3 ms·

But the software was never paid for. It was only enabled in the first place by accident. If you don't have a software license, should you be able to use their

But the software was never paid for. It was only enabled in the first place by accident. If you don't have a software license, should you be able to use their software? I agree you should be able to hack the car, write your own autopilot, or whatever, but I don't think you're entitled to someone else's software just because it exists. Perhaps Tesla should eat the loss because this was their mistake, but this is not what is being discussed in this thread.

overgard 7y ago
Well, it is whats being discussed. They should eat the loss. I cant imagine the couple thousand dollars is worth the bad PR
- kjaftaedi 7y ago
  You misunderstand.. people like my parent are saying "if i bought it it should be mine" .. except they are discussing something that was never purchased. If you scroll this thread, it's abundantly clear that many people are not reading the article and drawing their own conclusions based on the headline.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Based on my reading of the article, the customer bought the feature. Tesla didn't mean to sell them the feature, but they did. If there's another way of looking at this, I don't personally see it in the article text. > When the dealer bought the car at auction from Tesla on November 15, it was optioned with both Enhanced Autopilot and Tesla’s confusingly-named Full Self Driving Capability; together, these options totaled $8,000. You can see them right on the Monroney sticker for the car: To me, that reads as Tesla accidentally selling something that they didn't mean to sell, at a price they didn't mean to offer. But that doesn't change anything from the customer's point of view. The customer/dealer bought the addon package that was advertised by Tesla itself as included with the car. A company shouldn't be able to sell me a device with features advertised as enabled, and then after the purchase is over retroactively decide, "we didn't mean to do that, so let's just pretend we didn't." What they're doing here is trying to retroactively alter part of the transaction, which is crazy. It's the corporate equivalent of me buying a car for $30,000, and then issuing a chargeback a month later because "that was an accident, I only meant to offer you $22,000. So let's pretend that you accepted that." Edit: reading more comments, I'm seeing people say that Monroney stickers aren't applicable to used cars? Is the argument that the sticker on the car shouldn't be taken as advertised features? But even then -- wouldn't Tesla be required to tell the dealer what features the car actually had?
syshum 7y ago
They way I understand it is this 1. Original Owner bought the feature 2. Original Owner traded in the car to Tesla 3. The used car dealer bought the used car @ auction from Tesla but did not "rebuy" the feature 4. Tesla screwed up by not "disabling" the feature before attempting to double-dip and recharge the dealer for something the original owner bought 5. a few days after the sale tesla did an audit and found they did not get their double-dip extortion fee and disabled the feature 6. the dealer sold the car thinking it was just a glitch 7. new owner not happy
- larrik 7y ago
  More importantly: 4.5 > Tesla provides dealer with description of car including said features!
thomaskcr 7y ago
It was on the Monroney label so it's part of the car. How bad Tesla is at keeping track of what is paid for or not is irrelevant.
zyx321 7y ago
>but I don't think you're entitled to someone else's software just because it exists. I think differently. IF I buy (A) in good faith (B) a perpetual license (C) manifested by the rights holder into physical media, THEN I am in fact entitled to it.

overgard 7y ago

Well, it is whats being discussed. They should eat the loss. I cant imagine the couple thousand dollars is worth the bad PR

kjaftaedi 7y ago
You misunderstand.. people like my parent are saying "if i bought it it should be mine" .. except they are discussing something that was never purchased. If you scroll this thread, it's abundantly clear that many people are not reading the article and drawing their own conclusions based on the headline.
- danShumway 7y ago
  Based on my reading of the article, the customer bought the feature. Tesla didn't mean to sell them the feature, but they did. If there's another way of looking at this, I don't personally see it in the article text. > When the dealer bought the car at auction from Tesla on November 15, it was optioned with both Enhanced Autopilot and Tesla’s confusingly-named Full Self Driving Capability; together, these options totaled $8,000. You can see them right on the Monroney sticker for the car: To me, that reads as Tesla accidentally selling something that they didn't mean to sell, at a price they didn't mean to offer. But that doesn't change anything from the customer's point of view. The customer/dealer bought the addon package that was advertised by Tesla itself as included with the car. A company shouldn't be able to sell me a device with features advertised as enabled, and then after the purchase is over retroactively decide, "we didn't mean to do that, so let's just pretend we didn't." What they're doing here is trying to retroactively alter part of the transaction, which is crazy. It's the corporate equivalent of me buying a car for $30,000, and then issuing a chargeback a month later because "that was an accident, I only meant to offer you $22,000. So let's pretend that you accepted that." Edit: reading more comments, I'm seeing people say that Monroney stickers aren't applicable to used cars? Is the argument that the sticker on the car shouldn't be taken as advertised features? But even then -- wouldn't Tesla be required to tell the dealer what features the car actually had?

syshum 7y ago

They way I understand it is this 1. Original Owner bought the feature 2. Original Owner traded in the car to Tesla 3. The used car dealer bought the used car @ auction from Tesla but did not "rebuy" the feature 4. Tesla screwed up by not "disabling" the feature before attempting to double-dip and recharge the dealer for something the original owner bought 5. a few days after the sale tesla did an audit and found they did not get their double-dip extortion fee and disabled the feature 6. the dealer sold the car thinking it was just a glitch 7. new owner not happy

larrik 7y ago
More importantly: 4.5 > Tesla provides dealer with description of car including said features!

thomaskcr 7y ago

It was on the Monroney label so it's part of the car. How bad Tesla is at keeping track of what is paid for or not is irrelevant.

zyx321 7y ago

>but I don't think you're entitled to someone else's software just because it exists. I think differently. IF I buy (A) in good faith (B) a perpetual license (C) manifested by the rights holder into physical media, THEN I am in fact entitled to it.