6 ms·

As a Tesla owner, I think this is great, because as an Engineer, I fully expect that Tesla was get owned (literally) here. I have no problem with that - I want

As a Tesla owner, I think this is great, because as an Engineer, I fully expect that Tesla was get owned (literally) here. I have no problem with that - I want people trying to break the security, and I want Tesla to pay them, and to improve it. The reality is that a Tesla is mostly really good software, really good engine, and really good battery, surrounded by a reasonable (but not excellent) rest of the car. That's more then worth it to me, and the Tesla Stretch is real, because the car is incredibly compelling. I would argue that the value is just as much a outcome of the software, and it needs to be hardened.

SEJeff 8y ago
This comment perfectly describes the Tesla Model 3. Disclaimer: Model 3 owner
- rconti 8y ago
  Agreed and agreed.
  - tdhz77 8y ago
    Concurred & concurred.
thejrk_ 8y ago
Just a nitpick but engine would mean internal combustion.
- blackoil 8y ago
  ain't engine just something that converts energy to motion? We have jet/rocket engine which aren't internal combustion.
  - mulmen 8y ago
    Jets and rockets are also internal combustion engines. An example of external combustion is a steam engine.
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago
  It's not that black and white; but Wikipedia does note: """ In modern usage, the term engine typically describes devices, like steam engines and internal combustion engines, that burn or otherwise consume fuel """ Also, "electric motor" is definitely a lot more common than "electric engine": https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Electric%20engine,Electric%20motor https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Electric%2...
- Uehreka 8y ago
  This reminds me of how the switch to SSDs meant that we could no longer talk about our computers having a “Hard Drive” since that specifically referred to drives with spinning platters.
  - spockz 8y ago
    I’ve heard the term “hard storage” being used more often. When using just “storage” lot of non-tech people get confused by ram or persistent storage.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kenward 8y ago
I agree. It is very clear that Tesla puts more effort into the software, electric motors, and battery tech compared to the "rest of the car". While there are some fine details (like the suspension) that others pointed out, the body panel gaps and the unusual service experience leave a lot to be desired for some people. Now whether these issues go unaddressed due to Tesla not having the proper resources or due to a conflict in priorities, either reason makes you wonder why Tesla is choosing to do it this way...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tatoalo 8y ago
  I completely agree with the fact that Tesla is, at least IMHO, a software company first but on the body panel gaps I really think is a non-issue. I mean, it obviously is something that has to be improved but, for example, I’ve seen panel gaps with a 85k € new Audi Q5 MY18. It definitely wasn't an isolated issue since I’ve seen the same thing on at least other two same models around town but no one online or any media is shouting right and left about it...
vvanders 8y ago
Yup, this has happened on the S a few times. They quietly put out a new OTA which took ~24 hours to roll out across the fleet and it was sorted. Much different than Fiat/Jeep when they got owned via media console a ways back.
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  The fact they can "quietly put out a new OTA which took ~24 hours to roll out across the fleet" honestly scares the crap out of me. Call me a luddite, but in my opinion there are no compelling-enough reasons a car needs to be wirelessly networked at all, and I won't buy a car with those "features".
  - vvanders 8y ago
    It's not quiet, there's a notice of an update and the release notes mention that it was for a security fix. You have the option of ignoring it if you want.
    - brokenmachine 8y ago
      Sure, but my malicious "two weeks from now, suddenly turn left if the car is traveling faster than 80kph" firmware will give the same message. I'm just not a fan of OTA updates for cars. Needing to have physical access raises the bar. Remote updates just increases the attack surface, and makes RCE possible - and RCE on an entire fleet of 2 ton vehicles that can go 200kph is a nightmare scenario. They could even use the gps in the car to target specific locations! I believe a state actor or motivated team would have the resources to make this possible, and it would kill more than 9/11. The poor country's cruise missile! I'd be OK with doing updates via usb or direct connection however. Honestly, it's a little worrying to me that a car would need updates so often.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
rofo1 8y ago
Well, not sure how much I agree with "good software" having read this: https://twitter.com/atomicthumbs/status/1032939617404645376 https://twitter.com/atomicthumbs/status/1032939617404645376 With some googling, you can find the original thread in Something Awful forums too. To say that I was surprised at some things doesn't even begin to do justice.

SEJeff 8y ago

This comment perfectly describes the Tesla Model 3. Disclaimer: Model 3 owner

rconti 8y ago
Agreed and agreed.
- tdhz77 8y ago
  Concurred & concurred.

thejrk_ 8y ago

Just a nitpick but engine would mean internal combustion.

blackoil 8y ago
ain't engine just something that converts energy to motion? We have jet/rocket engine which aren't internal combustion.
- mulmen 8y ago
  Jets and rockets are also internal combustion engines. An example of external combustion is a steam engine.
semi-extrinsic 8y ago
It's not that black and white; but Wikipedia does note: """ In modern usage, the term engine typically describes devices, like steam engines and internal combustion engines, that burn or otherwise consume fuel """ Also, "electric motor" is definitely a lot more common than "electric engine": https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Electric%20engine,Electric%20motor https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Electric%2...
Uehreka 8y ago
This reminds me of how the switch to SSDs meant that we could no longer talk about our computers having a “Hard Drive” since that specifically referred to drives with spinning platters.
- spockz 8y ago
  I’ve heard the term “hard storage” being used more often. When using just “storage” lot of non-tech people get confused by ram or persistent storage.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kenward 8y ago

I agree. It is very clear that Tesla puts more effort into the software, electric motors, and battery tech compared to the "rest of the car". While there are some fine details (like the suspension) that others pointed out, the body panel gaps and the unusual service experience leave a lot to be desired for some people. Now whether these issues go unaddressed due to Tesla not having the proper resources or due to a conflict in priorities, either reason makes you wonder why Tesla is choosing to do it this way...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tatoalo 8y ago
I completely agree with the fact that Tesla is, at least IMHO, a software company first but on the body panel gaps I really think is a non-issue. I mean, it obviously is something that has to be improved but, for example, I’ve seen panel gaps with a 85k € new Audi Q5 MY18. It definitely wasn't an isolated issue since I’ve seen the same thing on at least other two same models around town but no one online or any media is shouting right and left about it...

vvanders 8y ago

Yup, this has happened on the S a few times. They quietly put out a new OTA which took ~24 hours to roll out across the fleet and it was sorted. Much different than Fiat/Jeep when they got owned via media console a ways back.

brokenmachine 8y ago
The fact they can "quietly put out a new OTA which took ~24 hours to roll out across the fleet" honestly scares the crap out of me. Call me a luddite, but in my opinion there are no compelling-enough reasons a car needs to be wirelessly networked at all, and I won't buy a car with those "features".
- vvanders 8y ago
  It's not quiet, there's a notice of an update and the release notes mention that it was for a security fix. You have the option of ignoring it if you want.
  - brokenmachine 8y ago
    Sure, but my malicious "two weeks from now, suddenly turn left if the car is traveling faster than 80kph" firmware will give the same message. I'm just not a fan of OTA updates for cars. Needing to have physical access raises the bar. Remote updates just increases the attack surface, and makes RCE possible - and RCE on an entire fleet of 2 ton vehicles that can go 200kph is a nightmare scenario. They could even use the gps in the car to target specific locations! I believe a state actor or motivated team would have the resources to make this possible, and it would kill more than 9/11. The poor country's cruise missile! I'd be OK with doing updates via usb or direct connection however. Honestly, it's a little worrying to me that a car would need updates so often.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

rofo1 8y ago

Well, not sure how much I agree with "good software" having read this: https://twitter.com/atomicthumbs/status/1032939617404645376 https://twitter.com/atomicthumbs/status/1032939617404645376 With some googling, you can find the original thread in Something Awful forums too. To say that I was surprised at some things doesn't even begin to do justice.