5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - treis 5y ago
    Tesla has claimed that the cars they sold had the hardware necessary for self driving. Now that a new chip is required they are tacitly admitting that they made a false claim in advertising their cars. They either need to provide the upgrade for free or compensate buyers.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    > the old hardware From the link's screenshot of Tesla's 10/19/2016 post: > We are excited to announce 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. That's a clear marketing claim.
    - clintonb 5y ago
      That’s the hardware for the 2016 version. The latest version of FSD needs newer hardware.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > the hardware for the 2016 version. The latest version of FSD needs newer hardware. Not sure you can start deprecating before you deliver.
        clintonb 5y ago
        I agree in spirit. In practice, this is no different from deprecating an early alpha/beta version.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > this is no different from deprecating an early alpha/beta version If you sell the alpha with the promise of it supporting the full game, and then charge again when you release the beta no less, I could understand being upset.
spaceisballer 5y ago
Naturally the title is leading you one way and the reality is another. This would impact me because if I want this I would have to pay $1500 to use the subscription service instead of $5000 for FSD which nets me the computer upgrade too. The policy makes sense, I get that they have always said their cars are all capable of full self driving, yet even with the Model 3 they are requiring hardware upgrades before you can use FSD
gimmeThaBeet 5y ago
I agree, It's one of the things where I feel I hate the opinion, but it is what it is. If the promise boils down to the blog announcement on their blog, the line is '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.' IMO (not a lawyer), it feels like they didn't tell you it would be the latest, greatest, continually supported in perpetuity, never changing hardware. They told you it had hardware that could support a full self-driving system that is safer than a human. Hardware that they do not support now. I haven't interacted with any Tesla sales folks, but I feel like if you asked about a commitment like this, even before this subscription service, no one is going to commit to that. They made it clear it's up to you to purchase the self-driving software, and that is where all the magic is. And to boot, the available agreement when people purchased the car is still on the table; if you give them $10k, they will give you hardware. If you want the subscription, you need to have/acquire the supported hardware. If they had a contract like a phone (which dislike that business model) where you commit to X months, I could see it. But I too wouldn't want to be handing these out to have people cancel after a month.
- websites2022 5y ago
  > They told you it had hardware that could support a full self-driving system that is safer than a human. And this turned out to not be true, because if it were, they would have released FSD on this hardware. Just imagine if Microsoft sold you PC hardware that they claimed would support windows 11 back in 2016, but now require a processor upgrade to support it. This is exactly the same situation.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    it's more like selling you an Xbox and then never releasing any games, and then selling Xbox 360 and games. the original can (theoretically) play games, but no one with a license wrote any.
    - websites2022 5y ago
websites2022 5y ago
There’s a confusion in terms here that is worth clearing up. To have FSD requires the purchase of two products: the hardware and the software. Cars purchased from 2016 onwards were claimed to already have the hardware. It is possible to purchase the car with the hardware for FSD only, and not the software. People in this situation were told that they already had the hardware for FSD. Now Tesla is saying that they don’t. As the owner of two Teslas, as an investor, as a True Believer I have to say that Tesla fucked up here and need to be sued to make it right if they don’t fix this. Not with a “subscribe for two years and get it free.” They should just get the chip installed for free.
- dcow 5y ago
  I only own one Tesla so I guess I don't win in that department. Anyway, this was all before the subscription package. Things are not the same as they were in 2016 with the introduction of the 200/mo subscription. By saying "your cars have the hardware to do FSD" it means they're fitted with all the required accessories. If Tesla needs to give them a more powerful computer as a complementary upgrade once they purchase FSD, so be it. It doesn't make sense for Tesla to just ship out a bunch of the more powerful chips to people who never intend on using FSD. And like we've already covered, if you purchase FSD in full, the chip is entirely free. I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather have a subscription or not. Either FSD remains only accessible in a "bulk purchase attached to the car" capacity, or Telsa figures out how to work the economics of adding in a subscription model. I tend to think this subscription model opens up FSD to more people than not having it, so I think it's a net positive.
  - websites2022 5y ago
    >Things are not the same as they were in 2016 with the introduction of the 200/mo subscription. This does not change the fundamental fact that Tesla promised something and then did not deliver it. That is, they promised that the hardware shipping with the vehicles 2016 onward were FSD capable. They are not. Remember —- they took investor cash after this announcement. That matters. > It doesn't make sense for Tesla to just ship out a bunch of the more powerful chips to people who never intend on using FSD. By this you mean: “It isn’t in Tesla’s best immediate financial interest.” But we have laws and norms in place in the US to counter balance the interest of corporations vs that of customers. Two of those laws and norms is not lying to your customers and making them whole whole whenever you make a mistake. As well, cars go through several owners. People purchased Teslas after the announcement with the value calculation that it was FSD capable. Tesla essentially robbed those customers of $1500 of resale value. That is, the customers expected to buy a car they could resell as FSD capable. Now they can’t.
Cosmin_C 5y ago
Wait, Teslas now come with FrameShift Drives?
- akmarinov 5y ago
  Not now, but in 2 weeks
  - avereveard 5y ago
    they just waiting for the regulatory approval

by dcow 5y ago

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.
- treis 5y ago
  Tesla has claimed that the cars they sold had the hardware necessary for self driving. Now that a new chip is required they are tacitly admitting that they made a false claim in advertising their cars. They either need to provide the upgrade for free or compensate buyers.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > the old hardware From the link's screenshot of Tesla's 10/19/2016 post: > We are excited to announce 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. That's a clear marketing claim.
  - clintonb 5y ago
    That’s the hardware for the 2016 version. The latest version of FSD needs newer hardware.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > the hardware for the 2016 version. The latest version of FSD needs newer hardware. Not sure you can start deprecating before you deliver.
      - clintonb 5y ago
        I agree in spirit. In practice, this is no different from deprecating an early alpha/beta version.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > this is no different from deprecating an early alpha/beta version If you sell the alpha with the promise of it supporting the full game, and then charge again when you release the beta no less, I could understand being upset.

spaceisballer 5y ago

Naturally the title is leading you one way and the reality is another. This would impact me because if I want this I would have to pay $1500 to use the subscription service instead of $5000 for FSD which nets me the computer upgrade too. The policy makes sense, I get that they have always said their cars are all capable of full self driving, yet even with the Model 3 they are requiring hardware upgrades before you can use FSD

gimmeThaBeet 5y ago

I agree, It's one of the things where I feel I hate the opinion, but it is what it is. If the promise boils down to the blog announcement on their blog, the line is '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.' IMO (not a lawyer), it feels like they didn't tell you it would be the latest, greatest, continually supported in perpetuity, never changing hardware. They told you it had hardware that could support a full self-driving system that is safer than a human. Hardware that they do not support now. I haven't interacted with any Tesla sales folks, but I feel like if you asked about a commitment like this, even before this subscription service, no one is going to commit to that. They made it clear it's up to you to purchase the self-driving software, and that is where all the magic is. And to boot, the available agreement when people purchased the car is still on the table; if you give them $10k, they will give you hardware. If you want the subscription, you need to have/acquire the supported hardware. If they had a contract like a phone (which dislike that business model) where you commit to X months, I could see it. But I too wouldn't want to be handing these out to have people cancel after a month.

websites2022 5y ago
> They told you it had hardware that could support a full self-driving system that is safer than a human. And this turned out to not be true, because if it were, they would have released FSD on this hardware. Just imagine if Microsoft sold you PC hardware that they claimed would support windows 11 back in 2016, but now require a processor upgrade to support it. This is exactly the same situation.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  it's more like selling you an Xbox and then never releasing any games, and then selling Xbox 360 and games. the original can (theoretically) play games, but no one with a license wrote any.
  - websites2022 5y ago

websites2022 5y ago

There’s a confusion in terms here that is worth clearing up. To have FSD requires the purchase of two products: the hardware and the software. Cars purchased from 2016 onwards were claimed to already have the hardware. It is possible to purchase the car with the hardware for FSD only, and not the software. People in this situation were told that they already had the hardware for FSD. Now Tesla is saying that they don’t. As the owner of two Teslas, as an investor, as a True Believer I have to say that Tesla fucked up here and need to be sued to make it right if they don’t fix this. Not with a “subscribe for two years and get it free.” They should just get the chip installed for free.

dcow 5y ago
I only own one Tesla so I guess I don't win in that department. Anyway, this was all before the subscription package. Things are not the same as they were in 2016 with the introduction of the 200/mo subscription. By saying "your cars have the hardware to do FSD" it means they're fitted with all the required accessories. If Tesla needs to give them a more powerful computer as a complementary upgrade once they purchase FSD, so be it. It doesn't make sense for Tesla to just ship out a bunch of the more powerful chips to people who never intend on using FSD. And like we've already covered, if you purchase FSD in full, the chip is entirely free. I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather have a subscription or not. Either FSD remains only accessible in a "bulk purchase attached to the car" capacity, or Telsa figures out how to work the economics of adding in a subscription model. I tend to think this subscription model opens up FSD to more people than not having it, so I think it's a net positive.
- websites2022 5y ago
  >Things are not the same as they were in 2016 with the introduction of the 200/mo subscription. This does not change the fundamental fact that Tesla promised something and then did not deliver it. That is, they promised that the hardware shipping with the vehicles 2016 onward were FSD capable. They are not. Remember —- they took investor cash after this announcement. That matters. > It doesn't make sense for Tesla to just ship out a bunch of the more powerful chips to people who never intend on using FSD. By this you mean: “It isn’t in Tesla’s best immediate financial interest.” But we have laws and norms in place in the US to counter balance the interest of corporations vs that of customers. Two of those laws and norms is not lying to your customers and making them whole whole whenever you make a mistake. As well, cars go through several owners. People purchased Teslas after the announcement with the value calculation that it was FSD capable. Tesla essentially robbed those customers of $1500 of resale value. That is, the customers expected to buy a car they could resell as FSD capable. Now they can’t.

Cosmin_C 5y ago

Wait, Teslas now come with FrameShift Drives?

akmarinov 5y ago
Not now, but in 2 weeks
- avereveard 5y ago
  they just waiting for the regulatory approval