12 ms·

Tesla is offering a $1500 upgrade for early cars to support “full self-driving”

127 points by watchdogtimer 5y ago

ricokatayama 5y ago
not a Tesla owner here, so can't explore how good is the old auto pilot, but I think that paying to have a better experience and unlock some new features is fine. Tesla is approaching new business models, like subscription and a modular take, making cars upgradables. Let's see how these perform.
- GhostVII 5y ago
  That's not really the issue here. Tesla has advertised that all the cars they sell have the hardware required for FSD. Now that they are offering a subscription to FSD, they are telling drivers on older hardware to pay $1500 to upgrade to get the hardware to support FSD, even though they told those drivers earlier that their existing hardware would be enough.
  - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
    All drivers who actually purchased FSD at the time are getting upgrade free if needed. Tesla never promised a rent option. And for that there is a one time fee for some cars
    - clouddrover 5y ago
      What Tesla promised in 2016 was that "as of today, all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory – including Model 3 – will have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver": https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... That wasn't true, was it.
      - paulcole 5y ago
        It’s honestly hard to believe that anyone thought it was true at the time. Until full self-driving capability is achieved how could anyone possibly know what hardware is required for it?
      - matz1 5y ago
        Its called marketing, companies exaggerate claim all the time. As consumer, one should not believe in company marketing claim/promise or they'll be in trouble.
        ddalex 5y ago
        > companies exaggerate claim That's called false advertising. > one should not believe in company marketing claim/promise Or, better said, the companies leading with false claims will be in trouble as they lose the trust of consumers and may be subjected to lawsuits.
        matz1 5y ago
        If that true then just sue them, anybody can sue anyone for any reason.
    - GhostVII 5y ago
      I don't see how that is relevant though. Tesla promised every car would have the required hardware for FSD, regardless of whether you paid for FSD upfront or not. The fact that you have to upgrade in order to subscribe to FSD shows that they were wrong about that. They should honor their commitment by upgrading everyone to hardware that is capable of FSD, since that's what they were promised at purchase time.
  - throwaway98797 5y ago
    at the time that was true. situation changed, ie., they came up with better solutions. could they theoretically make the old hardware work? maybe not, but at one point they believed it. that’s the way of the world.
    - fabiospampinato 5y ago
      > at the time that was true. The problem remained the same, either that was true yesterday and it still true today, or it wasn't true yesterday and it will never be true.
    - ddalex 5y ago
      > that’s the way of the world. Keep your promises until it's inconvenient to do so ? If they can't use the older hardware with their new software, they should upgrade the hardware for free since they promised the capability is there
      - throwaway98797 5y ago
        i justed to be bothered by every institution breaking their promises but then i realized i was naive. the world is in constant flux. promises are more aspirational than true. greatest lie of all is “i love you forever”
- theluketaylor 5y ago
  autopilot drives like a teenager who just got their license. It makes extremely rookie mistakes and often behaves in unpredictable ways, which is extremely unsafe. It loves to hang out in blind spots and cannot anticipate the most obvious intentions of other drivers. I really like traffic aware cruise control as one of the best adaptive cruise controls out there, but autopilot is a mess and I don't use it. I haven't tried the full self driving beta since I wasn't about to give Tesla ten grand so the car can change its own lanes, but I can't imagine it's any better.
  - throwaway98797 5y ago
    it changes lanes well and performs well on the highway in most conditions. i sometimes find it safer in heavy rain than my own driving. that being said its not safe to use without paying attention in bad traffic or erratic city driving. the problem is it doesnt drive as defensivable as a good human which is required in cities with aggressive drivers.
    - ohgodplsno 5y ago
      > i sometimes find it safer in heavy rain than my own driving. I think that says a little bit more about your driving that it does about Tesla.
      - ip26 5y ago
        Depending on conditions, and if there are no Botts’ Dots, lane markers can be pretty tough to see in a heavy rain. Computer vision with many eyes may one day beat us here.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        A more charitable view is that an attentive driver with FSD is safer than a driver alone. After all, the F in FSD does not really stand for "fully autonomous", right?
        ErikVandeWater 5y ago
fegu 5y ago
The article suggests Tesla "forgot" about the promise due to high turnover. I find that hard to believe. I think they decided towards a "let's see what happens". Enough turmoil and they will pay up. Not that hard, just add a minimum subscription term to cover installation cost.
- Waterluvian 5y ago
  Weak American regulation leads to an epidemic of bad businesses making “it’s cheaper to beg for forgiveness” moves. If you can’t or aren’t willing to make an example of a company on regular occasion, the rest will just factor the weak penalties into the cost of doing business.
  - altcognito 5y ago
    Of course, they rarely “beg for forgivesness” they just gaslight you for years and never admit wrongdoing.
    - Waterluvian 5y ago
      True. I’m being way too generous with the terms. They fight the penalties and class actions every step of the way for years and years.
    - HarryHirsch 5y ago
      Or they settle individually, perhaps with a confidentiality agreement, and continue cheating the rest of the people, raking in a profit.
      - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
        There probably will be a huge class-action that settles in 10 years. The amount it settles for probably won't even cover a 10th of the fraudulent sales.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
GhostVII 5y ago
Given that Tesla already allows purchasers of FSD to upgrade their hardware for free, they are clearly aware that they promised every car would have the required hardware for FSD, and are honoring that for FSD purchasers. So I don't see why they shouldn't do the same for subscribers. Also HW3 is pretty clearly not enough for FSD, so even if you pay for this upgrade you are probably going to need another one to get the level 5 FSD everyone was promised.
- Noujin 5y ago
  Source on your claim?
  - GhostVII 5y ago
    Which one? It's well known that Tesla upgrades your car to the latest hardware if you pay for FSD. And based on the latest FSD beta videos, there is a long way to go before Tesla is able to get a stable enough picture of the environment for level 5 driving. They are already running out of processing power with the current MCU even with the current pretty basic implementation. Also I don't see how level 5 is possible if your cameras can be blinded by the sun or obstructed by road spray.
techas 5y ago
This is getting common. Airmail did the same not long ago…
helsinkiandrew 5y ago
This was discussed a while back on HN, when Tesla was discussing their new AI hardware in development - it made no sense for the old/existing hardware in cars to be "Full Self-Driving" capable but where still developing new hardware unless "Full Self driving" wasn't quite as Full as the new version could provide.
- ip26 5y ago
  Well, unless the old hardware was capable but too power hungry with that workload.
nabla9 5y ago
Well made EV's are cheap drive and need less maintenance than what people are used to. You can try to sneak in high margin services and add-ons. No wonder Apple sees a promise in electric cars ;)
FartyMcFarter 5y ago
> Eventually this package will offer full autonomy, but the software is not there yet Based on videos I've watched, this is the understatement of the year. Tesla is nowhere near having full self driving software. So this is more like "pay $1500 for something you've already paid for, which we may not even be able to deliver".
- tmountain 5y ago
  Just watching videos of the "summon" feature on Youtube makes it obvious how far away they are from self driving. In one video, the operator has his cousin "walk in front of the car" to see what will happen, and it doesn't stop. No thank you. Also, I spoke with a Tesla sales guy, and he said, "don't pay for something that doesn't exist", which seems super obvious when you think about it objectively and step away from the hype.
  - Noujin 5y ago
    The summon feature doesn't use the FSD tech stack. It's really old by now.
    - ytdytvhxgydvhh 5y ago
      Maybe. But if Tesla had fully-working self-driving cars (you know, what people would expect from a feature called Full Self Driving) they’d probably use it to safely, autonomously drive the car to the summoner.
      - valine 5y ago
        Apparently this is something Tesla is actively working on. Elon tweeted about it yesterday. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1416511905515048966?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1416511905515048966?s=20
        ytdytvhxgydvhh 5y ago
        Been working on it for a while! https://elonmusk.today/#cross-country-summons https://elonmusk.today/#cross-country-summons
beervirus 5y ago
>As part of this change in hardware, Tesla said that all owners with the old hardware could upgrade to the new hardware for free, provided they had paid for Full Self-Driving. Tesla has a blog describing the process for upgrading your computer to FSD Computer/Hardware 3.0. >This was all fine and dandy – owners who would make use of the FSD Computer got a hardware upgrade along with their purchase of the software, and owners without Full Self-Driving weren’t missing out on anything since they didn’t have the software anyway. >But now the much-awaited subscription scheme offers a lower barrier to entry. Tesla owners with cars from late 2016-mid 2019 might want to try out the software and see what it can do, especially since it has improved since they purchased their car. Maybe they don’t know if they’ll like it enough to want to spend $10,000, maybe they don’t think they’ll have the car long enough for it to be worthwhile, any number of reasons. Article is poorly written, but it sounds like this only affects people who didn’t pay for FSD, and now want it. So the title is exactly wrong.
- pimlottc 5y ago
  > Article is poorly written, but it sounds like this only affects people who didn’t pay for FSD, and now want it. So the title is exactly wrong. The title is correct in that these owners paid for hardware they were told was sufficient for FSD. Now they are being told that isn't the case and they have to pay more for /more hardware/. No one is disputing having to pay for the software upgrade, but requiring a hardware upgrade makes it pretty clear the previous hardware was not as capable as it was advertised to be.
  - beervirus 5y ago
    But they could pay for the software upgrade and get the hardware for free, it sounds like. They only have to pay for the hardware if they want the cheaper monthly FSD.
stevespang 5y ago
Why re-post an article written 5 years ago ?
dcow 5y ago
What’s happening here is that Tesla doesn’t want to give you a $1500 “chip” for $200. People who buy the 10k package still get the upgrade for free. People who just subscribe for a month don't. I don’t really see a way around this. If you want FSD then you pay for it. If you don’t want to pay 10k to have it for life then pay 1500 plus 200/mo. That’s essentially the terms being offered here.
- davedx 5y ago
  The point is people who already paid 10k still can’t use the FSD subscription. Nevermind, I misunderstood:)
  - joshribakoff 5y ago
    They don’t need to setup a second monthly subscription, since they have bought a lifetime subscription outright already.
- ghufran_syed 5y ago
  Right, Tesla could have the same economic effect by requiring a minimum 2 year contract for the monthly FSD with "free" FSD chip upgrade - I suspect that wouldn't make people feel any better about the situation
- andreareina 5y ago
  > If you want FSD then you pay for it As I understand it, these are people who already paid for FSD. The same FSD that Tesla claimed was ready to go except for regulatory hurdles. Tesla should give these people what they paid for, or refund that money (with interest) if they're not actually able to live up to their end of the bargain.
  - Noujin 5y ago
    No that's not correct. These are people that didn't buy FSD, still have the old hardware and now decide to subscribe to FSD monthly. The chip costs are factored in when buying the 10k package. But now in Tesla's worst case, someone subscribes, gets the chip for free and then instantly cancels. An easy solution for Tesla should be a "upgrade your hardware and get x months for free situation" for a higher price or a contract for a specific number of months that you sign up for after the upgrade.
truthwhisperer 5y ago
Yes, own nothing be happy. Pay every month that is what the big techs want. As an argument they use the environment and other woke topics
tzs 5y ago
At first this looks rather shady, but upon closer look may technically not be. If I've understood the timeline right: 1. From 2016-2019, Tesla said that FSD would someday be available via a $10k software update, and that all their cars came with all the hardware that would be required to use that update. 2. In mid-2019, Tesla started installing more powerful hardware on their new cars. 3. They have now started offering FSD as a subscription service. They do not offer the one-time $10k FSD product. 4. The FSD they are offering via that subscription service requires the new hardware. Tesla owners with the old hardware who want to use the subscription service will have to pay $1500 to upgrade the old hardware. It comes down to whether or not the subscription FSD counts as the FSD from #1, or if it counts as a different FSD product with different requirements. Legally, I'm sure they are in the clear because the subscription product is in no way even remotely FSD and so they can claim that #1 is referring to some future real FSD.
- ec109685 5y ago
  They also promised with the original FSD upgrade that they would update your hardware if they needed to in order to provide full FSD later. So the idea they hid the fact a hardware upgrade may be needed is silly.
- Traster 5y ago
  It's a bit of a nonsense for a few reasons - first the idea that this requires new hardware but actual FSD wouldn't. Secondly that this isn't FSD but the subscription is literally called FSD capability subscription. It's also worth remembering that FSD stands for Full self driving, not "kind of some extra driver assist that still requires the driver's attention and intervention and doesn't work at all under a load of conditions".
- taylorhou 5y ago
  I'd agree with you if they were more savvy or specific with their marketing (ie: FSD v1 or FSD V2) but sorry, they call it all "Full self driving" - whether that's via subscription or not, it's one in the same. So all you're saying is there's a difference between full self driving on old hardware versus full self driving on new hardware?
maxdo 5y ago
The article is totally misleading. Musk promised several times that who bought FSD , they’ll have free update. Package include both software and hardware. And that’s still the case
maxdo 5y ago
The subscription didn’t exist in 2016. If you buy full time FSD pack , hardware will be still free. Makes total scene. And I don’t understand people crying here about vapor ware, not real FSD etc … it’s optional. I personally bought it and I’m happy.
- clintonb 5y ago
  What aspects of the FSD package are you happy about?
srswtf123 5y ago
A Musk company doing something unethical? I am shocked, SHOCKED!! I tell you.
dalbasal 5y ago
IDk anything about promises vs this but... the key point for me, here, is subscriptions. Both software & subscription based business models have proved way better than just selling stuff. Tesla's business is increasingly proving that its in these businesses. If Tesla can normalize >$200 software subscriptions, this changes the game. For example, there is an interesting & contested economic question about planned obsolescence in cars. Once a long lived product reaches maturity/saturation, demand plateaus or depletes. Refrigerators, for example, are a different industry once most houses have one TVs too. Some theories of the great depression, for example, have market saturation as a primary culprit. In the 30s, planned obsolescence was transparently promoted as a depression ending plan^. Orwell, writing 1984 after the war, predicted continuous low level warfare, a means of destruction to counterbalance production. It was widely thought that saturation points were the weakness in modern industrial economics. In any case, Henry Ford's engineering ideal of simple, built-to-last cars lost out to GM's annual design changes... demand based in fashion & trivial novelty, rather than utility. Today, Japan absolutely enforces obsolescence for cars. EU countries, often via environmental taxes also push old cars off the road to encourage new ones. Many cars are built to last 100kms/10yrs. Between insurance, tax, biannual roadworthiness tax and such, the most economical way to own a car is a cheap, new one. Anyway... contrived obsolescence is just the most on-the-nose way of keeping the ball rolling. One of many. There are also new markets. There's fashion, like it or not. There's technological improvements, at least during some periods. Any can work. In any case... subscription and software business models could change some real imperatives in the auto industry. Building cars to last is possible, manufacturers just haven't had the incentives to. If the number of Teslas on the road becomes a multiplier for a meaningful revenue source... the incentive to build long term becomes significant. Turns a linear trajectory to a saturation point into an exponential. To the extent that this succeeds, the auto industry is going to be all about the fleet, rather than the factory door, soon. As always, affordability will not be the endpoint. ^https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/London_%281932%29_Ending_the_depression_through_planned_obsolescence.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/London_%...
- zwaps 5y ago
  The reason for doing this is, of course, a different one. Tesla, much as any other recent company, has opened their post-90's Economics textbooks and has seen that two-part contracts allow to extract much more welfare (money) from the customers. The car industry already got wise early on about price discrimination by employing bundling. Now this is combined with subscriptions to create IC/IR two-part contract menu. Add customer data, and you're golden. Edit: Just to be clear, this may be efficient. It just isn't beneficial to the consumer.
zwaps 5y ago
I understand that American regulation is company friendly so you can essentially promise and do whatever. However, did Tesla not also sell in other areas, like in the EU? Were those claims absent? Because if not, the case would be seem to be easy: Tesla sells a car with self-driving capable hardware (advertised in a manner where your purchasing decisions would be influenced by that claim), has obviously not delivered and has therefore up to three attempts to fix the issue during whatever the warranty period is. If that doesn't happen, you, the customer, can simply invoice your money back. It doesn't seem like this would turn out well for Tesla. I mean, I have done stuff like this before - not on a scale of a car, but pretty expensive electronics. The company in question (Samsung) pretty quickly decided to play ball. It gets difficult to prove after six month if the issue is a defect. But if a thing is simply missing or doesn't work as advertised, then the chances for the company to wiggle out of it are rather slim.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  Not sure that the EU & US are all that different, in this regard. The article doesn't do a very good job of explaining how/what was promised or advertised. You need to deliver what you sell everywhere. Also, EU regulation is quite friendly to the auto-industry. There is a pretty tight coupling, for instance, between environmental tax rates and the models produced by EU manufacturers. This targets both international models and older models, increasing sales of new EU models. One of the reasons VW's diesel scandal was so infuriating.
- antpls 5y ago
  Tesla's Autonomous driving ads are banned in Germany since about a year now : https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-autopilot-germany-idUSKCN24F1T5 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-autopilot-germany-i...
SMAAART 5y ago
Reminds me of the Intel 80486SX marketing strategy, but this time crippled hardware can be un-crippled on-demand. This is something that we all have to get used to. On a smaller scale, Spectum in NYC has 1 internet router where the WiFi functions can be disabled for a $5 discount on the monthly bill.
taf2 5y ago
IMO - it sucks but as a software developer, I can say software is not free… it takes a lot of time and energy to both develop and maintain software… As a business owner, IMO you should be free to put any price you want on anything you sell in anyway you choose to sell… people will either buy it or not and that’s the best way to figure out if it’s worth it or not… As a tesla owner, this sucks because well the hardware is in the car… too bad there are no other cars on the market that even come close
taylorhou 5y ago
I did a quick Google search cus I could've sworn Elon tweeted about full self driving hardware on all Tesla's sold after a certain date. Found the official blog post: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... If there is a class action attorney reading the thread, happy to join... I LOVE my model 3. I've recommended (with verified purchases) 10+ friends who purchased. The blatant fake it till ya make it marketing isnt needed and yet Tesla continues to do it. WHY?!?
- princekolt 5y ago
  Because that’s just how Elon does marketing. He also said the Model 3 would have a dashboard that “looks like a spaceship” and instead delivered a slab. Nothing new. It just maybe wasn’t as blatant as now.
yawaworht1978 5y ago
I have always wondered how adult, educated people could ever buy something like fsd packages where the hardware(the cheap part all things considered) is provided first and the software comes later, "pending regulatory approval", especially seeing as how that would apply globally. It is like buying a laptop with nothing but the casing and the screen and AMD yet has to develop a chip, windows,Linux or iOS not developed yet. Ok, the car is usable without it and it's indirect funding of the feature, but still.
- einarfd 5y ago
  When I bought my Tesla. The only way to get active cruise control was to get the FSD package. Since I wanted active cruise control. I didn't have a choice.
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  I wonder about pre-orders in general sometimes. It's a form of investment. That said, this Tesla thing isn't a pre-order exactly, because they explicitly promised FSD capabilites, so it should at least save on a trip to the shop to install something later. Unfortunately, it wasn't FSD, but just some basic stuff, so if you want more you've got to go in and pay anyway. The key here is "full self-driving" = FSD, which can only be interpreted to mean that the car can in fact drive itself (safely).
  - akmarinov 5y ago
    They already pivoted from “Autopilot” to “Full Self Driving”, I imagine they’ll “deliver” FSD and milk people for “Autonomous driving” or whatever next.
nieve 5y ago
> However, Tesla was founded in 2003, 18 years ago. It’s an enormous company with over 70,000 employees, making ~$10 billion in revenue every quarter, and it’s even part of the S&P 500. It’s not a “startup” anymore. It doesn’t get to use that excuse when it does stupid stuff like this. It needs to grow up and stop lying to its customers. And we’re getting tired of having to say this.

127 points by watchdogtimer 5y ago

not a Tesla owner here, so can't explore how good is the old auto pilot, but I think that paying to have a better experience and unlock some new features is fine. Tesla is approaching new business models, like subscription and a modular take, making cars upgradables. Let's see how these perform.

GhostVII 5y ago
That's not really the issue here. Tesla has advertised that all the cars they sell have the hardware required for FSD. Now that they are offering a subscription to FSD, they are telling drivers on older hardware to pay $1500 to upgrade to get the hardware to support FSD, even though they told those drivers earlier that their existing hardware would be enough.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  All drivers who actually purchased FSD at the time are getting upgrade free if needed. Tesla never promised a rent option. And for that there is a one time fee for some cars
  - clouddrover 5y ago
    What Tesla promised in 2016 was that "as of today, all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory – including Model 3 – will have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver": https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... That wasn't true, was it.
    - paulcole 5y ago
      It’s honestly hard to believe that anyone thought it was true at the time. Until full self-driving capability is achieved how could anyone possibly know what hardware is required for it?
    - matz1 5y ago
      Its called marketing, companies exaggerate claim all the time. As consumer, one should not believe in company marketing claim/promise or they'll be in trouble.
      - ddalex 5y ago
        > companies exaggerate claim That's called false advertising. > one should not believe in company marketing claim/promise Or, better said, the companies leading with false claims will be in trouble as they lose the trust of consumers and may be subjected to lawsuits.
        matz1 5y ago
        If that true then just sue them, anybody can sue anyone for any reason.
  - GhostVII 5y ago
    I don't see how that is relevant though. Tesla promised every car would have the required hardware for FSD, regardless of whether you paid for FSD upfront or not. The fact that you have to upgrade in order to subscribe to FSD shows that they were wrong about that. They should honor their commitment by upgrading everyone to hardware that is capable of FSD, since that's what they were promised at purchase time.
- throwaway98797 5y ago
  at the time that was true. situation changed, ie., they came up with better solutions. could they theoretically make the old hardware work? maybe not, but at one point they believed it. that’s the way of the world.
  - fabiospampinato 5y ago
    > at the time that was true. The problem remained the same, either that was true yesterday and it still true today, or it wasn't true yesterday and it will never be true.
  - ddalex 5y ago
    > that’s the way of the world. Keep your promises until it's inconvenient to do so ? If they can't use the older hardware with their new software, they should upgrade the hardware for free since they promised the capability is there
    - throwaway98797 5y ago
      i justed to be bothered by every institution breaking their promises but then i realized i was naive. the world is in constant flux. promises are more aspirational than true. greatest lie of all is “i love you forever”
theluketaylor 5y ago
autopilot drives like a teenager who just got their license. It makes extremely rookie mistakes and often behaves in unpredictable ways, which is extremely unsafe. It loves to hang out in blind spots and cannot anticipate the most obvious intentions of other drivers. I really like traffic aware cruise control as one of the best adaptive cruise controls out there, but autopilot is a mess and I don't use it. I haven't tried the full self driving beta since I wasn't about to give Tesla ten grand so the car can change its own lanes, but I can't imagine it's any better.
- throwaway98797 5y ago
  it changes lanes well and performs well on the highway in most conditions. i sometimes find it safer in heavy rain than my own driving. that being said its not safe to use without paying attention in bad traffic or erratic city driving. the problem is it doesnt drive as defensivable as a good human which is required in cities with aggressive drivers.
  - ohgodplsno 5y ago
    > i sometimes find it safer in heavy rain than my own driving. I think that says a little bit more about your driving that it does about Tesla.
    - ip26 5y ago
      Depending on conditions, and if there are no Botts’ Dots, lane markers can be pretty tough to see in a heavy rain. Computer vision with many eyes may one day beat us here.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      A more charitable view is that an attentive driver with FSD is safer than a driver alone. After all, the F in FSD does not really stand for "fully autonomous", right?
      - ErikVandeWater 5y ago

fegu 5y ago

The article suggests Tesla "forgot" about the promise due to high turnover. I find that hard to believe. I think they decided towards a "let's see what happens". Enough turmoil and they will pay up. Not that hard, just add a minimum subscription term to cover installation cost.

Waterluvian 5y ago
Weak American regulation leads to an epidemic of bad businesses making “it’s cheaper to beg for forgiveness” moves. If you can’t or aren’t willing to make an example of a company on regular occasion, the rest will just factor the weak penalties into the cost of doing business.
- altcognito 5y ago
  Of course, they rarely “beg for forgivesness” they just gaslight you for years and never admit wrongdoing.
  - Waterluvian 5y ago
    True. I’m being way too generous with the terms. They fight the penalties and class actions every step of the way for years and years.
  - HarryHirsch 5y ago
    Or they settle individually, perhaps with a confidentiality agreement, and continue cheating the rest of the people, raking in a profit.
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      There probably will be a huge class-action that settles in 10 years. The amount it settles for probably won't even cover a 10th of the fraudulent sales.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago

GhostVII 5y ago

Given that Tesla already allows purchasers of FSD to upgrade their hardware for free, they are clearly aware that they promised every car would have the required hardware for FSD, and are honoring that for FSD purchasers. So I don't see why they shouldn't do the same for subscribers. Also HW3 is pretty clearly not enough for FSD, so even if you pay for this upgrade you are probably going to need another one to get the level 5 FSD everyone was promised.

Noujin 5y ago
Source on your claim?
- GhostVII 5y ago
  Which one? It's well known that Tesla upgrades your car to the latest hardware if you pay for FSD. And based on the latest FSD beta videos, there is a long way to go before Tesla is able to get a stable enough picture of the environment for level 5 driving. They are already running out of processing power with the current MCU even with the current pretty basic implementation. Also I don't see how level 5 is possible if your cameras can be blinded by the sun or obstructed by road spray.

techas 5y ago

This is getting common. Airmail did the same not long ago…

helsinkiandrew 5y ago

This was discussed a while back on HN, when Tesla was discussing their new AI hardware in development - it made no sense for the old/existing hardware in cars to be "Full Self-Driving" capable but where still developing new hardware unless "Full Self driving" wasn't quite as Full as the new version could provide.

ip26 5y ago
Well, unless the old hardware was capable but too power hungry with that workload.

nabla9 5y ago

Well made EV's are cheap drive and need less maintenance than what people are used to. You can try to sneak in high margin services and add-ons. No wonder Apple sees a promise in electric cars ;)

FartyMcFarter 5y ago

> Eventually this package will offer full autonomy, but the software is not there yet Based on videos I've watched, this is the understatement of the year. Tesla is nowhere near having full self driving software. So this is more like "pay $1500 for something you've already paid for, which we may not even be able to deliver".

tmountain 5y ago
Just watching videos of the "summon" feature on Youtube makes it obvious how far away they are from self driving. In one video, the operator has his cousin "walk in front of the car" to see what will happen, and it doesn't stop. No thank you. Also, I spoke with a Tesla sales guy, and he said, "don't pay for something that doesn't exist", which seems super obvious when you think about it objectively and step away from the hype.
- Noujin 5y ago
  The summon feature doesn't use the FSD tech stack. It's really old by now.
  - ytdytvhxgydvhh 5y ago
    Maybe. But if Tesla had fully-working self-driving cars (you know, what people would expect from a feature called Full Self Driving) they’d probably use it to safely, autonomously drive the car to the summoner.
    - valine 5y ago
      Apparently this is something Tesla is actively working on. Elon tweeted about it yesterday. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1416511905515048966?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1416511905515048966?s=20
      - ytdytvhxgydvhh 5y ago
        Been working on it for a while! https://elonmusk.today/#cross-country-summons https://elonmusk.today/#cross-country-summons

beervirus 5y ago

>As part of this change in hardware, Tesla said that all owners with the old hardware could upgrade to the new hardware for free, provided they had paid for Full Self-Driving. Tesla has a blog describing the process for upgrading your computer to FSD Computer/Hardware 3.0. >This was all fine and dandy – owners who would make use of the FSD Computer got a hardware upgrade along with their purchase of the software, and owners without Full Self-Driving weren’t missing out on anything since they didn’t have the software anyway. >But now the much-awaited subscription scheme offers a lower barrier to entry. Tesla owners with cars from late 2016-mid 2019 might want to try out the software and see what it can do, especially since it has improved since they purchased their car. Maybe they don’t know if they’ll like it enough to want to spend $10,000, maybe they don’t think they’ll have the car long enough for it to be worthwhile, any number of reasons. Article is poorly written, but it sounds like this only affects people who didn’t pay for FSD, and now want it. So the title is exactly wrong.

pimlottc 5y ago
> Article is poorly written, but it sounds like this only affects people who didn’t pay for FSD, and now want it. So the title is exactly wrong. The title is correct in that these owners paid for hardware they were told was sufficient for FSD. Now they are being told that isn't the case and they have to pay more for /more hardware/. No one is disputing having to pay for the software upgrade, but requiring a hardware upgrade makes it pretty clear the previous hardware was not as capable as it was advertised to be.
- beervirus 5y ago
  But they could pay for the software upgrade and get the hardware for free, it sounds like. They only have to pay for the hardware if they want the cheaper monthly FSD.

stevespang 5y ago

Why re-post an article written 5 years ago ?

dcow 5y ago

What’s happening here is that Tesla doesn’t want to give you a $1500 “chip” for $200. People who buy the 10k package still get the upgrade for free. People who just subscribe for a month don't. I don’t really see a way around this. If you want FSD then you pay for it. If you don’t want to pay 10k to have it for life then pay 1500 plus 200/mo. That’s essentially the terms being offered here.

davedx 5y ago
The point is people who already paid 10k still can’t use the FSD subscription. Nevermind, I misunderstood:)
- joshribakoff 5y ago
  They don’t need to setup a second monthly subscription, since they have bought a lifetime subscription outright already.
ghufran_syed 5y ago
Right, Tesla could have the same economic effect by requiring a minimum 2 year contract for the monthly FSD with "free" FSD chip upgrade - I suspect that wouldn't make people feel any better about the situation
andreareina 5y ago
> If you want FSD then you pay for it As I understand it, these are people who already paid for FSD. The same FSD that Tesla claimed was ready to go except for regulatory hurdles. Tesla should give these people what they paid for, or refund that money (with interest) if they're not actually able to live up to their end of the bargain.
- Noujin 5y ago
  No that's not correct. These are people that didn't buy FSD, still have the old hardware and now decide to subscribe to FSD monthly. The chip costs are factored in when buying the 10k package. But now in Tesla's worst case, someone subscribes, gets the chip for free and then instantly cancels. An easy solution for Tesla should be a "upgrade your hardware and get x months for free situation" for a higher price or a contract for a specific number of months that you sign up for after the upgrade.

truthwhisperer 5y ago

Yes, own nothing be happy. Pay every month that is what the big techs want. As an argument they use the environment and other woke topics

tzs 5y ago

At first this looks rather shady, but upon closer look may technically not be. If I've understood the timeline right: 1. From 2016-2019, Tesla said that FSD would someday be available via a $10k software update, and that all their cars came with all the hardware that would be required to use that update. 2. In mid-2019, Tesla started installing more powerful hardware on their new cars. 3. They have now started offering FSD as a subscription service. They do not offer the one-time $10k FSD product. 4. The FSD they are offering via that subscription service requires the new hardware. Tesla owners with the old hardware who want to use the subscription service will have to pay $1500 to upgrade the old hardware. It comes down to whether or not the subscription FSD counts as the FSD from #1, or if it counts as a different FSD product with different requirements. Legally, I'm sure they are in the clear because the subscription product is in no way even remotely FSD and so they can claim that #1 is referring to some future real FSD.

ec109685 5y ago
They also promised with the original FSD upgrade that they would update your hardware if they needed to in order to provide full FSD later. So the idea they hid the fact a hardware upgrade may be needed is silly.
Traster 5y ago
It's a bit of a nonsense for a few reasons - first the idea that this requires new hardware but actual FSD wouldn't. Secondly that this isn't FSD but the subscription is literally called FSD capability subscription. It's also worth remembering that FSD stands for Full self driving, not "kind of some extra driver assist that still requires the driver's attention and intervention and doesn't work at all under a load of conditions".
taylorhou 5y ago
I'd agree with you if they were more savvy or specific with their marketing (ie: FSD v1 or FSD V2) but sorry, they call it all "Full self driving" - whether that's via subscription or not, it's one in the same. So all you're saying is there's a difference between full self driving on old hardware versus full self driving on new hardware?

maxdo 5y ago

The article is totally misleading. Musk promised several times that who bought FSD , they’ll have free update. Package include both software and hardware. And that’s still the case

maxdo 5y ago

The subscription didn’t exist in 2016. If you buy full time FSD pack , hardware will be still free. Makes total scene. And I don’t understand people crying here about vapor ware, not real FSD etc … it’s optional. I personally bought it and I’m happy.

clintonb 5y ago
What aspects of the FSD package are you happy about?

srswtf123 5y ago

A Musk company doing something unethical? I am shocked, SHOCKED!! I tell you.

dalbasal 5y ago

IDk anything about promises vs this but... the key point for me, here, is subscriptions. Both software & subscription based business models have proved way better than just selling stuff. Tesla's business is increasingly proving that its in these businesses. If Tesla can normalize >$200 software subscriptions, this changes the game. For example, there is an interesting & contested economic question about planned obsolescence in cars. Once a long lived product reaches maturity/saturation, demand plateaus or depletes. Refrigerators, for example, are a different industry once most houses have one TVs too. Some theories of the great depression, for example, have market saturation as a primary culprit. In the 30s, planned obsolescence was transparently promoted as a depression ending plan^. Orwell, writing 1984 after the war, predicted continuous low level warfare, a means of destruction to counterbalance production. It was widely thought that saturation points were the weakness in modern industrial economics. In any case, Henry Ford's engineering ideal of simple, built-to-last cars lost out to GM's annual design changes... demand based in fashion & trivial novelty, rather than utility. Today, Japan absolutely enforces obsolescence for cars. EU countries, often via environmental taxes also push old cars off the road to encourage new ones. Many cars are built to last 100kms/10yrs. Between insurance, tax, biannual roadworthiness tax and such, the most economical way to own a car is a cheap, new one. Anyway... contrived obsolescence is just the most on-the-nose way of keeping the ball rolling. One of many. There are also new markets. There's fashion, like it or not. There's technological improvements, at least during some periods. Any can work. In any case... subscription and software business models could change some real imperatives in the auto industry. Building cars to last is possible, manufacturers just haven't had the incentives to. If the number of Teslas on the road becomes a multiplier for a meaningful revenue source... the incentive to build long term becomes significant. Turns a linear trajectory to a saturation point into an exponential. To the extent that this succeeds, the auto industry is going to be all about the fleet, rather than the factory door, soon. As always, affordability will not be the endpoint. ^https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/London_%281932%29_Ending_the_depression_through_planned_obsolescence.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/London_%...

zwaps 5y ago
The reason for doing this is, of course, a different one. Tesla, much as any other recent company, has opened their post-90's Economics textbooks and has seen that two-part contracts allow to extract much more welfare (money) from the customers. The car industry already got wise early on about price discrimination by employing bundling. Now this is combined with subscriptions to create IC/IR two-part contract menu. Add customer data, and you're golden. Edit: Just to be clear, this may be efficient. It just isn't beneficial to the consumer.

zwaps 5y ago

I understand that American regulation is company friendly so you can essentially promise and do whatever. However, did Tesla not also sell in other areas, like in the EU? Were those claims absent? Because if not, the case would be seem to be easy: Tesla sells a car with self-driving capable hardware (advertised in a manner where your purchasing decisions would be influenced by that claim), has obviously not delivered and has therefore up to three attempts to fix the issue during whatever the warranty period is. If that doesn't happen, you, the customer, can simply invoice your money back. It doesn't seem like this would turn out well for Tesla. I mean, I have done stuff like this before - not on a scale of a car, but pretty expensive electronics. The company in question (Samsung) pretty quickly decided to play ball. It gets difficult to prove after six month if the issue is a defect. But if a thing is simply missing or doesn't work as advertised, then the chances for the company to wiggle out of it are rather slim.

dalbasal 5y ago
Not sure that the EU & US are all that different, in this regard. The article doesn't do a very good job of explaining how/what was promised or advertised. You need to deliver what you sell everywhere. Also, EU regulation is quite friendly to the auto-industry. There is a pretty tight coupling, for instance, between environmental tax rates and the models produced by EU manufacturers. This targets both international models and older models, increasing sales of new EU models. One of the reasons VW's diesel scandal was so infuriating.
antpls 5y ago
Tesla's Autonomous driving ads are banned in Germany since about a year now : https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-autopilot-germany-idUSKCN24F1T5 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-autopilot-germany-i...

SMAAART 5y ago

Reminds me of the Intel 80486SX marketing strategy, but this time crippled hardware can be un-crippled on-demand. This is something that we all have to get used to. On a smaller scale, Spectum in NYC has 1 internet router where the WiFi functions can be disabled for a $5 discount on the monthly bill.

taf2 5y ago

IMO - it sucks but as a software developer, I can say software is not free… it takes a lot of time and energy to both develop and maintain software… As a business owner, IMO you should be free to put any price you want on anything you sell in anyway you choose to sell… people will either buy it or not and that’s the best way to figure out if it’s worth it or not… As a tesla owner, this sucks because well the hardware is in the car… too bad there are no other cars on the market that even come close

taylorhou 5y ago

I did a quick Google search cus I could've sworn Elon tweeted about full self driving hardware on all Tesla's sold after a certain date. Found the official blog post: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... If there is a class action attorney reading the thread, happy to join... I LOVE my model 3. I've recommended (with verified purchases) 10+ friends who purchased. The blatant fake it till ya make it marketing isnt needed and yet Tesla continues to do it. WHY?!?

princekolt 5y ago
Because that’s just how Elon does marketing. He also said the Model 3 would have a dashboard that “looks like a spaceship” and instead delivered a slab. Nothing new. It just maybe wasn’t as blatant as now.

yawaworht1978 5y ago

I have always wondered how adult, educated people could ever buy something like fsd packages where the hardware(the cheap part all things considered) is provided first and the software comes later, "pending regulatory approval", especially seeing as how that would apply globally. It is like buying a laptop with nothing but the casing and the screen and AMD yet has to develop a chip, windows,Linux or iOS not developed yet. Ok, the car is usable without it and it's indirect funding of the feature, but still.

einarfd 5y ago
When I bought my Tesla. The only way to get active cruise control was to get the FSD package. Since I wanted active cruise control. I didn't have a choice.
nixpulvis 5y ago
I wonder about pre-orders in general sometimes. It's a form of investment. That said, this Tesla thing isn't a pre-order exactly, because they explicitly promised FSD capabilites, so it should at least save on a trip to the shop to install something later. Unfortunately, it wasn't FSD, but just some basic stuff, so if you want more you've got to go in and pay anyway. The key here is "full self-driving" = FSD, which can only be interpreted to mean that the car can in fact drive itself (safely).
- akmarinov 5y ago
  They already pivoted from “Autopilot” to “Full Self Driving”, I imagine they’ll “deliver” FSD and milk people for “Autonomous driving” or whatever next.

nieve 5y ago

> However, Tesla was founded in 2003, 18 years ago. It’s an enormous company with over 70,000 employees, making ~$10 billion in revenue every quarter, and it’s even part of the S&P 500. It’s not a “startup” anymore. It doesn’t get to use that excuse when it does stupid stuff like this. It needs to grow up and stop lying to its customers. And we’re getting tired of having to say this.