4 ms·

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 li

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
    Except there is no 3rd party license to make software for Tesla. To make your metaphor apt, it would have to be “Selling you an Xbox that they claim can play Witcher 3 but then requiring you to buy Xbox 360 to play it.”
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      Solid analogy.
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
But Tesla never intends to support any Full Self Driving on older generation cars. Full Self Driving was sold at the time as being able to "summon your car to you when you are in LA and the car is in NYC." They probably won't get there with any hardware package in the next 10 years. But this is a present admission that older generation cars are not currently capable of what Tesla considers FSD without a hardware upgrade.
- gimmeThaBeet 5y ago
  So that part where I think it's really bad, and the fact that they use Full Self-Driving and FSD as basically a brand name is borderline irresponsible. But to me they are pretty consistent in their language, and any talk of autonomous driving I've seen comes from Musk, and is a projection that probably has a significant safe harbor. They continually seem to draw a very prominent line between "Full Self-Driving" and "Autonomous", where what Tesla defines as autonomous is the much higher standard (i.e summon your car from one coast to the other). I would in that light, argue that Tesla's hurdle for saying a given car is FSD capable is really low, because imo, it seems like they are comfortable saying Level 2 is like, Full Self-Driving (Beta).
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    I can't see any definition of "full" or "self-driving" that do not require autonomy. This is similar to the case where wireless networks tried to redefine the term "unlimited data" to mean "really a lot of data." The courts ruled against them when they throttled data above a cap that they considered very high usage.

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
  Except there is no 3rd party license to make software for Tesla. To make your metaphor apt, it would have to be “Selling you an Xbox that they claim can play Witcher 3 but then requiring you to buy Xbox 360 to play it.”
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    Solid analogy.

ErikVandeWater 5y ago

But Tesla never intends to support any Full Self Driving on older generation cars. Full Self Driving was sold at the time as being able to "summon your car to you when you are in LA and the car is in NYC." They probably won't get there with any hardware package in the next 10 years. But this is a present admission that older generation cars are not currently capable of what Tesla considers FSD without a hardware upgrade.

gimmeThaBeet 5y ago
So that part where I think it's really bad, and the fact that they use Full Self-Driving and FSD as basically a brand name is borderline irresponsible. But to me they are pretty consistent in their language, and any talk of autonomous driving I've seen comes from Musk, and is a projection that probably has a significant safe harbor. They continually seem to draw a very prominent line between "Full Self-Driving" and "Autonomous", where what Tesla defines as autonomous is the much higher standard (i.e summon your car from one coast to the other). I would in that light, argue that Tesla's hurdle for saying a given car is FSD capable is really low, because imo, it seems like they are comfortable saying Level 2 is like, Full Self-Driving (Beta).
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  I can't see any definition of "full" or "self-driving" that do not require autonomy. This is similar to the case where wireless networks tried to redefine the term "unlimited data" to mean "really a lot of data." The courts ruled against them when they throttled data above a cap that they considered very high usage.