3 ms·

Tesla's response is ridiculous. "Now they are claiming that the eMMC chip, ball-grid soldered to the motherboard, inaccessible without disassembling the dash,

Tesla's response is ridiculous. "Now they are claiming that the eMMC chip, ball-grid soldered to the motherboard, inaccessible without disassembling the dash, and not specifically mentioned in the owner’s manual, should be considered a “wear item”, and thus should not be subject to such scrutiny."

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Tesla's response is of course self serving. It should be expected from their legal department as a cost control measure. You cannot expect corporations to act benevolently or morally, hence the need for legislation (right to repair, warranty periods set by statute as is done in the EU) and regulation (NHTSA forced Tesla's hand to issue a recall, which they were strongly attempting to avoid). Usual disclosures: We own Teslas and TSLA.
- ska 6y ago
  > You cannot expect corporations to act benevolently or morally You absolutely can and should expect good behavior of corporations. You can't rely only on that expectation so agree if it's important, legislate it.
  - ouid 6y ago
    You absolutely can't and shouldn't expect this. Corporations are your adversary.
    - salawat 6y ago
      Corporation are tools wielded by committees of people. If you don't like the outcome, change the people.
      - vkou 6y ago
        You can't change the people owning or running a corporation, but you can change the rules they operate under. In this case, though, I don't think the rules should be changed. I'm fairly certain that Tesla is not the first automaker to have come up with this kind of money-saving idea. This has to be well-trodden ground in consumer rights. In this case, people should vote with their wallets, and the occasional class-action lawsuit, or, if things get too far out of line, expect the same kind of regulator intervention that would happen against any other car company. If regulators would not intervene against any other automaker trying this sort of thing, then I don't think they should intervene against Tesla.
    - ska 6y ago
      I think this is too binary. By all means don't count on it, but we can and should expect better.
  - retsibsi 6y ago
    This disagreement happens often, and I think that's partly because there are two meanings of 'expect': to regard something as likely, or to regard it as the rightful or obligatory standard of behaviour. If you expect (in the first sense) benevolent corporate behaviour, in the absence of incentives that align benevolence with self-interest, you're generally being naive. But if you expect (in the second sense) benevolent corporate behaviour, and act accordingly, you may be helping to create that alignment -- because corporations and the people who control them usually care about their public image (certainly when it directly affects consumer behaviour), and legislators are usually at least somewhat responsive to public pressure. So having the first kind of expectation leads to unhelpful complacency; but lacking the second kind of expectation leads to unhelpful cynicism, cashing out as acquiescence to the status quo.
    - pelliphant 6y ago
      I seriously hadn't considered the second definition of the word. Thnx.
- abfan1127 6y ago
  why shouldn't they cover their butts when people will look to extort? I'd much prefer a situation where companies take responsibility and customers show grace and courtesy, but that's not the world I live in...
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Expecting reasonable product longevity from a durable good is not extortion.
    - abfan1127 6y ago
      I wasn't speaking specifically to this situation. The previous comment was about knee jerk legal reactions, which is what I was referring. On that note, flash memory isn't a durable good though.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Can you provide a citation to another automobile with an infotainment system that is only spec'd to last 6 years (due to flash wear)? The one in our 14 year old Toyota SUV is still working without issue.
        abfan1127 6y ago
        nope. But I can cite expectations for vehicles' parts that should last longer, but don't. It only takes a viewing of Consumer Reports to see that. Note that many electronics are designed to last 10 years (i.e. electromigration). Obviously, use cases matter (24 hour use, high temp or lots of heat cycles).
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    Tesla will actively throw you under the bus to defend themselves. "His vehicle had warned him about having hands on the steering wheel" (... fourteen minutes prior to the accident). Leave aside the fact that if you have an accident in your Tesla you will need to go to court to subpoena telemetry data. But they'll happily publish your telemetry data without your (explicit, I know, I know, TOS) agreement if they think they're being painted in a bad light. And if you disclose information about the vehicle, they'll happily force push neutered/old firmware to your vehicle to hide or prevent such activities, lock you from future upgrades, and disable ethernet and OBD ports in your vehicle. Or a Douglas Adamsesque approach to right-to-repair, where there's a website with parts you can "order" (except everything down to the most commodity bolt says "Call Tesla" and they will tell you its unavailable to order via the website), that's if you know what parts you need, a process which required making an appointment with Tesla to look at the service manual, several months out, which required a fee, had a time limit, and put you in a room where you were not allowed a computer, phone or camera, just a notepad and pencil), all the while touting their "corporate commitment to transparency" as they pulled out of NHTSB testing. Is this your idea of responsibility?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  I expect both. We have regulations because oftentimes corporations need a little inspiration to stay honest. And I expect a good corporation to stand behind their product, and not overtly attack their customers at every opportunity. Tesla's culture strongly reflects Elon's personal ethics, and it shows.
foepys 6y ago
I didn't expect other from a company that is immediately blaming the victim when their self-driving car once again drives somebody into a stationary object or lane divider instead of showing compassion first and launching an investigation later. As a parent/child the first thing that comes from Tesla is a blog post and public statement on how your loved one allegedly was too stupid to use the car while Tesla goes into technical telemetry to grant themselves absolution.
- shiftpgdn 6y ago
  Tesla at no point anywhere advertises they have a full self driving car ready to go. FSD optioned onto the car when you purchase is for "future delivery."
  - foepys 6y ago
    Tesla lost the right to call their drive assistance "Autopilot" in Germany because Tesla couldn't stop implying that their cars were already very close to FSD and more capable than they actually are.
  - camjohnson26 6y ago
    You can buy a car with a full self driving package but they don’t imply they sell full self driving. That’s some mental gymnastics, even if they say it’s for future delivery. After all cars have a limited life span, what good is the package if it isn’t delivered within the life of the car?
    - iamatworknow 6y ago
      Yeah, by that logic any car that came with a tape deck had "future aux cord capability": https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/312120241135-0-1/s-l1000.jpg https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/312120241135-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
    - judge2020 6y ago
      https://www.tesla.com/model3/design https://www.tesla.com/model3/design > The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. It's in the fine print but it's brought up every time you talk about Autopilot and enabling it in the car (it's disabled by default) requires you accept a disclaimer saying that you need to be paying attention at all times.
Shivetya 6y ago
As an owner there are times when you just shake your head at some of their decisions. I like my TM3, I won the quality raffle and have no issues, but I do worry when Tesla takes a stance about a part like they did here. Plus combined with the fact Musk was forced to acknowledge that Tesla did not offer anything for FSD on trade ins and "will look into it" makes me wonder just how much they expect customers to put up with. Still it beats out my previous Ford and even my Infiniti in both reliability and oddly interior quality. Paint wise the Infiniti was far better and paint on my Ford was far worse. Both my Ford and Infiniti also had more than one real recall and a few visits to fix stupid things.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Tesla's response is of course self serving. It should be expected from their legal department as a cost control measure. You cannot expect corporations to act benevolently or morally, hence the need for legislation (right to repair, warranty periods set by statute as is done in the EU) and regulation (NHTSA forced Tesla's hand to issue a recall, which they were strongly attempting to avoid). Usual disclosures: We own Teslas and TSLA.

ska 6y ago
> You cannot expect corporations to act benevolently or morally You absolutely can and should expect good behavior of corporations. You can't rely only on that expectation so agree if it's important, legislate it.
- ouid 6y ago
  You absolutely can't and shouldn't expect this. Corporations are your adversary.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Corporation are tools wielded by committees of people. If you don't like the outcome, change the people.
    - vkou 6y ago
      You can't change the people owning or running a corporation, but you can change the rules they operate under. In this case, though, I don't think the rules should be changed. I'm fairly certain that Tesla is not the first automaker to have come up with this kind of money-saving idea. This has to be well-trodden ground in consumer rights. In this case, people should vote with their wallets, and the occasional class-action lawsuit, or, if things get too far out of line, expect the same kind of regulator intervention that would happen against any other car company. If regulators would not intervene against any other automaker trying this sort of thing, then I don't think they should intervene against Tesla.
  - ska 6y ago
    I think this is too binary. By all means don't count on it, but we can and should expect better.
- retsibsi 6y ago
  This disagreement happens often, and I think that's partly because there are two meanings of 'expect': to regard something as likely, or to regard it as the rightful or obligatory standard of behaviour. If you expect (in the first sense) benevolent corporate behaviour, in the absence of incentives that align benevolence with self-interest, you're generally being naive. But if you expect (in the second sense) benevolent corporate behaviour, and act accordingly, you may be helping to create that alignment -- because corporations and the people who control them usually care about their public image (certainly when it directly affects consumer behaviour), and legislators are usually at least somewhat responsive to public pressure. So having the first kind of expectation leads to unhelpful complacency; but lacking the second kind of expectation leads to unhelpful cynicism, cashing out as acquiescence to the status quo.
  - pelliphant 6y ago
    I seriously hadn't considered the second definition of the word. Thnx.
abfan1127 6y ago
why shouldn't they cover their butts when people will look to extort? I'd much prefer a situation where companies take responsibility and customers show grace and courtesy, but that's not the world I live in...
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Expecting reasonable product longevity from a durable good is not extortion.
  - abfan1127 6y ago
    I wasn't speaking specifically to this situation. The previous comment was about knee jerk legal reactions, which is what I was referring. On that note, flash memory isn't a durable good though.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Can you provide a citation to another automobile with an infotainment system that is only spec'd to last 6 years (due to flash wear)? The one in our 14 year old Toyota SUV is still working without issue.
      - abfan1127 6y ago
        nope. But I can cite expectations for vehicles' parts that should last longer, but don't. It only takes a viewing of Consumer Reports to see that. Note that many electronics are designed to last 10 years (i.e. electromigration). Obviously, use cases matter (24 hour use, high temp or lots of heat cycles).
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  Tesla will actively throw you under the bus to defend themselves. "His vehicle had warned him about having hands on the steering wheel" (... fourteen minutes prior to the accident). Leave aside the fact that if you have an accident in your Tesla you will need to go to court to subpoena telemetry data. But they'll happily publish your telemetry data without your (explicit, I know, I know, TOS) agreement if they think they're being painted in a bad light. And if you disclose information about the vehicle, they'll happily force push neutered/old firmware to your vehicle to hide or prevent such activities, lock you from future upgrades, and disable ethernet and OBD ports in your vehicle. Or a Douglas Adamsesque approach to right-to-repair, where there's a website with parts you can "order" (except everything down to the most commodity bolt says "Call Tesla" and they will tell you its unavailable to order via the website), that's if you know what parts you need, a process which required making an appointment with Tesla to look at the service manual, several months out, which required a fee, had a time limit, and put you in a room where you were not allowed a computer, phone or camera, just a notepad and pencil), all the while touting their "corporate commitment to transparency" as they pulled out of NHTSB testing. Is this your idea of responsibility?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rootusrootus 6y ago
I expect both. We have regulations because oftentimes corporations need a little inspiration to stay honest. And I expect a good corporation to stand behind their product, and not overtly attack their customers at every opportunity. Tesla's culture strongly reflects Elon's personal ethics, and it shows.

foepys 6y ago

I didn't expect other from a company that is immediately blaming the victim when their self-driving car once again drives somebody into a stationary object or lane divider instead of showing compassion first and launching an investigation later. As a parent/child the first thing that comes from Tesla is a blog post and public statement on how your loved one allegedly was too stupid to use the car while Tesla goes into technical telemetry to grant themselves absolution.

shiftpgdn 6y ago
Tesla at no point anywhere advertises they have a full self driving car ready to go. FSD optioned onto the car when you purchase is for "future delivery."
- foepys 6y ago
  Tesla lost the right to call their drive assistance "Autopilot" in Germany because Tesla couldn't stop implying that their cars were already very close to FSD and more capable than they actually are.
- camjohnson26 6y ago
  You can buy a car with a full self driving package but they don’t imply they sell full self driving. That’s some mental gymnastics, even if they say it’s for future delivery. After all cars have a limited life span, what good is the package if it isn’t delivered within the life of the car?
  - iamatworknow 6y ago
    Yeah, by that logic any car that came with a tape deck had "future aux cord capability": https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/312120241135-0-1/s-l1000.jpg https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/312120241135-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
  - judge2020 6y ago
    https://www.tesla.com/model3/design https://www.tesla.com/model3/design > The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. It's in the fine print but it's brought up every time you talk about Autopilot and enabling it in the car (it's disabled by default) requires you accept a disclaimer saying that you need to be paying attention at all times.

Shivetya 6y ago

As an owner there are times when you just shake your head at some of their decisions. I like my TM3, I won the quality raffle and have no issues, but I do worry when Tesla takes a stance about a part like they did here. Plus combined with the fact Musk was forced to acknowledge that Tesla did not offer anything for FSD on trade ins and "will look into it" makes me wonder just how much they expect customers to put up with. Still it beats out my previous Ford and even my Infiniti in both reliability and oddly interior quality. Paint wise the Infiniti was far better and paint on my Ford was far worse. Both my Ford and Infiniti also had more than one real recall and a few visits to fix stupid things.