selling then say "We can't say exactly when each of these will be available in your area" while I know that definitely none of them are available then I am being either misleading or completely dishonest. > When iOS 12 was released, one was true but the other wasn't. It wasn't until Apple released iOS 12.1 that iPhones were capable of making 16-way FaceTime calls. And I'd say they were dishonest if they had headlines of "16 way FaceTime call capability" under which it says "Order the 16 way capable version today!" > If you're saying that Tesla claiming hardware support is tantamount to claiming full functionality, then how do you suggest they describe the situation? Quite simple - make it extremely obvious that it's not yet available. Say "Future self driving capabilities". Make it clear that it may never be usable where you live. Maybe have a clear note on the video that the car you buy won't do that when you get it. As a side, I do not understand their claim either - they say all cars produced have the necessary hardware but then later say it's my choice to order as an extra because the basic version doesn't have it.

neotek 8y ago

>If you're saying that Tesla claiming hardware support is tantamount to claiming full functionality, then how do you suggest they describe the situation? Less dishonestly. Your entire argument boils down to "people should be expected to parse Tesla's (intentionally, I might add) obfuscated language". There's a very good reason why the language used in marketing is regulated in just about every country on the planet.

JimDabell 8y ago
> Your entire argument boils down to "people should be expected to parse Tesla's (intentionally, I might add) obfuscated language". No, my argument is as follows: 1. It is reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality. 2. It's necessary for them to make this distinction in order to offer the hardware upgrades for pre-sale. 3. Other vendors do this without people complaining. Do you disagree with any of those?
- neotek 8y ago
  I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really don't understand that the way you say something is different from what you're saying. It's completely irrelevant whether or not it's reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality, the way they are describing it is demonstrably and indisputably leading consumers to believe their cars are actively capable of full self-driving, which is absolutely not the case. Tesla are misleading consumers, their intention is thoroughly irrelevant.
  - JimDabell 8y ago
    > I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really don't understand that the way you say something is different from what you're saying. I understand that, but I get the impression that no way of saying it will satisfy you. This is why I asked how you think they should describe it. This is why I asked if you actually disagree with any of those points. Do you? > the way they are describing it is demonstrably and indisputably leading consumers to believe their cars are actively capable of full self-driving Is it? I mean, there's obviously going to be idiot outliers for any product. A drunk person using awful judgement does not qualify as "demonstrably and indisputably" in my view. Has anybody actually demonstrated this is actually misleading to the average person?
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >Is it? I mean, there's obviously going to be idiot outliers for any product. Well, the people at Tesla who assumed a Vulcan like understanding of their marketing language from buyers are either malicious marketeers or idiots themselves.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >1. It is reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality. No, it's not. Not in any way that can be misconstrued, and not in marketing copy for existing products, for which the "hardware capability" alone means shit. In fact, the very distinction is BS. Either the car can autopilot or not. Whether the hardware can but needs the software which is not available is of interest to noone. It might even be totally wrong as a claim too (e.g. if the software is eventually finalized they might very well discover it actually needs some more sensors to be safe, which means the hardware wasn't ready actually). >It's necessary for them to make this distinction in order to offer the hardware upgrades for pre-sale. They shouldn't be preseling updates of hardware that supports something for which they don't have the software yet. >3. Other vendors do this without people complaining. No excuse, if they do those other vendors are bad actors too.

close04 8y ago

I HAVE PROOF THAT TESLA HW IS NOT CAPABLE OF FSD. [1] Tesla says “Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars”. The implication is clearly that the cars are perfectly capable of fully self driving. Hence the misleading advertisement. The claim is not substantiated in any way. Simply the assumption that technically a few cameras, sensors, and a not very powerful processing unit are enough to enable FSD. To this point there is no actual evidence that the statement is true. My phone has all the hardware needed to crack any non quantum encryption. Also to solve the teleportation problem, world hunger, and is able to cut any cake in perfectly equal slices. It just needs the right software and perhaps infinite retries. All Tesla has to do is provide in eqully large typeface and placement evidence that the HW indeed can do it but not at this time. And in case you’re wondering yes, all manufacturers should advertise clearly what the product can and cannot do, and when. Whataboutism is not an argument that the problem isn’t there, just that we should ignore it because that other guy does it. [1] Proof only available under certain conditions and subject to local regulatory approval.

JimDabell 8y ago
> Tesla says “Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars”. The implication is clearly that the cars are perfectly capable of fully self driving. What they have said explicitly is that they cars are not capable of fully self driving until the software and regulatory approvals are ready. Explicit trumps whatever you think is implicit. A Tesla car is not just hardware. It's software as well. You are equating claims that are explicitly about the hardware as if they are about the car as a whole, when the page in question clearly makes the distinction between them. How do you suggest they describe the situation? Do you think they should be banned from mentioning the hardware support? > Whataboutism is not an argument that the problem isn’t thee, just that we should ignore it because that other guy does it. So do you think that Apple were wrong to talk about 16-way FaceTime before iOS 12.1 was released? If this is so unreasonable, why didn't anybody complain that Apple were lying about iPhone functionality? My argument is not that we should ignore wrongdoing because other people do it. My argument is that the reason people do ignore it for other vendors is because it's not wrongdoing.
- close04 8y ago

notahacker 8y ago

Sure, it would have been misleading and dishonest for Apple to have marketed "hardware capable of 16 way calls" as a feature when the software for 16 way calls didn't exist and wasn't even close to being ready, particularly if it was far from certain that 16 way calls were a technically achievable feat and many experts in the field doubted the adequacy of the iPhone's hardware for that purpose. Should they have been able to make the same claim about the iPhone 4? I mean, it's got the theoretically necessary camera and audio hardware, if you overlook minor details like Apple not actually introducing 16 way calls until that device was basically obsolete, and then not in a software update that would actually run on it.

coldtea 8y ago
Well, they haven't marketed it as such. And even if they did, it wouldn't kill anyone to take it for granted.

tmd83 8y ago

You are comparing iPhone's marketing material to a life and death aspect of a self driving car and placing them at the same level. I think that says clearly how bad the Tesla material is. The standard for both shouldn't even me remotely comparable. Even then it's fairly clear doing the 16 way call wasn't a fundamental challenge for Apple and they did it fairly short order. Things are not so cut and dry with self driving technology. It is quite clear from the marketing material that Tesla knows that average people don't understand plane Autopilot. And the name gives people illusion of more capability than for real and at the same time allows them to point that plane autopilot is fairly limited so they are not misleading people. Their original language was way worse and it is clear from the changes they are trying to make sure they can point out to the fine print to say we didn't really say it can self drive. Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval. This is clearly meant to suggest to the unsuspecting customer that they have the whole thing ready and just waiting for pesky regulatory approvals. This is beyond shameful specially when they are doing this literally for years.

IanCal 8y ago

It's a shame people are downvoting this because it's a reasonable response. However, I think you're making two mistakes. One, I think to most people they absolutely are making that claim. Two, as I say they may technically be the accurate claims but they're extremely misleading and designed to hide the fact that the cars do not have this ability right now in a usable form. > They aren't saying the car has that capability. They have this as a headline: "Full Self-Driving Capability". Under it it says "Build upon Enhanced Autopilot and order Full Self-Driving Capability on your Tesla." I am not cutting sentences in half or anything, they very explicitly say that I can order full self-driving capability on my tesla. So I can order full self driving capability on a Tesla. They say I can buy a car with that capability. They say parts of it may not be available, depending where I am (though I'm on a country specific page where they know full well that it is not usable). One of the first things on the page is a video showing self driving! I feel if I list a series of functionalities on a product I'm selling then say "We can't say exactly when each of these will be available in your area" while I know that definitely none of them are available then I am being either misleading or completely dishonest. > When iOS 12 was released, one was true but the other wasn't. It wasn't until Apple released iOS 12.1 that iPhones were capable of making 16-way FaceTime calls. And I'd say they were dishonest if they had headlines of "16 way FaceTime call capability" under which it says "Order the 16 way capable version today!" > If you're saying that Tesla claiming hardware support is tantamount to claiming full functionality, then how do you suggest they describe the situation? Quite simple - make it extremely obvious that it's not yet available. Say "Future self driving capabilities". Make it clear that it may never be usable where you live. Maybe have a clear note on the video that the car you buy won't do that when you get it. As a side, I do not understand their claim either - they say all cars produced have the necessary hardware but then later say it's my choice to order as an extra because the basic version doesn't have it.