5 ms·

"It's what enables Tesla to turn off features that it doesn't think certain users should have." As someone who follows Tesla closely, it is destroying my trust

"It's what enables Tesla to turn off features that it doesn't think certain users should have." As someone who follows Tesla closely, it is destroying my trust in the media. This line would lead you believe that Tesla does this on a regular basis. I know that's not the case. If you click the link it's referring to an isolated incident that involves a single largely anonymous person (alec). So it makes me question the whole article. This story is also anecdotal... does anyone know if this really even a problem? If it were, it sounds like an opportunity for a competitor to make a simple to repair harvester.

post_break 5y ago
People have bought cars with software already bought and paid for and Tesla has taken it away. So yes, Tesla does do this. Tesla blacklists people from super charging as well.
- TheParkShark 5y ago
  I thought the blacklist for supercharging is on salvaged titles? You can still charge at home but not on the supercharging network.
ncallaway 5y ago
> If you click the link it's referring to an isolated incident that It doesn’t matter to me that Tesla has only done it once (that we know of), the thing that is disturbing is the capability of Tesla to do this. The fact that vehicle functionality can be locked behind a Boolean column in the Tesla database is itself the thing that is problematic and disturbing. And the article in this instance seems accurate, in that they were referring to the capability for Tesla to do this (by pointing at an extant example), rather than claiming that Tesla had a widespread issue of abusing this functionality.
- andrewtbham 5y ago
  I get your point... you're concerned "the capability" but my point is... why mislead? what else are they misleading about. > It's what enables Tesla to turn off features that it doesn't think certain users should have the misleading part is the phrase "doesn't think certain users should have" it sounds like it's at tesla's discretion but in fact they are referring to a single accident.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    > sounds like it's at tesla's discretion but in fact… I’m not sure I understand the “but in fact”, qualifier because the example that you point to exactly demonstrates that Tesla has the capability to make these changes at their discretion. It sounds like it’s that way because it is! Tesla has the capability to turn off features at their discretion, by altering a row in the database. So…yes, if Tesla doesn’t think a user should have a capability that’s managed remotely, they update a database row (that they have exclusive control over), and that vehicle no longer has that capability. The statement still reads as totally accurate to me. The typical use is not malicious (oh, this free trial is now over, so disable that capability), but that’s still a demonstration of Tesla remotely disabling a feature that they don’t think a certain user should have. My objection is to the capability, rather than a pattern of malicious use. I think the article was correct to point out the capability, and did so by relying on a well known example. To me, I didn’t read it as an implication that this inaccurate remote disabling was a widespread problem for Tesla but I understand if you read it differently.
    - andrewtbham 5y ago
      it's not inaccurate, it's misleading. It could have read... "It's what enabled Tesla to once accidentally turn off a feature for a user." This would still make your point... that they have the capability, but wouldn't be misleading.
      - andrewtbham 5y ago
        I have messaged the woman in the article and asked about the incident. because my main point is... these articles are misleading and I don't trust them. curious to see what she says... if anything. https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-rachor-5040998/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-rachor-5040998/
- edude03 5y ago
  I bought a Tesla recently and the biggest selling point to me is that (in theory, it’s yet to be proven for me) you can enable features after purchase. It bothers me that for example BMW literally won’t let you upgrade the head unit to get car play neither by software nor by physically sealing it (new head units need to be activated by BMW HQ and they won’t do it if your HU doesn’t match your VIN). You can look at it from the negative point of view but there is an upside to it that I think is worth mentioning.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    I agree that it's not all downsides, and that there are benefits. To me, it seems the downsides generally outweigh the benefits, but I totally agree that its something people need to individually weigh up the pros and cons.
  - wrboyce 5y ago
    CarPlay is “literally” available to purchase as a BMW ConnectedDrive Service. https://www.bmw.co.uk/en/shop/en/shop/ls/dp/Base_CarPlay_gb https://www.bmw.co.uk/en/shop/en/shop/ls/dp/Base_CarPlay_gb It also seems that (after an extremely cursory Google) you can indeed retrofit a BMW Head Unit to enable CarPlay in older unsupported models. https://www.bimmer-tech.net/blog/item/49-how-to-retrofit-carplay#head-4 https://www.bimmer-tech.net/blog/item/49-how-to-retrofit-car... Are you sure it was a BMW you were driving?
    - edude03 5y ago
      Yes :) I still drive it, it's a 2017 i3. In fact, I did retrofit the 3rd party module (I got the roadtop one) I don't think the fact that BMW _now_ offers it for _some_ cars (and most importantly, not for my car) disproves my point that automotive companies should be more willing to retrofit parts for you OR offer them via paid software upgrades instead of encouraging you to purchase a whole new vehicle
mdoms 5y ago
> This line would lead you believe that Tesla does this on a regular basis. No it wouldn't. You're over-reading it. And yes this capability is a real problem.

post_break 5y ago

People have bought cars with software already bought and paid for and Tesla has taken it away. So yes, Tesla does do this. Tesla blacklists people from super charging as well.

TheParkShark 5y ago
I thought the blacklist for supercharging is on salvaged titles? You can still charge at home but not on the supercharging network.

ncallaway 5y ago

> If you click the link it's referring to an isolated incident that It doesn’t matter to me that Tesla has only done it once (that we know of), the thing that is disturbing is the capability of Tesla to do this. The fact that vehicle functionality can be locked behind a Boolean column in the Tesla database is itself the thing that is problematic and disturbing. And the article in this instance seems accurate, in that they were referring to the capability for Tesla to do this (by pointing at an extant example), rather than claiming that Tesla had a widespread issue of abusing this functionality.

andrewtbham 5y ago
I get your point... you're concerned "the capability" but my point is... why mislead? what else are they misleading about. > It's what enables Tesla to turn off features that it doesn't think certain users should have the misleading part is the phrase "doesn't think certain users should have" it sounds like it's at tesla's discretion but in fact they are referring to a single accident.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  > sounds like it's at tesla's discretion but in fact… I’m not sure I understand the “but in fact”, qualifier because the example that you point to exactly demonstrates that Tesla has the capability to make these changes at their discretion. It sounds like it’s that way because it is! Tesla has the capability to turn off features at their discretion, by altering a row in the database. So…yes, if Tesla doesn’t think a user should have a capability that’s managed remotely, they update a database row (that they have exclusive control over), and that vehicle no longer has that capability. The statement still reads as totally accurate to me. The typical use is not malicious (oh, this free trial is now over, so disable that capability), but that’s still a demonstration of Tesla remotely disabling a feature that they don’t think a certain user should have. My objection is to the capability, rather than a pattern of malicious use. I think the article was correct to point out the capability, and did so by relying on a well known example. To me, I didn’t read it as an implication that this inaccurate remote disabling was a widespread problem for Tesla but I understand if you read it differently.
  - andrewtbham 5y ago
    it's not inaccurate, it's misleading. It could have read... "It's what enabled Tesla to once accidentally turn off a feature for a user." This would still make your point... that they have the capability, but wouldn't be misleading.
    - andrewtbham 5y ago
      I have messaged the woman in the article and asked about the incident. because my main point is... these articles are misleading and I don't trust them. curious to see what she says... if anything. https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-rachor-5040998/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-rachor-5040998/
edude03 5y ago
I bought a Tesla recently and the biggest selling point to me is that (in theory, it’s yet to be proven for me) you can enable features after purchase. It bothers me that for example BMW literally won’t let you upgrade the head unit to get car play neither by software nor by physically sealing it (new head units need to be activated by BMW HQ and they won’t do it if your HU doesn’t match your VIN). You can look at it from the negative point of view but there is an upside to it that I think is worth mentioning.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  I agree that it's not all downsides, and that there are benefits. To me, it seems the downsides generally outweigh the benefits, but I totally agree that its something people need to individually weigh up the pros and cons.
- wrboyce 5y ago
  CarPlay is “literally” available to purchase as a BMW ConnectedDrive Service. https://www.bmw.co.uk/en/shop/en/shop/ls/dp/Base_CarPlay_gb https://www.bmw.co.uk/en/shop/en/shop/ls/dp/Base_CarPlay_gb It also seems that (after an extremely cursory Google) you can indeed retrofit a BMW Head Unit to enable CarPlay in older unsupported models. https://www.bimmer-tech.net/blog/item/49-how-to-retrofit-carplay#head-4 https://www.bimmer-tech.net/blog/item/49-how-to-retrofit-car... Are you sure it was a BMW you were driving?
  - edude03 5y ago
    Yes :) I still drive it, it's a 2017 i3. In fact, I did retrofit the 3rd party module (I got the roadtop one) I don't think the fact that BMW _now_ offers it for _some_ cars (and most importantly, not for my car) disproves my point that automotive companies should be more willing to retrofit parts for you OR offer them via paid software upgrades instead of encouraging you to purchase a whole new vehicle

mdoms 5y ago

> This line would lead you believe that Tesla does this on a regular basis. No it wouldn't. You're over-reading it. And yes this capability is a real problem.