3 ms·

>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

by 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.

by neotek 8y ago

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.