6 ms·

As I understand, The FSD package (and I guess the performance package too) is linked to the car, not your account. It doesn't follow you from car to car. Then

As I understand, The FSD package (and I guess the performance package too) is linked to the car, not your account. It doesn't follow you from car to car. Then, what is the justification of Telsa's " you did not pay for it" given to second hand owners as seen in this article? This is really disingenuous and in total contradiction with Musk's "your car is an appreciating asset".

malka 6y ago
> what is the justification of Telsa' [...] "fuck you, give us money".
- refurb 6y ago
  Sure. But isn't that every company that has every sold a product? I mean, they aren't giving it away.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    There is a belief running around that Tesla should act like a charity instead of a business while trying to claw its way up to a volume automaker. Software sales are high margin compared to physical auto sales. Tesla is free to do whatever is supported by contract law as it relates to software licensing, including stripping licenses off vehicles when transfers (like trade ins) done through Tesla (versus a private transfer). Disclosure: We own several Teslas.
    - kadoban 6y ago
      They don't need to act like a charity and nobody expects them to. They should decide if the features are a purchase or not, if they are why are they taking them back? If they're not, why are they selling them like purchases?
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        I don’t see anything in my purchase agreement that indicates you own it or can resell your Autopilot license. Agree the messaging could be improved.
        kadoban 6y ago
        Then they're selling features for tens of thousands of dollars and what are you buying? Do even they know? Sounds like they're deciding retroactively case-by-case what the original purchase meant.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        FpUser 6y ago
        Unless they explicitly tell that you do not own the opposite should be the default
        myko 6y ago
        When I bought Autopilot I asked about taking it to another Tesla if I bought one, and was told it belonged to the car. Meaning when I sell the vehicle I assumed I could advertise that I was selling Autopilot with it. Tesla is 100% in the wrong here.
        davidgould 6y ago
        They would be in the wrong if that is what they were doing, but it isn’t. If you sell your car to a private party it keeps all its options. If you sell it back to Tesla, ie trade in, they may add or subtract options before reselling it. That said, there have been some screwups, especially with third party dealers, leading to the current kerfluffle.
    - Jochim 6y ago
      I don't think this is specific to Tesla at all. I think it's more that people are waking up to the fact that they no longer own the things they buy. We've seen the same discussions take place recently around ebook and music libraries disappearing or being non-transferable. Personally I believe that the current licensing situation may be good for company profits, but presents a net negative for society. As a result I'm always happy when I see it being discussed rather than simply accepted as "the way things are".
      - olivermarks 6y ago
        Hopefully sooner or later there will be a consumer lawsuit with teeth contesting rentier corporate product lifecycle deaths/EOL feature or usability withdrawal.
    - Qwertious 6y ago
      Tesla is free to be as inconsistent as they want to be, and we are free to mock and criticise them for it.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - xnyan 6y ago
      >There is a belief running around that Tesla should act like a charity There is a belief that when you buy a car, features you paid for should not disappear for the sole purpose of ripping off customers. I don't accept that shit, and will never buy from companies with scammy practices like this >Tesla I wish it was just tesla. BMW does this too, and I'm sure there are other cars I will never buy for this reason. I don't really care, I have other choices.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > Tesla is free to do whatever is supported And the rest of society is free to use the legal system against Tesla, and to change laws so as to punish them specifically, or the court system. And I personal hope that such things could be applies retroactively.
  - rndgermandude 6y ago
    No, it isn't. There is a lot of shady tricks a lot of companies do (but not all of them), like planned obsolesce, but disabling features of a product retroactively and demanding you pay again to re-enable those features is not a common occurrence and even worse in my opinion. > I mean, they aren't giving it away. Tesla wants to get paid for the same thing more than once. If they made sure the customer knows from the get go that some of their features are really subscriptions to a service and not ownership, then OK, but that's not what they are doing.
- lenkite 6y ago
  The Tesla Tyranny. The Musk Mafia. The Enslaving Elon.
nefitty 6y ago
I was a little confused (haven’t read the article) by your comment, but it made more sense if I read it as a response to this other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24952161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24952161 Not sure if you meant to reply to that.
marcinzm 6y ago
As I understand it, if you buy a non-salvage used car from another individual then the package follows the car. If you buy a salvage car then the package does not follow it as the car is officially junk (it also loses warranty, etc). If you buy a used car from Tesla they will remove the package before sale. There's one case where Tesla apparently messed up and didn't remove the package from a car they re-sold until after sale. I can't find any other cases of that or removing packages during private sales. edit: This seems to be about Tesla discouraging salvage cars rather than private sales of non-salvage cars.
- busterarm 6y ago
  Telsa is junking out cars with minor fender damage and no frame/battery problems because they don't have the labor pool available to recertify their cars. The insurance companies would much prefer minor repairs than to write off the whole asset, but they can't get quality work done to the asset. This practice is driving up _everyone's_ insurance rates.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Why would it not just drive up Tesla owners’ insurance rates? I guess it might affect everyone if it increases liability costs in cases where the Tesla driver is not at fault, but I imagine that’s an extremely minor portion of expenses considering the tiny proportion of Tesla cars.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      Because all vehicles are getting more complicated with sensor recalibration requirements.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  I read in the past that Tesla does this also to normal used cars that weren't totaled and salvaged. Either way, you paid for it, and even it it's technically "totaled" it's still fucking yours. When Tesla disables functionality remotely, they don't say it's because the warranty ran out or because it's unsafe now, they say they are happy to re-enable it for fresh money. That's why I wouldn't buy a Tesla (or any car of a manufacturer pulling the same crap) now, and if I did already buy one, would be looking into filing a class action against the company, because remotely disabling features like that that you already paid for is fraud.
grecy 6y ago
On the lastest earnings call someone asked Musk if FSD could stay with the owner as they moved to new cars. He paused and thought about it and said "we'll look into it". So there's hope.
- ohgodplsno 6y ago
  "We'll look into it" is a corporate non-answer at best, and a no realistically.
  - dcow 6y ago
    If you’re following things, Tesla is considering a subscription version of FSD that would stay with the owner.

malka 6y ago

> what is the justification of Telsa' [...] "fuck you, give us money".

refurb 6y ago
Sure. But isn't that every company that has every sold a product? I mean, they aren't giving it away.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  There is a belief running around that Tesla should act like a charity instead of a business while trying to claw its way up to a volume automaker. Software sales are high margin compared to physical auto sales. Tesla is free to do whatever is supported by contract law as it relates to software licensing, including stripping licenses off vehicles when transfers (like trade ins) done through Tesla (versus a private transfer). Disclosure: We own several Teslas.
  - kadoban 6y ago
    They don't need to act like a charity and nobody expects them to. They should decide if the features are a purchase or not, if they are why are they taking them back? If they're not, why are they selling them like purchases?
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      I don’t see anything in my purchase agreement that indicates you own it or can resell your Autopilot license. Agree the messaging could be improved.
      - kadoban 6y ago
        Then they're selling features for tens of thousands of dollars and what are you buying? Do even they know? Sounds like they're deciding retroactively case-by-case what the original purchase meant.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - FpUser 6y ago
        Unless they explicitly tell that you do not own the opposite should be the default
      - myko 6y ago
        When I bought Autopilot I asked about taking it to another Tesla if I bought one, and was told it belonged to the car. Meaning when I sell the vehicle I assumed I could advertise that I was selling Autopilot with it. Tesla is 100% in the wrong here.
        davidgould 6y ago
        They would be in the wrong if that is what they were doing, but it isn’t. If you sell your car to a private party it keeps all its options. If you sell it back to Tesla, ie trade in, they may add or subtract options before reselling it. That said, there have been some screwups, especially with third party dealers, leading to the current kerfluffle.
  - Jochim 6y ago
    I don't think this is specific to Tesla at all. I think it's more that people are waking up to the fact that they no longer own the things they buy. We've seen the same discussions take place recently around ebook and music libraries disappearing or being non-transferable. Personally I believe that the current licensing situation may be good for company profits, but presents a net negative for society. As a result I'm always happy when I see it being discussed rather than simply accepted as "the way things are".
    - olivermarks 6y ago
      Hopefully sooner or later there will be a consumer lawsuit with teeth contesting rentier corporate product lifecycle deaths/EOL feature or usability withdrawal.
  - Qwertious 6y ago
    Tesla is free to be as inconsistent as they want to be, and we are free to mock and criticise them for it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - xnyan 6y ago
    >There is a belief running around that Tesla should act like a charity There is a belief that when you buy a car, features you paid for should not disappear for the sole purpose of ripping off customers. I don't accept that shit, and will never buy from companies with scammy practices like this >Tesla I wish it was just tesla. BMW does this too, and I'm sure there are other cars I will never buy for this reason. I don't really care, I have other choices.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Tesla is free to do whatever is supported And the rest of society is free to use the legal system against Tesla, and to change laws so as to punish them specifically, or the court system. And I personal hope that such things could be applies retroactively.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  No, it isn't. There is a lot of shady tricks a lot of companies do (but not all of them), like planned obsolesce, but disabling features of a product retroactively and demanding you pay again to re-enable those features is not a common occurrence and even worse in my opinion. > I mean, they aren't giving it away. Tesla wants to get paid for the same thing more than once. If they made sure the customer knows from the get go that some of their features are really subscriptions to a service and not ownership, then OK, but that's not what they are doing.
lenkite 6y ago
The Tesla Tyranny. The Musk Mafia. The Enslaving Elon.

nefitty 6y ago

I was a little confused (haven’t read the article) by your comment, but it made more sense if I read it as a response to this other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24952161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24952161 Not sure if you meant to reply to that.

marcinzm 6y ago

As I understand it, if you buy a non-salvage used car from another individual then the package follows the car. If you buy a salvage car then the package does not follow it as the car is officially junk (it also loses warranty, etc). If you buy a used car from Tesla they will remove the package before sale. There's one case where Tesla apparently messed up and didn't remove the package from a car they re-sold until after sale. I can't find any other cases of that or removing packages during private sales. edit: This seems to be about Tesla discouraging salvage cars rather than private sales of non-salvage cars.

busterarm 6y ago
Telsa is junking out cars with minor fender damage and no frame/battery problems because they don't have the labor pool available to recertify their cars. The insurance companies would much prefer minor repairs than to write off the whole asset, but they can't get quality work done to the asset. This practice is driving up _everyone's_ insurance rates.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Why would it not just drive up Tesla owners’ insurance rates? I guess it might affect everyone if it increases liability costs in cases where the Tesla driver is not at fault, but I imagine that’s an extremely minor portion of expenses considering the tiny proportion of Tesla cars.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Because all vehicles are getting more complicated with sensor recalibration requirements.
rndgermandude 6y ago
I read in the past that Tesla does this also to normal used cars that weren't totaled and salvaged. Either way, you paid for it, and even it it's technically "totaled" it's still fucking yours. When Tesla disables functionality remotely, they don't say it's because the warranty ran out or because it's unsafe now, they say they are happy to re-enable it for fresh money. That's why I wouldn't buy a Tesla (or any car of a manufacturer pulling the same crap) now, and if I did already buy one, would be looking into filing a class action against the company, because remotely disabling features like that that you already paid for is fraud.

grecy 6y ago

On the lastest earnings call someone asked Musk if FSD could stay with the owner as they moved to new cars. He paused and thought about it and said "we'll look into it". So there's hope.

ohgodplsno 6y ago
"We'll look into it" is a corporate non-answer at best, and a no realistically.
- dcow 6y ago
  If you’re following things, Tesla is considering a subscription version of FSD that would stay with the owner.