8 ms·

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that you can pay so much for an object and you essentially don't truly own it and can't do whatever you want with it without i

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that you can pay so much for an object and you essentially don't truly own it and can't do whatever you want with it without it phoning home and asking permission from its true owners who can capriciously brick your device for any reason they want.

Drdrdrq 7y ago
This is the sole reason why I would never think about "owning" (if you can call it that) a Tesla.
- naikrovek 7y ago
  Do you think you "own" the car you drive now? You don't. Not since cars came with any computers at all has anyone fully owned their vehicle. I don't see a problem with this, in most cases, and I only sort of understand why people get upset about it. It's simple and easy (and fully legal in most states) to just design and build your own vehicle to your own specifications, provided you meet minimum requirements regarding road worthiness. You certainly can truly own your own commercially available car if you're willing to hire a lawyer, negotiate, and pay for a license that includes whatever it is that crosses the threshold into whatever a given person considers true ownership. And I can tell you immediately that this license will cost you at least 50 times the list price of that vehicle, will not be a transferable license, and you will not be allowed to sublicense it. It's not that you can't own your car, it's that no one is willing to pay for true ownership, because it is entirely impractical and unimportant to fully own a car in today's world.
  - thatcat 7y ago
    An ECU is not typically remotely controlled and updated. You can also replace an ECU, to one with more control so that you can fine tune performance. For cars that do have that feature, I doubt hiring lawyers will change anything. No one is obligated to sell you anything.
    - naikrovek 7y ago
      You can't adjust it. If you can, you can't see the code, you can only modify data already compiled in.
      - thatcat 7y ago
        Yea maybe you're right and you can only partially modify it.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - arthur_pryor 7y ago
        hearsay from my car enthusiast friends and this cursory internet search contradict that claim. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=modify+ECU&t=ffab&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=modify+ECU&t=ffab&ia=web
      - freeone3000 7y ago
        You can swap out the entire thing if you want and do a reflash. It's not a beginner job but it's also not impossible, or illegal (if it still meets emissions, but that's on you)
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        You can replace the entire thing with a compatible and programmable module, if people care enough to develop one. There are now cars from the 80s that are modern enough to have computers, but old enough that the ECUs are starting to deteriorate, and still appreciated enough that people repair or replace them. Example: (not an endorsement and I have no experience with this product) http://roguetuning.com/rogue_tuning_ecu http://roguetuning.com/rogue_tuning_ecu
  - arthur_pryor 7y ago
    that is one point of view. another point of view is that freedom to tinker and repair shouldn't be limited to the super-rich, and that what you're describing isn't practical for the vast majority of the population. i have exactly zero problems with society collectively pushing for the right to repair against greedy companies who'd rather not give it. which is to say, we should legislate a strong right to repair, so that denying it is clearly illegal, so that we can take companies to task using something other than the invisible hand of the market.
  - userbinator 7y ago
    I happen to own a car without any computer control, and for which the parts for the engine and drivetrain are cheap and readily available with a large aftermarket that's existed for many decades. It might not be the safest nor very environmentally friendly, but to me the ease of repair, simplicity, and freedom are what lead me to make that choice. If EVs were as "ownable" and came without the privacy-invading phone-home spyware as well as had a more sensible UI, I'd consider getting one for trips around town. Another comment here compared Tesla to Apple, and I think that's a great comparison. I wonder if there's a strong correlation between users who love/hate Apple products and the same opinions of Tesla?
    - misterprime 7y ago
      Can I ask which car that is?
      - userbinator 7y ago
        72 Caprice, mild tune 400, 700R4 semi-automatic valvebody.
falcolas 7y ago
Based off their actions in the past, Tesla will do as much as they legally can to avoid bad press due to accidents in a Tesla. And if you are in a publicly covered accident, you can be sure that data will be used against you in the court of public opinion (see "he took his hands off the wheel prior to the accident" comment from Tesla about the gore-impact fatality).
- toomuchequate 7y ago
  That is the PR reason. The real reason is aftermarket changes/repairs/services. Tesla wants 100% of that business, reminds me of Apple.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    They can have more than one business reason. And the PR side of things has been critical of late.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    They both have the same schtick - create a walled garden then restrict access. It results in predictable outcomes: * products that are beautiful and in some ways without peer * key parts/issues are only addressable through their service channel * exclusivity of membership for better/worse. * higher profit margins and healthy overall profit despite lower market share
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    Your Apple will still turn on if you create a Franken-book (as long as you can get drivers). They won’t sell you spare parts, but if you find some, you’re ok. This does prop up resale values to some degree (for parts donors). Although Apple is going down the Tesla road slowly (the fingerprint reader is married to the logic board on newer models).
- c0vfefe 7y ago
  I'm glad for the sake of the future of electric vehicles that Tesla is retaining so much control, but as a customer/user I'd rather wait until more open options can come down the path Tesla's blazing.
avgDev 7y ago
Read about new farming equipment. In US there are hackers who are hacking farming equipment, so farmers can do their own repairs. This is basically where car manufacturers will eventually try to go and it is kinda what Tesla does.
- Phillipharryt 7y ago
  Just going to hop in and give a bit more information regarding this situation. I assume you're referring to John Deere and their attempts to stop anyone accessing the software on their machinery. The situation is complicated because John Deere leases out a lot of their equipment in a financial lease (they do operating leases too but they're not affected by this). In this sort of lease the ownership is technically with the lessee. So I can see the reason John Deere wants to stop people who legally own their tractor from tampering with software. It's still a lease and at the end of it John Deere might get back a working tractor (depending on the life of the lease), so they don't want it to have been used in any way that could damage it. It's a legal protection and I don't think it's as malicious as every journalist and commenter tries to say it is. If you look into their financials you'll see they have 10s of billions of dollars in machinery out that is leased out, they're just trying to protect it.
  - arthur_pryor 7y ago
    presumably they have to do some refurbishing and rehab when they get it back anyway. why not re-flash all the software then? or, somewhat more draconian, add in explicit penalties for people who tamper with leased vehicles, with a contract clause to that effect? i mean, i don't doubt that the concern you mention might be part of it. but it sure is also a convenient way to lock people out of servicing their own stuff. and i doubt they're eager to give people the ability to service their own equipment without a strong public demand for that ability. so the public should keep demanding that (as opposed to relying on the altruism of a large corporation).

Drdrdrq 7y ago

This is the sole reason why I would never think about "owning" (if you can call it that) a Tesla.

naikrovek 7y ago
Do you think you "own" the car you drive now? You don't. Not since cars came with any computers at all has anyone fully owned their vehicle. I don't see a problem with this, in most cases, and I only sort of understand why people get upset about it. It's simple and easy (and fully legal in most states) to just design and build your own vehicle to your own specifications, provided you meet minimum requirements regarding road worthiness. You certainly can truly own your own commercially available car if you're willing to hire a lawyer, negotiate, and pay for a license that includes whatever it is that crosses the threshold into whatever a given person considers true ownership. And I can tell you immediately that this license will cost you at least 50 times the list price of that vehicle, will not be a transferable license, and you will not be allowed to sublicense it. It's not that you can't own your car, it's that no one is willing to pay for true ownership, because it is entirely impractical and unimportant to fully own a car in today's world.
- thatcat 7y ago
  An ECU is not typically remotely controlled and updated. You can also replace an ECU, to one with more control so that you can fine tune performance. For cars that do have that feature, I doubt hiring lawyers will change anything. No one is obligated to sell you anything.
  - naikrovek 7y ago
    You can't adjust it. If you can, you can't see the code, you can only modify data already compiled in.
    - thatcat 7y ago
      Yea maybe you're right and you can only partially modify it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - arthur_pryor 7y ago
      hearsay from my car enthusiast friends and this cursory internet search contradict that claim. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=modify+ECU&t=ffab&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=modify+ECU&t=ffab&ia=web
    - freeone3000 7y ago
      You can swap out the entire thing if you want and do a reflash. It's not a beginner job but it's also not impossible, or illegal (if it still meets emissions, but that's on you)
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      You can replace the entire thing with a compatible and programmable module, if people care enough to develop one. There are now cars from the 80s that are modern enough to have computers, but old enough that the ECUs are starting to deteriorate, and still appreciated enough that people repair or replace them. Example: (not an endorsement and I have no experience with this product) http://roguetuning.com/rogue_tuning_ecu http://roguetuning.com/rogue_tuning_ecu
- arthur_pryor 7y ago
  that is one point of view. another point of view is that freedom to tinker and repair shouldn't be limited to the super-rich, and that what you're describing isn't practical for the vast majority of the population. i have exactly zero problems with society collectively pushing for the right to repair against greedy companies who'd rather not give it. which is to say, we should legislate a strong right to repair, so that denying it is clearly illegal, so that we can take companies to task using something other than the invisible hand of the market.
- userbinator 7y ago
  I happen to own a car without any computer control, and for which the parts for the engine and drivetrain are cheap and readily available with a large aftermarket that's existed for many decades. It might not be the safest nor very environmentally friendly, but to me the ease of repair, simplicity, and freedom are what lead me to make that choice. If EVs were as "ownable" and came without the privacy-invading phone-home spyware as well as had a more sensible UI, I'd consider getting one for trips around town. Another comment here compared Tesla to Apple, and I think that's a great comparison. I wonder if there's a strong correlation between users who love/hate Apple products and the same opinions of Tesla?
  - misterprime 7y ago
    Can I ask which car that is?
    - userbinator 7y ago
      72 Caprice, mild tune 400, 700R4 semi-automatic valvebody.

falcolas 7y ago

Based off their actions in the past, Tesla will do as much as they legally can to avoid bad press due to accidents in a Tesla. And if you are in a publicly covered accident, you can be sure that data will be used against you in the court of public opinion (see "he took his hands off the wheel prior to the accident" comment from Tesla about the gore-impact fatality).

toomuchequate 7y ago
That is the PR reason. The real reason is aftermarket changes/repairs/services. Tesla wants 100% of that business, reminds me of Apple.
- falcolas 7y ago
  They can have more than one business reason. And the PR side of things has been critical of late.
- r00fus 7y ago
  They both have the same schtick - create a walled garden then restrict access. It results in predictable outcomes: * products that are beautiful and in some ways without peer * key parts/issues are only addressable through their service channel * exclusivity of membership for better/worse. * higher profit margins and healthy overall profit despite lower market share
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  Your Apple will still turn on if you create a Franken-book (as long as you can get drivers). They won’t sell you spare parts, but if you find some, you’re ok. This does prop up resale values to some degree (for parts donors). Although Apple is going down the Tesla road slowly (the fingerprint reader is married to the logic board on newer models).
c0vfefe 7y ago
I'm glad for the sake of the future of electric vehicles that Tesla is retaining so much control, but as a customer/user I'd rather wait until more open options can come down the path Tesla's blazing.

avgDev 7y ago

Read about new farming equipment. In US there are hackers who are hacking farming equipment, so farmers can do their own repairs. This is basically where car manufacturers will eventually try to go and it is kinda what Tesla does.

Phillipharryt 7y ago
Just going to hop in and give a bit more information regarding this situation. I assume you're referring to John Deere and their attempts to stop anyone accessing the software on their machinery. The situation is complicated because John Deere leases out a lot of their equipment in a financial lease (they do operating leases too but they're not affected by this). In this sort of lease the ownership is technically with the lessee. So I can see the reason John Deere wants to stop people who legally own their tractor from tampering with software. It's still a lease and at the end of it John Deere might get back a working tractor (depending on the life of the lease), so they don't want it to have been used in any way that could damage it. It's a legal protection and I don't think it's as malicious as every journalist and commenter tries to say it is. If you look into their financials you'll see they have 10s of billions of dollars in machinery out that is leased out, they're just trying to protect it.
- arthur_pryor 7y ago
  presumably they have to do some refurbishing and rehab when they get it back anyway. why not re-flash all the software then? or, somewhat more draconian, add in explicit penalties for people who tamper with leased vehicles, with a contract clause to that effect? i mean, i don't doubt that the concern you mention might be part of it. but it sure is also a convenient way to lock people out of servicing their own stuff. and i doubt they're eager to give people the ability to service their own equipment without a strong public demand for that ability. so the public should keep demanding that (as opposed to relying on the altruism of a large corporation).