6 ms·

How can the extended range be controlled by a software feature? For me it is seems deeply unethical to limit the how long a mechanical device can operate via so

How can the extended range be controlled by a software feature? For me it is seems deeply unethical to limit the how long a mechanical device can operate via software. Imagine a printer that had a software limit of only printing 5 pages at a time.

tntn 7y ago
What do you find deeply unethical about it? I don't care how it's implemented - if it works as advertised and I decide to buy it for a given cost, seems like an ok deal. Said printer would not be good, I would not buy it. EDIT: FWIW, there is a metric ton of software and firmware that is crucial to achieve the advertised range. So if it makes you feel better you can think of it as not the mechanical product operating differently, just the software product.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  It’s at the very least unethical in the environmental sense of wasting natural resources on physical objects that can’t be used and are wasted because of contractual terms. It’s also unethical if you believe in a “right to repair” because it creates financial incentives for the enforcement of laws and contracts that make “right to repair” impossible.
  - jzoch 7y ago
    keeping "repair" well-scoped is important in maintaining the right and saying Tesla is in the wrong here seems silly. You aren't repairing your car if you enable features you didnt pay for. You should gladly by this product thats artificially limited since the cost to enable that new feature is theoretically lower and faster with less chance of things going wrong. They are able to offer you a better product with more price points by engaging in software-gating. If they did not do this it would be difficult to maintain so many different SKU's and youd wait longer to get your car. Servicing it would be more work and youd be less satisfied.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      The point is that this "feature" is impossible unless you prevent the user from being able to service their machine fully.
    - heelix 7y ago
      Most folks on this thread are focused on the disabled features, but Tesla goes out of its way to prevent salvage of damaged vehicles. It does mean 'potentially poorly restored' cars are mostly nonexistent, but the day to day insurance is much more. (Looked at this for a project car once, and ye gods, what a mess)
- xienze 7y ago
  > FWIW, there is a metric ton of software and firmware that is crucial to achieve the advertised range. I think what rubs people the wrong was is that _most people_ would assume there is a higher capacity battery in the extended range version as compared to the standard range version. That's the expensive part here, the battery. It would make sense to have to spend more money to get a bigger battery. But to find out that both models have the same battery and there's just a damn software lock differentiating the two? Come on.
  - sliken 7y ago
    Generally a larger battery with the same load will last longer. So a 200 mile range on a 240 mile battery with software limits would last longer than an actual 200 mile battery.
Someone1234 7y ago
> Imagine a printer that had a software limit of only printing 5 pages at a time. Most inject printers have exactly that. There's a chip on the ink cartridge which tells the printer how much it can print, the printer then decrements it as prints occur until it reaches 0. Often ink cartridges will be 1/3 full and refuse to print because they're "empty." You used to be able to bypass this by blocking a contact point on the chip, but no longer.
rando444 7y ago
Without knowing the details and assuming it's not smoke and mirrors, 'extended range' implies that something extra is happening to get the car further. Otherwise it would just be the vehicle's normal driving range.
kjksf 7y ago
The customer got exactly what he paid for. In your hypothetical, you had a choice between buying a printer with unlimited concurrent printing and a cheaper printer that only prints 5 pages at a time. You did your homework and decided to buy the cheaper one. Where's the un-ethical part?
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
  What should happen if the car owner modifies their firmware to enable heated seats and a longer vehicle range? After all, it’s their property to do with as they like - otherwise they’re just renting. Then what should happen if they tell others how to perform the same modification? What then, if everyone starts buying the cheaper SKU because they knew they can do a soft-unlock soon after they accept delivery? It just seems scummy to sell the same hardware to people at different price-points and enable/disable functionality purely in software - because the hardware is yours - you paid for it - the only reason you can’t use it to it’s fullest extent is a bunch of bits in a flash chip inside your car. The fact it was willingly sold to you at a lower means it’s very likely anything else paid on-top is just pure-profit. It’s difficult to morally justify withholding heated seats to a buyer (esp. one in a cold climate) simply because they didn’t give you more profit even though you willingly sold them the hardware capable of doing that. It’s just about disrespecting the customer, plain and simple.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    > It’s difficult to morally justify withholding heated seats to a buyer (esp. one in a cold climate) simply because they didn’t give you more profit even though you willingly sold them the hardware capable of doing that. This is exactly right. To flip the “you got what you paid for” argument on its head, the manufacturer willingly sold me this hardware at the agreed-upon price and shouldn’t complain if I enable “extra” functionality using non-manufacturer-approves means. Unfortunately, companies that engage in this business practice want it both ways.
    - kjksf 7y ago
      To my knowledge, this hasn't happened with Tesla cars and therefore Tesla didn't complain and therefore you can't claim that Tesla "wants it both ways".
userbinator 7y ago
Even with internal combustion engines, the power output is often limited in software (and the more expensive option with e.g. +50HP may be mechanically the same, just with a different software on the ECU.) They can have very fine-grained control over things like emissions (see the whole VW fiasco for example), and even limit how much time the engine can run at its maximum power in order to market bigger "peak" numbers (do you really think the majority of passenger cars can run their engines at full power continuously?) All that is partly why I drive a car without any software control --- it's not really environmentally friendly, but I enjoy knowing that there's no "hidden gremlin" that will disobey me, no DMCA-ish laws to worry about, and the freedom of having complete ownership. ...and I consider the power/torque, (real) sound, and cheap parts to be a side-benefit.
sliken 7y ago
I get that resources shouldn't be wasted. But if it's better for the company (more profit), better for the consumer (cheaper prices), and better for the environment (less pollution, waste, carbon emissions etc)... why not?
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  It's in no way better for the environment to manufacture batteries that will never be used due to software limitations, and it is in no way better for the consumer to be hauling around hundreds of pounds of battery that they aren't using (and paying electricity costs for). Which leaves us with just "it's better for the company (more profit)".
  - sliken 7y ago
    Actually that's not true. A larger battery with the same load will last longer. So the car's battery will age better than a smaller one would. There is a weight penalty of course, but it's still crazy more efficient than a internal combustion engine. Generally the world is a better place if someone buys a $30k Telsa than a $30k internal combustion engine. The cheaper Tesla wouldn't be possible with these kinds of cost optimizations.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      > but it's still crazy more efficient than a internal combustion engine. The alternative in this situation isn't an ICE, it's the non-limited Tesla. And in your argument, those other drivers should be pissed off, because you're saying they're getting worse value for money with less lifetime, for more cost.
      - sliken 7y ago
        The non-limited tesla is available... just pay more. At $30k it's the limited tesla (with rebate) or an ICE. Both the limited and unlimited tesla owners get a benefit. Higher volumes and more cars to amortize R&D over. I don't get your point though. The limited range version still gets the promised range, even though the car is heavier. The unlimited range car gets more for the money because tesla can sell a higher volume of cars, which makes it possible for tesla to sell at such low price points.
paxys 7y ago
Why is it unethical if you got exactly what you paid for?

tntn 7y ago

What do you find deeply unethical about it? I don't care how it's implemented - if it works as advertised and I decide to buy it for a given cost, seems like an ok deal. Said printer would not be good, I would not buy it. EDIT: FWIW, there is a metric ton of software and firmware that is crucial to achieve the advertised range. So if it makes you feel better you can think of it as not the mechanical product operating differently, just the software product.

AlexandrB 7y ago
It’s at the very least unethical in the environmental sense of wasting natural resources on physical objects that can’t be used and are wasted because of contractual terms. It’s also unethical if you believe in a “right to repair” because it creates financial incentives for the enforcement of laws and contracts that make “right to repair” impossible.
- jzoch 7y ago
  keeping "repair" well-scoped is important in maintaining the right and saying Tesla is in the wrong here seems silly. You aren't repairing your car if you enable features you didnt pay for. You should gladly by this product thats artificially limited since the cost to enable that new feature is theoretically lower and faster with less chance of things going wrong. They are able to offer you a better product with more price points by engaging in software-gating. If they did not do this it would be difficult to maintain so many different SKU's and youd wait longer to get your car. Servicing it would be more work and youd be less satisfied.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    The point is that this "feature" is impossible unless you prevent the user from being able to service their machine fully.
  - heelix 7y ago
    Most folks on this thread are focused on the disabled features, but Tesla goes out of its way to prevent salvage of damaged vehicles. It does mean 'potentially poorly restored' cars are mostly nonexistent, but the day to day insurance is much more. (Looked at this for a project car once, and ye gods, what a mess)
xienze 7y ago
> FWIW, there is a metric ton of software and firmware that is crucial to achieve the advertised range. I think what rubs people the wrong was is that _most people_ would assume there is a higher capacity battery in the extended range version as compared to the standard range version. That's the expensive part here, the battery. It would make sense to have to spend more money to get a bigger battery. But to find out that both models have the same battery and there's just a damn software lock differentiating the two? Come on.
- sliken 7y ago
  Generally a larger battery with the same load will last longer. So a 200 mile range on a 240 mile battery with software limits would last longer than an actual 200 mile battery.

Someone1234 7y ago

> Imagine a printer that had a software limit of only printing 5 pages at a time. Most inject printers have exactly that. There's a chip on the ink cartridge which tells the printer how much it can print, the printer then decrements it as prints occur until it reaches 0. Often ink cartridges will be 1/3 full and refuse to print because they're "empty." You used to be able to bypass this by blocking a contact point on the chip, but no longer.

rando444 7y ago

Without knowing the details and assuming it's not smoke and mirrors, 'extended range' implies that something extra is happening to get the car further. Otherwise it would just be the vehicle's normal driving range.

kjksf 7y ago

The customer got exactly what he paid for. In your hypothetical, you had a choice between buying a printer with unlimited concurrent printing and a cheaper printer that only prints 5 pages at a time. You did your homework and decided to buy the cheaper one. Where's the un-ethical part?

DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
What should happen if the car owner modifies their firmware to enable heated seats and a longer vehicle range? After all, it’s their property to do with as they like - otherwise they’re just renting. Then what should happen if they tell others how to perform the same modification? What then, if everyone starts buying the cheaper SKU because they knew they can do a soft-unlock soon after they accept delivery? It just seems scummy to sell the same hardware to people at different price-points and enable/disable functionality purely in software - because the hardware is yours - you paid for it - the only reason you can’t use it to it’s fullest extent is a bunch of bits in a flash chip inside your car. The fact it was willingly sold to you at a lower means it’s very likely anything else paid on-top is just pure-profit. It’s difficult to morally justify withholding heated seats to a buyer (esp. one in a cold climate) simply because they didn’t give you more profit even though you willingly sold them the hardware capable of doing that. It’s just about disrespecting the customer, plain and simple.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  > It’s difficult to morally justify withholding heated seats to a buyer (esp. one in a cold climate) simply because they didn’t give you more profit even though you willingly sold them the hardware capable of doing that. This is exactly right. To flip the “you got what you paid for” argument on its head, the manufacturer willingly sold me this hardware at the agreed-upon price and shouldn’t complain if I enable “extra” functionality using non-manufacturer-approves means. Unfortunately, companies that engage in this business practice want it both ways.
  - kjksf 7y ago
    To my knowledge, this hasn't happened with Tesla cars and therefore Tesla didn't complain and therefore you can't claim that Tesla "wants it both ways".

userbinator 7y ago

Even with internal combustion engines, the power output is often limited in software (and the more expensive option with e.g. +50HP may be mechanically the same, just with a different software on the ECU.) They can have very fine-grained control over things like emissions (see the whole VW fiasco for example), and even limit how much time the engine can run at its maximum power in order to market bigger "peak" numbers (do you really think the majority of passenger cars can run their engines at full power continuously?) All that is partly why I drive a car without any software control --- it's not really environmentally friendly, but I enjoy knowing that there's no "hidden gremlin" that will disobey me, no DMCA-ish laws to worry about, and the freedom of having complete ownership. ...and I consider the power/torque, (real) sound, and cheap parts to be a side-benefit.

sliken 7y ago

I get that resources shouldn't be wasted. But if it's better for the company (more profit), better for the consumer (cheaper prices), and better for the environment (less pollution, waste, carbon emissions etc)... why not?

FireBeyond 7y ago
It's in no way better for the environment to manufacture batteries that will never be used due to software limitations, and it is in no way better for the consumer to be hauling around hundreds of pounds of battery that they aren't using (and paying electricity costs for). Which leaves us with just "it's better for the company (more profit)".
- sliken 7y ago
  Actually that's not true. A larger battery with the same load will last longer. So the car's battery will age better than a smaller one would. There is a weight penalty of course, but it's still crazy more efficient than a internal combustion engine. Generally the world is a better place if someone buys a $30k Telsa than a $30k internal combustion engine. The cheaper Tesla wouldn't be possible with these kinds of cost optimizations.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > but it's still crazy more efficient than a internal combustion engine. The alternative in this situation isn't an ICE, it's the non-limited Tesla. And in your argument, those other drivers should be pissed off, because you're saying they're getting worse value for money with less lifetime, for more cost.
    - sliken 7y ago
      The non-limited tesla is available... just pay more. At $30k it's the limited tesla (with rebate) or an ICE. Both the limited and unlimited tesla owners get a benefit. Higher volumes and more cars to amortize R&D over. I don't get your point though. The limited range version still gets the promised range, even though the car is heavier. The unlimited range car gets more for the money because tesla can sell a higher volume of cars, which makes it possible for tesla to sell at such low price points.

paxys 7y ago

Why is it unethical if you got exactly what you paid for?