4 ms·

Tesla seems to have admitted that they removed this feature when they weren't the owner, according to the picture of the in the invoice that says AP was removed

Tesla seems to have admitted that they removed this feature when they weren't the owner, according to the picture of the in the invoice that says AP was removed on Nov 18, after Tesla had sold the car (on Nov 15). I imagine their actions were based on the idea that AP is software and not included in the sale of the car. That's how computers are sold, but it is tremendously surprising for a car and a dangerous precedent. A modern car (especially a Tesla) is driven by software. If used car buyers don't own the software in the car, do they even own the firmware that drives the car?

URSpider94 7y ago
You are correct. I should have said Tesla INTENDED to remove the feature while they were in possession. Perhaps they removed it on paper, but didn’t go through the step of removing it via a SW update. More to the point, they don’t arbitrarily yank features off of cars in the field, though of course they have the ability via SW update to do so - they could lock me out of my car right now if they wanted to, or set the stereo to play Baby Shark on repeat at max volume and disable the volume controls. All possible. The point remains, if they intended to remove it, and notified the purchaser that the car didn’t have the feature, then I would side with Tesla, though it’s indeed very sloppy. Again - it would be as if I moved into a house and the lawn guy kept coming for two months because the previous owner forgot to cancel the service. On the other hand, if the car was represented to the first buyer (the dealer) as having FSD, then Tesla is on the hook. I’m sure the lawyers will figure it out ...
- leereeves 7y ago
  > and notified the purchaser that the car didn’t have the feature If you mean before the sale, then I agree. If they clearly told the buyer in advance that FSD wasn't included (despite the sticker saying otherwise), then not actually disabling it until a few days later isn't an issue. But if there were evidence of that, I think Tesla would have responded. I'm sure a few people there read Hacker News. And I fear the only thing the lawyers will sort out is who has more money to pay lawyers.

URSpider94 7y ago

You are correct. I should have said Tesla INTENDED to remove the feature while they were in possession. Perhaps they removed it on paper, but didn’t go through the step of removing it via a SW update. More to the point, they don’t arbitrarily yank features off of cars in the field, though of course they have the ability via SW update to do so - they could lock me out of my car right now if they wanted to, or set the stereo to play Baby Shark on repeat at max volume and disable the volume controls. All possible. The point remains, if they intended to remove it, and notified the purchaser that the car didn’t have the feature, then I would side with Tesla, though it’s indeed very sloppy. Again - it would be as if I moved into a house and the lawn guy kept coming for two months because the previous owner forgot to cancel the service. On the other hand, if the car was represented to the first buyer (the dealer) as having FSD, then Tesla is on the hook. I’m sure the lawyers will figure it out ...

leereeves 7y ago
> and notified the purchaser that the car didn’t have the feature If you mean before the sale, then I agree. If they clearly told the buyer in advance that FSD wasn't included (despite the sticker saying otherwise), then not actually disabling it until a few days later isn't an issue. But if there were evidence of that, I think Tesla would have responded. I'm sure a few people there read Hacker News. And I fear the only thing the lawyers will sort out is who has more money to pay lawyers.