4 ms·

> 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

> 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/
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  There are other incidents. Someone pulled info about the Model 3 out of their Model S firmware. Tesla responded by downgrading his firmware remotely, locking his vehicle from future upgrades, and disabling the car's ethernet port.
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

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/
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
FireBeyond 5y ago
There are other incidents. Someone pulled info about the Model 3 out of their Model S firmware. Tesla responded by downgrading his firmware remotely, locking his vehicle from future upgrades, and disabling the car's ethernet port.

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