27 ms·

Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

899 points by noasaservice 4y ago

JustLurking2022 4y ago
The tweets indicate it was "badged a 90". Seems odd/unlikely Tesla actually changed out the badging on a battery replacement, in which case someone else committed fraud.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Yes, someone may have committed fraud. That has no bearing whatsoever on the basic problem here, however, which is a car manufacturer retroactively changing the configuration profile on a car sold nearly a decade ago.
  - JustLurking2022 4y ago
    Except that's not what happened... When the car was sold, it had the lower range. If it was resold with that same lower range expectation then, while slightly frustrating, the buyer would not have an expectation of the greater range, so it would be more like when the cable company takes away those extra channels your original technician enabled with a wink and a nod - you knew you weren't really paying for them. The fraud created a false expectation.
chad_strategic 4y ago
Would it kill the twitter author to write a simple post and not some 10 part twitter explanation. Please be kind to those that suffer from Attention Surplus Disorder. (ASD)
- thinkingemote 4y ago
  Basically, it would kill the author to write a blog post. Death as in the death of sympathy, attention, notice, psychological affirmation, pride, sharing, hype, superficial outrage and the death of this comment thread of hundreds of comments after only a handful of hours. There's a reason why people use Twitter, because it really would be their (superficial) death not to.
account-5 4y ago
Ignoring the arguments about morality, and who is(n't) in the right, this is a prime example of why I don't trust electric cars! If the manufacturer can do this then you don't own the car, even if you paid for it in full.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  What does this have to do with electric cars? Do you think this kind of thing can't happen to ICE vehicles?
noasaservice 4y ago
--------Transcript of tweets, for those that don't want to go to birdsite-------- Tesla really fires me up sometimes. I have a customer who's the ~3rd owner of a 2013 Model S 60. At some point years ago the battery pack was swapped under warranty with a 90 pack. It wasn't software limited. It was effectively made into a 90 by Tesla. Years went by. Car is sold twice since, and now has a new owner (my customer). It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range. He has the car for a few months, goes in and does a paid MCU2 upgrade at Tesla after the 3G shutdown. All goes well. The upgrade is done, car is working fine. Later on, while the car is parked in his driveway, Tesla calls him to tell him that they found and fixed a configuration mistake with his car. They remotely software locked the car to be a 60 again, despite having been a 90 for years. He now has ~80 miles less range. Furious, he demands they restore it back to the way it was, and they refuse. "We can unlock it for $4,500." This guy bought a car, & years later Tesla reaches in remotely with no warning and literally cuts his usable range by a third! (I confirmed story w/logs) Imagine walking out to your car to find it's now 1/3rd as good as it was 15 minutes ago, and Tesla making it out like this is a good thing! They fixed the problem! What do you do? He tried for a while with them with no progress. I try to help, but without completely disconnecting the car from Tesla, when I change it back to a 90 their "teleforce" bot reaches in remotely and flips it back to a 60 within moments. There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal. Tesla won't help him at all. Honestly, this is pretty f*cked up. Guy had no way to know that this was going to be done by Tesla. They basically robbed him & are demanding a ransom to get back what he had before. That's just wrong. @Tesla @elonmusk - Do better on this and make it right. DM for VIN.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Luckily I don't have to imagine because I will never, ever buy a vehicle that allows for this sort of behavior. The person should hire a lawyer and sue Tesla.
  - heavenlyblue 4y ago
    Even for actual crimes there’s statute of limitations…
superchroma 4y ago
"I feel like this is more mundane on Tesla's part than many are making it out to be. A mistake was made years ago. An employee recently discovered and "fixed" it. Terrible communication and customer service, but nefarious? Nah." At this point I feel like terrible communication and service is an intentional business strategy for some companies who found that by making support so baroque as to be inaccessible or just eliminating it entirely that they can slash costs accordingly. I do consider it to be nefarious in such cases.
- AinderS 4y ago
  Software locks themselves are nefarious. Is it the owner's car, or Tesla's?
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    I wonder if there is some nice fine print somewhere that they only sold a "licence" to use the car. Not the car itself... Kinda like software has...
    - noasaservice 4y ago
      If they want to *lease* the vehicles, that's fine. They need to make it explicitly known it is a lease for X term, and at Y cost per month of the lease. Modifying their property would be completely in the clear, or at least a hell of a lot less ethically ambiguous. But they're selling these vehicles. As in, transfer of title to the person they're selling to. Taxes are paid. Transfer is registered with the state(s). Insurance is purchased on vehicles in your possession. And full coverage is required for vehicle loans (another set of showing proper legal transfer). And, just because some click-wrap software has "We are allowed to murder your family and eat your children" does not make illegal clauses legal. And given in this instance, it was tesla->first owner->second owner->third owner , any click-wrap garbage would have been done by the first owner. Basically, this is the end-run around physical ownership for all the IoT companies and companies that pay for/demand 100% connectivity. All of these companies that have these always-on remote tie ins are the Darth Vader here - "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further." All the EV companies are doing this. I so want to buy an EV. I'm not willing to subvert my ownership rights for that.
bgirard 4y ago
> Car is sold twice since, and now has a new owner (my customer). It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range. When they bought the car from the 3rd party, did they buy it as a P60 or a P90? Did someone mis-represent the car when sold? Was it Tesla or the previous owner? Was the badge on the back changed to P90? That doesn't sound like a 'mistake' Tesla would make when making a warranty repair. Curial information here is missing. If the car was clearly a P60 that was accidentally unlocked P90 then I would consider that when buying the car that Tesla would lock it again when they noticed. If the previous owner misrepresented the car as a P90 and modified the badge then it's on them.
- _ea1k 4y ago
  I wondered that too. It'd be extremely unusual for Tesla to go as far as changing the badge. OTOH, a car dealer along the way might do that if they noticed the discrepancy between the badge and what the software reported. It'd be hard to blame them too, since people do sometimes downgrade the badging on cars (eg, this "218i", lol: https://carsandbids.com/auctions/Kmm4AgbK/2016-bmw-m2 https://carsandbids.com/auctions/Kmm4AgbK/2016-bmw-m2 ). It still leaves Tesla as the bad guy. The current owner bears no relation to the ones who did it, and there's really no reasonable process that could have allowed him to know that this might happen.
  - bgirard 4y ago
    > It still leaves Tesla as the bad guy. I mostly agree. I think good customer service norms do dictate a reasonable statute of limitation here. I think where it becomes interesting is if someone acted negligently in the chain when they bought a P60 and sold it off as a P90. If someone wasn't paying too much attention, they might not have noticed at all. I for instance had no idea which engine variant my car had (1.5L vs 2.0L) until I realized my mpg was poor. So maybe it's a legit mistake. The changing of the physical badge is very suspicious however. But if Tesla changed the software badge then yes, I think they deserve the blame.
    - _ea1k 4y ago
      Yeah, I think we are thinking similarly here. I've seen some cases where FSD was lost where it was absolutely dealer negligence. The bad thing is that Tesla sometimes takes a really long time with these "audits". Its hard when the customer only finds out what the dealer did after months of ownership.
Enginerrrd 4y ago
I'll spare the moral judgements against Tesla for this: The real moral of the story here is that if your business plan and practices is creating occasional weird issues and huge cognitive dissonance in your customers, it's the wrong business plan. Also... the number of people this applies to is likely so low that Tesla really screwed up by not erring on the side of the customer. (They didn't buy from Tesla, but they're still a customer buying servicing from them.) If the bad publicity alone causes even a tiny fraction of the population to choose another manufacturer, the've lost their $4,500 and then some. Harmony is a really underrated concept. When things are harmonious, you don't have problems like this, and you can still make money.
- nr2x 4y ago
  Well said, I’m potentially in the market for a car and this is like reason #5 I’m ruling out Tesla.
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    Care to share the others? I'm weighing my options as well. Anything you are leaning towards buying?
    - nr2x 4y ago
      Battery issues being a cost of early adoption aside, I love my Bolt. It’s a hatchback and with the 0-60 of an EV it handles like Mario Kart. Super fun.
  - duncan_idaho 4y ago
    I'd say this is a great reason to not a used one. Which Tesla doesn't care about at all and probably want to discourage.
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      That seems short-sighted. Having a healthy secondary market makes purchasing a new one more appealing since you can recover some of the purchase price later. It also allows the superfans to buy the latest and greatest model more often.
nr2x 4y ago
I’d this isn’t already illegal there really needs to be legislation to ban this shit. Or at least more right to repair action.
andrewallbright 4y ago
This situation certainly feels like it should be in a Dilbert comic.
gnicholas 4y ago
How can a potential buyer verify that a used Tesla they are considering purchasing is not subject to some sort of pullback like this? I feel like there's an information asymmetry between the used car buyer (who has likely never owned a Tesla before, and certainly doesn't know the history of the vehicle he's considering purchasing), the seller (who may specifically be aware that the car appears to have functionality that could be revoked at a later date), and Tesla (who have records of what has been paid for). What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position?
- thrown_22 4y ago
  >Should I be buying a car from a company that thinks I'm leasing a car? Seems like the most obvious first question.
- dylan604 4y ago
  >What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position? Just a few spit balls for you: Do you have another used car for sale that is not a Tesla? Does this Tesla have any features currently enabled that might be disabled when someone realizes I'm no longer the original owner or the current owner realizes their credit card is still paying for services they no longer use, etc? In what ways will Tesla fuck me after purchasing this car?
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    You could just as easily get screwed by GM, Ford, or any other legacy automaker. Your remedies are always legal or regulatory in nature, and you can’t rely on brand alone to ensure a satisfactory ownership experience.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      I've never had a legacy car that could over-the-air disable things. Maybe OnStar or similar could do something, but not like the level that Tesla took things. You're "remedies are always legal" is a bit flat. Tell to the parent that is in a rush to take their 2.34 kids to school before heading to work that they need to contact a lawyer before starting their day. And when is the last time a call to a lawyer fixed anything within any kind of quick turn time? So now you're without a car until lawyers "fix" things.
bena 4y ago
The only reason to software lock the capacity of the battery in this manner is to extort customers. There is apparently absolutely no additional labor, no additional material, nothing to distinguish a P90 from a P60 except for a software lock. That's labor that was not necessary. All the work needed to software lock the charge capacity of the battery could have been avoided. The only way it makes sense is if you get to charge more for the exact same thing. Which is what Tesla is apparently doing. Essentially, every P90 should be $4500 cheaper and every P60 should have the range of a P90.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > The only reason to software lock the capacity of the battery in this manner is to extort customers. I have mixed feelings about schemes like this, but I don't think they're inherently bad. You start off making 60kWh and 90kWh cars. Customers are happy buying both. You notice you can save costs overall by just selling the 90kWh cars at the 60kWh price-- but revenue will fall if you don't lock the pack down to 60kWh. Would it be better to force Tesla to maintain two different physical pack SKUs and incur more costs if they want different pricing for the different capacities? And you do save some money, even, with the locking-- after all, the 90kWh pack used as a 60kWh one is far less likely to need warranty service-- it has spent less time at the extremes of charge and it can fall all the way from 90 to 54kWh instead of 90 to 81kWh. This is just like binning with CPUs-- at first, the yields control whether something is an 8 core or 6 core part. Later, you lock some 8 core parts down to be 6 cores so you can sell them at a lower price.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    There's a huge difference here compared to binning: binning generally involves chips that are physically incapable of performing to the higher spec because of defects.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      As I stated in my comment: this is true at the beginning of a process node with a new design. But yields improve, and eventually you end up with too many parts in the high bins and nowhere near enough in the value bins-- so you end up blowing fuses on parts that test fully OK to make them be 4 cores or 6 cores. (And now, Intel is about to let Xeon customers pay to unlock additional cores...)
barefeg 4y ago
Devils advocate here. Does the action of the customer service person (and maybe their manager) reflect the real mission of the company? Could it be employees (for whatever reason) not realizing that leaving the full range unlocked is in the best interest of the company?
- suprfsat 4y ago
  Why would the company hire employees, particularly those whose literal job description is to represent the company, who act against the real mission of the company? Occam's Razor applies.
recursivedoubts 4y ago
"You'll own nothing and you'll like it."
- api 4y ago
  We'd get pretty far by just putting that guy's face and that quote on billboards everywhere. It's an idea so odious that no commentary is needed.
- Spivak 4y ago
  The irony is that I would love to not actually own a car, please let me pay a flat monthly/yearly fee for “having a car of a specific model or better in good working order” available to me at all times and let the manufacturer figure out how best to do that. Car breaks down, who cares, call the seller, they swap you out, repair it and keep it ready for the next person. It’s the only business model that aligns the incentives right. Car manufacturers and I benefit from better reliability and lower maintenance costs. This shitty world we live in is the worst of both worlds.
galdosdi 4y ago
I don't think this kind of behavior is going to impact their sales, because frankly, they long ago passed the point where you have to be willing to completely drink the koolaid and not care about your privacy/independence and treat your car as just another SaaS software product you essentially rent, even if you did pay upfront. Much like how Lay's will not lose any customers if it's revealed they actually are slightly fattier and unhealthier than everyone already knows they are -- anyone who really would care already stopped eating them, the customers left don't care.
- teawrecks 4y ago
  I think it hurts the resale value of their vehicles IMO. How much that hurts the retail value is dependent on the customer base. Like you said, if the base is like the classic apple user who just wants the newest shiniest tech, then they already expect the cost of the vehicle to be sunk. But Apple's goal isn't market penetration, exclusivity is part of their brand. Tesla on the other hand seems to have a goal of replacing as many gas cars with EVs as possible. I think marketing exclusivity conflicts with the goal of market penetration, and the only reason it hasn't become a problem yet is because everyone assumes their car is losing value already. But if Tesla wants to sell a car to the other more frugal 90% of the population, they're going to have to cut this shit out.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I agree, I don't think in the near term this affects their sales. They've cultivated a myth of technological superiority that works with less sophisticated consumers, while at the same time offering fewer features than all of the competition. I mean, heck, even a Nissan Rogue has a 360* camera that Tesla doesn't offer. Auto wipers that actually work. CarPlay, etc.
TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
Reason 547 why you should not connect your car to the internet. Today it is limiting range because mistake several years ago, tomorrow it will be mandatory ads every time when you start a car.
- Verdex 4y ago
  Verdex presents: A Plausible Future Driver: Okay Car are you ready to go? Car: Sure thing driver, let's just hook up to the T-Network. Okay, we're in! Where's our destination? D: Well, first thing is that I'm going to want a Mocha Frappe from the local Starbucks. C: Sounds great! Off we go. D: Wait, Car what are we doing at McDonalds? C: McDonald's offers a wide variety of cafe style drinks at competitive prices. This includes your Mocha Frappe. 9 out of 10 baristas actually prefer the smooth taste of McDonald's Mocha Frappe to that of Starbucks. Have you had your break today? D: No, I wanted Starbucks. Oh well, I guess we're already in line. Menu: Welcome to McDonalds! What can we make for you today? D: I would like a Mocha Frappe. M: Oh, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid out frappe machine is broken. What else can we make for you? D: Really? I just wanted the Mocha. Okay Car, can you take me to Starbucks now? C: Sounds great! Off we go. D: No, Car, you just left the McDonald's parking lot and then came right back. They don't have any Mocha Frappe's here. They said their machine is broken. C: McDonald's offers a wide variety of cafe style drinks at competitive prices. This includes your Mocha Frappe. 9 out of 10 baristas actually prefer the smooth taste of McDonald's Mocha Frappe to that of Starbucks. Have you had your break today? D: I guess their frappe machine isn't the only broken machine here.
  - bambax 4y ago
    Very good. Not only will your car try to control you, it will also fail to do it properly.
  - function_seven 4y ago
    My favorite part of this story is where the machine that forced you to go to the Preferred Provider⁰ was stymied by another machine that they couldn't repair because their preferred provider¹ was sued by their overlord's Preferred Provider² 0: McD, 1: Kytch, 2: Taylor
hristov 4y ago
This has got to be one of the worst clickbait headlines in HN history, and this is an achievement. This is what happened. Person A has his tesla serviced, tesla increases his range by mistake. Person A puts a wrong decal on the tesla and illegally and fraudulently sells it as a car with an increased range to person B. The car eventually gets to person C, who takes the tesla to service where they correct the mistake. So sorry, there is no ransoming. Just a bit of old fashioned fraud, and not on the part of Tesla.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  > illegally and fraudulently How so? The car clearly had increased range at the time of sale. Tesla clearly approved of it at the time or they wouldn't have let it happen, and companies sure as hell don't get to take back stuff after years of condoning it because it was "by mistake".
- nocman 4y ago
  > So sorry, there is no ransoming. Just a bit of old fashioned fraud, and not on the part of Tesla. Actually, it's just a bit of old fashioned stupidity on the part of Tesla (or, at least, on the part of one of Tesla's employees). They made the mistake when the car was owned by someone else (in fact, two someone elses ago). It would cost them basically nothing to just leave it alone, and instead they've gained a huge pile of ill will -- not only for the current owner of the car, but an internet's worth of customers and potential customers. And saying they will "fix" what they "fixed" for $4500 just makes them look even more like jerks. Really bad move on Tesla's part.
theandrewbailey 4y ago
https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551713024171548672 https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551713024171548672 EDIT: Meant to paste unrolled link: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1551713024171548672.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1551713024171548672.html
psi75 4y ago
humanwhosits 4y ago
Sounds like this should be a lawsuit instead
- 1970-01-01 4y ago
  Very yes. Litigate in small claims, win, and move on with life.
zcw100 4y ago
So the way I'm reading the post is Tesla swapped out a battery pack for a 60 with a 90 and enabled the 90. Tesla, years later, discovers that even though the hardware for a 90 was installed it should have been software limited to be a 60. (I'm assuming that Tesla only made the owner pay the cost of the 60 battery swap even though they replaced it with a 90). They go and "fix the glitch" and set it back to the 60. Since the new owner bought it thinking it was a 90, because it was enabled to be a 90, presumably paid for it assuming this was the case and is now upset because they don't have what they thought they bought. Sounds like all around bad decisions. The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90". Tesla, being notified, should have just enabled the 90 and made the customer happy. How exactly are people supposed to abuse this? Tesla put the 90 in there and they're the only ones who are going to be doing that. Presumably this cost them a fortune to do it in the first place. Why not get some good will out of it? "Hey sorry about your battery. We only had a 90 so we threw that in there. Enjoy. Tell everyone you know about how awesome Tesla was about fixing the problem and remember that next time you go to buy your next car"
- gambiting 4y ago
  >> (I'm assuming that Tesla only made the owner pay the cost of the 60 battery swap even though they replaced it with a 90) It says right there that it was done under warranty. If my RTX3080 breaks, and Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement(because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update. And yes, I'm allowed to sell it on as a 3080Ti, because....that's what it is. >>The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90". Maybe, but again, I don't see why that should be necessary. Tesla should not have been able to do this, period.
  - wang_li 4y ago
    Intel literally did this last month. Seems that some motherboard manufacturers were selling systems that allowed the Alder Lake CPUs to user AVX512, which is not a feature advertised on those CPUs. Intel released a new microcode that disables it.
kderbyma 4y ago
Why Tesla again? at least with an older car I own it and it's problems....Tesla seems to passed the problems off to me and keep the rest...
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Tesla sells a 1M car a year and this problem effected 1 person, maybe a group of a few 1000 max.
seeekr 4y ago
Last update on Twitter: "While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way." Tesla is a big company by now. Probably a lot more people working there in Service Centers than in the core manufacturing & engineering. Hard to get everything right. Lots of room for improvement for sure. Rooting for Tesla to work these things out over time! (Disclaimer: Owner + shareholder, both out of conviction.)
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  This just makes it worse - it basically means that the only way to get adequate service for your car is to get lucky on social media. > Tesla is a big company by now. Probably a lot more people working there in Service Centers than in the core manufacturing & engineering. Hard to get everything right Sorry but if you don't have the capacity to attend to every single customer request, maybe don't fuck with their cars remotely, and especially not a couple years after the original mistake?
  - kreetx 4y ago
    The customers probably want the software updates.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      It doesn't seem like much to ask, though, to have a rule that says "No software updates will alter the configuration profile of the car. The end."
balls187 4y ago
It's not clear of the 3rd owner purchased an S90 or knowingly purchased an S60 that had been "faked" to be an S90. Tesla made a mistake, which benefited 1,2 or even all 3 owners. They then fixed the mistake. I wonder if there are some regulations that prohibit the type of upgrade Tesla did on accident, and the $4,500 fee goes to cover the regulatory requirements necessary to upgrade a vehicle. Otherwise, yes it's kind of bad move from a customer service point of view. As another commenter wrote, the first blame lies with who ever rebadged the S60 as an S90 and then sold it as an S90. At somepoint one owner realized they had benefited from something without paying for it, and it's unclear if they ever tried to rectify it with Tesla. Edit to Add Ethical Questions: If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for? What if you order DoorDash, and you get extra food you didn't pay for? Do you message Doordash to charge you? What if it's the opposite, you don't get food you did pay for? Ask DoorDash for a refund? Finally, what if you accidentally receive a high ticket item in from an online order. 3 months later, the online retailer figures out what happened, and asks you for the item back. If you refuse to send it back, should they charge you for it?
- crooked-v 4y ago
  > I wonder if there are some regulations that prohibit the type of upgrade Tesla did on accident, and the $4,500 fee goes to cover the regulatory requirements necessary to upgrade a vehicle. There aren't. > If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for? If a server at a restaurant says "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" I have no reason to think it's a mistake to be charged the price of a strip steak. That restaurant doesn't get to put another charge on my credit card literally years later because a manager decided that in retrospect I should be charged the difference.
  - balls187 4y ago
    > If a server at a restaurant says "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" In this case, the restaurant offered, which is not a mistake, and IANAL, but arguably "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" sounds close to a verbal contract.
bambax 4y ago
> To be extra clear, I don't post this stuff because I hate Tesla or anything. In fact, it's just the opposite. I hate seeing Tesla derail themselves with this kind of nonsense. I respect the OP for saying this. But I have a hard time respecting people buying Teslas, or anything from Musk. Is it not obvious that the guy is a charlatan? (and that the fish rots from the head?) How likely is it that you won't be robbed blind if you try to do business with him or any of his ventures?
- kranke155 4y ago
  Tim Dillon said it best. “I met him and guy is a genius. But he’s also a carnival barker.”
  - kytazo 4y ago
    I don't know Tim Dillon but you have to be equally 'smart' to call this pothead puppet a genius
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Genius may be overselling it. Elon's primary skill seems to be marketing, and recognizing talented senior management to actually run the company.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  He oversells it a bit much (what startup doesn't? it's also a method for success) but I wouldn't call him a charlatan. The companies he's run have accomplished quite a lot.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Someone called him out on twitter for his flirtation with toxic conservatism. They asked if he remembers what demographic buys 99% of his vehicles. I didn’t see if he replied.
  - astrange 4y ago
    He needs electric vehicles to be associated with conservatism, otherwise they're going to ban them and make rolling coal mandatory. It's probably the greatest thing he could do for climate change.
psyc 4y ago
Payed-For Physical Objects As A Service strikes again.
rvz 4y ago
> Ransoms car owner remotely... Well, as expected and unsurprising. [0] It isn't your car. You don't own it and it has a backdoor straight to Tesla inc. Especially this magnificent and well (badly) aged comment in [0] "TESla OwNErs likE THiS BAcKdoOR abIlITY." I don't think the comments here now would like a backdoor talking straight to Tesla so that they can disable features and hold your car to ransoms like this. No thanks and no deal. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29624703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29624703
hinkley 4y ago
There was a twitter message that made it to Reddit front page yesterday about being a black man driving an electric car in the rural south and trying to find a recharging station being the plot for Jordan Peele’s next movie. Interesting synchronicity. Also would watch that movie.
throwaway1777 4y ago
Time to jailbreak your tesla.
jeffwask 4y ago
This is why I'll stick to dumb cars.
- markus_zhang 4y ago
  Any recommendation for a solid SUV? Would Toyota cut it? I remember the coronas are extremely solid but not sure about their SUV such as Highlander.
  - grubbs 4y ago
    Honda Pilot!
    - markus_zhang 4y ago
      Thanks! Will look into it.
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
Internet of Extortion. What a time to be alive.
meltyness 4y ago
My perspective is that this simply begs the question, "How does one buy and sell a used Tesla vehicle?" And by doing a bit of research, we arrive at the throat of the issue. Tesla is a competing Used Tesla Dealer, this is listed in their 10K as a part of their automotive segment: - https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla This page provides no clear guidance on how licenses transfer for "upgrades." Presumably that's in the licensing details for each "upgrade." In other instances, such as Full-Self Driving it's called a "subscription" which has a clearer implication. I seek the EULA for the vehicle itself, which should detail that part of the ownership lifecycle, but it doesn't seem to be public. The consumer may be able to work a state-permitted return: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/ownersrightsnotification.pdf https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/o... Under the "New Vehicle Limited Warranty" https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Model_3_New_Vehicle_Limited_Warranty_NA_en.pdf https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Model_3_... Tesla has performed an unneeded repair and broken their own obligation... "but when replacing a Battery, Tesla will ensure that the energy capacity of the replacement Battery is at least equal to that of the original Battery before the failure occurred"
- noasaservice 4y ago
  > My perspective is that this simply begs the question, "How does one buy and sell a used Tesla vehicle?" > And by doing a bit of research, we arrive at the throat of the issue. Tesla is a competing Used Tesla Dealer, this is listed in their 10K as a part of their automotive segment: - https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla Well, that seems to be the original reason why the older vehicle companies weren't allowed to directly sell, and had to go through dealerships. But because it is a software company, they break the older rules and the reasons why we had those older rules. And naturally, society memory is measured in days. This article covers the whole situation... and why we probably should stick with dealerships? https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15352113/why-do-we-keep-buying-vehicles-at-dealerships/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15352113/why-do-we-keep-b...
- dfbsdfbwe2ef2e 4y ago
  Maybe this is Tesla's strategy. Create fear around the sale of their used cars so that they're the only company that people will buy used teslas from. It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.
kreetx 4y ago
There is another story somewhere where a car dealer blames Tesla for software-downgrading the car. It might be Tesla to blame, but on the other article a careful read put it in a grey area. Perhaps here too, the dealer wants to wash themselves clean?
hericium 4y ago
Surprise, surprise: the insane may not be a best judge of what's right and wrong.
sandworm101 4y ago
Tesla is acting like Ferrari. They have not earned that right yet. They should aim to act like BMW: milk your wealthy customers, but never hand over a product that isn't your best work.
lizardactivist 4y ago
I had no idea they could even do something like this remotely. What else can they do? Shut the engine off? Lock the steering? What intelligence agencies have access? What if a side-channel can be created and (other) malicious actors obtain access? This kind of remote access to a car is genuinely terrifying.
- EricE 4y ago
  They aren't the only ones - Toyota was toying with retroactively charging for *keyfob* remote start access until the outcry caused them to double back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfDoc6wegss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfDoc6wegss But other manufacturers have to be looking at what Tesla and BMW are pulling and thinking about ways they could follow suit. A pox on all their houses; if I never buy another new car I'll be more than happy.
thumbsup-_- 4y ago
This is the problem with over the air updates. It gives car companies the ability to disable features at their own will. Another aspect is that software has bugs and an update can potentially also introduce problems in your car, especially when your 10yr model is receiving updates that the software engineer didn't care to test for such old model. I always liked software that runs stable software and keeps running that way forever.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Exactly. Everyone loves those OTA updates right now because they bring new features. Let's revisit in ten years and see how happy everyone is.
- buffington 4y ago
  I bought my Tesla used, and when I went to pull up the digital user manual (a PDF) the entire screen went black and the car rebooted. After rebooting, I tried it again, and it did it again. I've since learned to avoid software updates as long as possible unless the description of changes explicitly describes fixing a bug. Even then, I weigh the benefits of fixing the bug, or leaving it as is, knowing an update could make other things worse.
agluszak 4y ago
There should be a law forbidding software locking. Otherwise I'm afraid it will keep getting more and more popular (like the "seat heating subscription"[1]). If I buy a piece of hardware, I own it. 1 - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/14/business/bmw-subscription/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/14/business/bmw-subscription...
ls15 4y ago
Who pays for the energy that is needed to move the added weight?
Ekaros 4y ago
Good customer relations would have been to leave car as it was... Then again, if there is some ratio of fanatics that are ready to pay 4500 extra on second hand car this might make financial sense... You never know with Tesla and some people...
chris_wot 4y ago
And this is why I won’t buy a Tesla.
wnevets 4y ago
Stories like this and BMW selling microtransactions makes me hate technology. I remember being disgusted when the horse armor DLC was released and now that type of monetization is everywhere in gaming. These stories of car manufacturers locking you out of hardware you paid for with software is the horse armor DLC of the future for cars.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Horse armor at least provided value through at least a decade of memes.
xyproto 4y ago
So, 2 owners got extra range for a couple of years. This was to their benefit. It should be considered a gift from Tesla, since Tesla made the mistake. If Tesla withdraws the gift then they should also pay for the mistake, somehow.
paulcole 4y ago
> Just to be clear, IMO if Tesla swaps a battery under warranty with a larger one because they don't have the right one, and they don't software lock it before it leaves the service center... well, that's on them. They can't play takebacksies years later, remotely, with no warning. This is a really funny thing to say because they can and did. Should be clear that Tesla will do whatever they want.
jordanmorgan10 4y ago
Things like this make me indifferent. I bought a Model 3 last year, and it's by far the best car I've ever owned. I love it. And then I think, I hope none of this BS ever befalls me.
vitalus 4y ago
Is it possible to modify the car to disconnect from the remote Tesla service and keep the 90 firmware on there? What critical functionality of the car would you be looking at losing, other than updates?
015a 4y ago
I'm increasingly short on TSLA. Not directly due to the ethical concerns surrounding this, but more importantly: as they fix their supply chain & excellent competition enters the market, the price of their used cars won't be so driven by lack of supply+competition, and confusion about what exactly you're getting when you buy a used Tesla will depress their values. Depressed aftermarket values means more buyers who want a Tesla will buy used, which will hurt new sales. Its a really scary kind of resonance at their scale. Most companies who sell goods like these recognize that the aftermarket value of their product is a feature of new products; its a factor in the buying matrix. Apple is a great example; tons of people know and factor into the decision to buy their products that they hold value better than the competition; so a higher upfront cost can be worth it. But if Tesla is scraping by and looking to move more and more of their functionality into cloud-connected-feature-flags & subscriptions, they're going to get eaten alive by competition who can just say "our car is the same price but that's built in".
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Tesla has consistently outperformed in terms of used car value and have done so for 10 years now. Based on what do you based your analysis do you think they don't care. Because of this 1/1000 snafu? Is that really it? > "our car is the same price but that's built in". Maybe you should do some research. If anything other car companies have far, far, far more options and things in them that you might not be able to use. Or they just don't put it it in. So the reality is, if you do fair price comparison with the competition and you add the features, the competition is actually not doing so well. I hope you are not actually putting really money on your insights.
xwdv 4y ago
I’m wondering what the “ransom” aspect was? At first I thought the car owner had driven somewhere suitably far, and then when Tesla detected it, cut their range so they would never make it back to any kind of charging location in time and basically be left stranded?
qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago
drcongo 4y ago
Tesla is just a cult at this point. Boggles the mind how gaslit their fans are.
eschneider 4y ago
It's shit like this which is going to destroy resale values for Teslas over time.
- EricE 4y ago
  lol - once the true costs of battery replacements start to become more widely known/understood by "normals", there won't be any significant resale of electrics in general. Enjoy it while it lasts....
LightG 4y ago
Imagine the poor bastards out there who can't get this social media push ... Sounds like Tesla have the same support issues as Google... Reason 243 I wouldn't go near buying a Tesla.
EricE 4y ago
I hope I can be buried with my current "dumb" cars. I have ZERO desire to have any vehicle with a built in modem or one that won't run without it being active.
- annoyingnoob 4y ago
  My car came with a modem and was calling home. Now whatever wireless service it uses is no longer available. My car has been telling me it couldn't connect and that it would stop trying but it never stopped trying. Apparently, I have to take the car to the dealer and pay them to disable the feature in software. I'm not finding any value in this.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
oittaa 4y ago
Seems like this had a happy ending after all. It just sucks that nowadays you have to make a fuss on social media when a company fucks up and doesn't own their mistake. https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602 https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602 "While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way. Thanks to those who've reached out!"
pid_0 4y ago
The big brands like ford who actually know how to make a car are going to swallow Tesla. Tesla had a jump on them for sure, and sold a cool brand, but their cars have major qc issues, the company is a mess, and I do not trust them long term. Bet on the real auto makers.
rhacker 4y ago
How is this different from all of the companies that we all work at where there's a UI or a backend process, that which turned on would cost an additional $0.12 per month, per customer, but allows our companies to charge an additional $5000 per month, per customer. I get that some processes are much more intense, but we're all still upcharging 1000x or more.
GiorgioG 4y ago
I don’t want a car that’s this connected. Fuck Tesla.
lettergram 4y ago
People ask why I insist on having a car without over air updates - this is why.
dreamcompiler 4y ago
Yet another example of why we need open-source information about how to find the LTE modem in cars and disable it. Longer term, we need firewalls and deep packet inspection devices we can install inline with the LTE modem, so people can still get maps and traffic info, but reject all software "upgrades." We need ublock origin for cars.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  We need regulation from the government that flat out prevents this kind of behavior to begin with. Customers shouldn't need to keep up on the latest technological countermeasures just to maintain ownership of a car they purchased.
tdiggity 4y ago
Tesla after-care is amazingly bad. Falling through the cracks will leave you up a river without a paddle. You have to be an astute Tesla purchaser to avoid all the “easy” pitfalls. Which simply summarizes to: Don't buy anything that has a weird option. Don't expect to be retro-fitted for anything, and get whatever it is in writing. With my Model 3, I bought one used from Tesla and it originally came with premium connectivity forever. However, when I purchased mine, it was supposed to only be active for a year (this was the standard deal for used car purchases from Tesla at the time). I still have it 2 years later. They probably have a filter/cutoff by vin # that says who gets premium forever and doesn't filter for sold/resold by Tesla..until they fix that glitch. It’ll happen one day, I’m sure. The latest pitfall is service. If you have a problem, the only way to talk to someone is to go to the service center. If you have a problem afterwards, you’ll end up as a ticket in the system and no one will get back to you in a timely manner. Service story time; I had my car serviced for a bad LTE board. It took them several days to diagnose this. When I picked up the car, they had taken apart the panels in the trunk. My mobile connector was in the trunk, and they forgot to put it back in when re-assembling the car. I didn't realize this till the day after I picked up the car. I called as soon as I found this out and could not get a live person at the service center. The call center could only put a ticket in and they'd get back to me in 72 hours. In cases like this, time is of the essence, the more time that's passed, the more likely that my mobile connector would go missing. Anyway, after a lot of calling, no one could get me in touch with someone at the service center. no one. I couldn't drive back down there myself for 5 days. When I finally got there, the service advisor didn't even go ask the tech who worked on my car where the connector was. He just gave me a new one. Very frustrating.
hammyhavoc 4y ago
Fuck Tesla and Elon Musk then. This puts me off ever buying a product.
turns0ut 4y ago
The only issue here is the amount of control Tesla has over “private property”. It is not their car. They should have no say over the operating parameters.
protomyth 4y ago
So, if you buy a Tesla, know your resale value is artificially low because of the actions of the company. I would expect you will also be a target of a lawsuit if Tesla reduces features to the next owner by update unless your sale contract is ironclad. Even then, if you claim features in your ad or sale agreement that might come back to haunt you. In this case, if it was branded a 90 then you are in deep.
rootusrootus 4y ago
What a terrible PR stunt. Leaving the extra capacity in place costs them nothing. The money for the bigger pack spent long ago. Now they have bad PR and an unhappy customer. How many people are going to read this and say to themselves "Yikes, I won't ever be buying a Tesla, look how they treat their customers!" They should have used it for a little warm fuzzy "Hey we see this was in the system wrong, your car is in fact a 60, but you may now consider it officially a 90. If you haven't already, we'd be happy to send you a complimentary 90 badge to put on the back." Cost practically nothing, instant goodwill. I enjoyed my Tesla, won't be buying another however.
dislikedtom 4y ago
It sounds like a broader problem: you buy something digital and manufacturer changes it (most of the people may even like the update but you hate it). Maybe subscription payment model would make more sense (but tbh the whole economy needs some rethinking).
MobileVet 4y ago
My first thought was back to the Celeron 300A CPU [1]. I had heard at the time that Intel had packaged Pentium 2 - 450s as Celeron 300As because they had too many but were not meeting the demand for the Celeron. It was cheaper to repackage already fabricated 450s than increase the 300A line throughput for an unknown demand curve. The Wikipedia article says it was more of an efficiency improvement with the new Mendocino core with on board L2-cache. They really did mean for it to be a 300Mhz processor but it would easily run at 450. Ah the days when if you got a fun product upgrade it couldn't be retracted years later... Further, amazing that whomever made the decision to lock it down didn't consider the blow back versus the good will that was already established. ROI & Risk vs Reward... never forget them. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron
smsm42 4y ago
"You'll Own Nothing and Be Happy" Or maybe you won't be happy but your only option would be to complain about it on social media and hope there's enough people that matter in your follows to raise a stink and get your particular case looked on.
- kytazo 4y ago
  Whine on social media as long as your social score permits it of course..
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dqpb 4y ago
Perhaps Elon Musk is trolling Vilfredo Pareto post-mortem.
eadmund 4y ago
‘To ransom’ means to pay a ransom. ‘To hold ransom’ (or hold for ransom) is the intended usage here.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
kytazo 4y ago
So futuristic
misiti3780 4y ago
Couple question for everyone dogging tesla in this thread: 1. Does your car support over the air updates? 2. If (1) is yes, do you really want to give them up because of this edge case?
jimt1234 4y ago
Are there any new EVs that aren't 4-wheel iPhones? Heck, it feels like all new cars are like this (vehicle is "managed" by the car company). I'd love to buy an EV that was basically like the original Tesla Roadster: four wheels, a bunch of batteries, and that's it. The only way I know to get this is to do your own EV conversion. Not 100% sure, though. ???
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I'd wager that most EVs are pretty similar to the ICE equivalent from the same manufacturer. Teslas are relatively unique with the smartphone-on-wheels concept. My wife drives a Bolt, and it's just a car which happens to use electric motors. Infotainment and everything else is normal.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Yes all new vehicles have computers and can be upgraded. Mercedes even has a car where you are not allowed to open the hood. Welcome to the modern world. > four wheels, a bunch of batteries, and that's it. Go watch tear-down the car, there is a lot more. However I don't think cheap EV like the Bold are nearly as managed and basically work like an old school car.
afrcnc 4y ago
Since America really loves deregulation, that's what you get for allowing corporate lobbies to dictate laws and prevent the creation of an EU-like consumer protection agency. And please spare me with the "FTC exists" remarks. It's been neutered for decades.
mesozoic 4y ago
Sounds like someone found an easy revenue opportunity in the data to upcharge current owners and implemented it. Probably up for promotion for it.
malwarebytess 4y ago
I have a Tesla (M3.) But it's stories like these that will make my next electric not a Tesla. From the failure to deliver FSD, to the inability to quickly fix their out-of-factory fitment problems, to anti-customer policies like these they're quickly souring in my mind. At least the car is a blast to drive. edit: FWIW looks like Tesla decided to do the right thing, > While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way. https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602 https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I'm with you. I had a P3D. What a blast it was to drive. But one of the reasons I sold it was uneasiness about the level of control Tesla maintained over the car and their apparent willingness to use that control later -- and not in my best interest. I'm going to stick to cars from manufactures that don't seem inclined to do this to me. So definitely not Tesla. And maybe not BMW, they're giving off strong vibes of wanting to play this same game with their cars. It helps that Tesla has fallen way behind in actual features, so I don't really want what they're offering. I can get lane following and adaptive cruise from anyone else, CarPlay is more valuable to me than Tesla's tiny little garden, and all the other standard car features Tesla doesn't want to offer. Wipers that work, door handles that don't suck, 360* camera for parking in tight places, stuff like that. Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on fast EVs any more, and before much longer they won't have the best charging network either. That was what drew me to the P3D.
exabrial 4y ago
In my current gas truck (GMC), I disconnected the OnStar module harness. I'm not buying an electric vehicle until I have the same option. "Green" and "Environmental" hardware companies like Tesla, Apple, etc are a joke.
zekica 4y ago
I saw first hand a situation where a local municipality did a public procurement for printer ink, and since there are no software patents in law, the best offer that won was for a compatible (non-oem) ink. This ink worked fine at the time of purchase, but after a software update to the printers (a few weeks later) stopped working.
unbalancedevh 4y ago
I bought a used car that had satellite radio. I never paid for the subscription, but it worked for 10 years! Then, suddenly one day it was cancelled. I didn't really feel like I could call them and complain.... I wonder if a previous owner was getting billed the whole time, and just didn't notice it. Of course, this is different as a subscription service. But what if I'd sold it to someone before it got cancelled, and told them that it had free satellite radio? I don't think Sirius/XM should then have to just give the service for free. Yet somehow I don't think Tesla should have limited the battery either. I'm not really sure what the difference is.
personjerry 4y ago
A few examples come to mind, are they similar? 1. BMW accidentally enabled the heated seats in your car, then later deactivates it? So you enjoyed a bonus for a while, seems like they're entitled to remove it. 2. Bank accidentally gives you $1,000,000. A while later they realize their mistake and ask for the money back / transfer it out of your account. My understanding is that this is exactly what would happen. What are the differences from this situation? Is it really a problem?
kelnos 4y ago
I kinda don't care about the aftermath of this. I think this entire thing is bad: 1. Tesla offers a warranty. 2. Tesla is unable to properly make good on the warranty because they don't continue to stock the correct parts. 3. Tesla uses a better part, but then tells the software to pretend the part is much less capable than it really is. No, no, no. Stop right there. This should be illegal. We should not get to any successive steps where Tesla can gouge you $4,500 for someone to spend two seconds clicking in some admin UI somewhere. That is just bullshit. If you replace a part with something that is more capable (because you no longer have the less capable version), then the customer should get the benefit of the new capabilities. Full stop.
ngvrnd 4y ago
Would not buy a tesla. There are other electric cars on the market.
madrox 4y ago
I'm pretty short on Tesla. I'm hearing too many real customer frustrations and no customer success stories. That company has serious problems. If I had to guess, Musk is too distracted. Take your pick of distractions, but the guy has been riding a rocket ship for so long he hasn't yet noticed that it's run out of fuel.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > no customer success stories Have you considered selection bias, because seem like that's what's going on here. > That company has serious problems. You concluded this from anecdotal evidence? > the guy has been riding a rocket ship for so long he hasn't yet noticed that it's run out of fuel. Based on what exactly? Look at every single number both looking forward and looking backward and those numbers would disagree with you. And Tesla had customer frustration stories literally since the Model S.
rascul 4y ago
I've seen very few articles that make me want to get a Tesla. Most of them make me want to stay far away from that company.
tonymet 4y ago
Consumers have the power here and are giving up more and more rights every day. In the EU they can now remotely speed limit your car. If you think the push for EVs is for the environment think again, they are a dubious tradeoff with a bigger environmental impact. The EV push is meant to take away your control over the assets that you "own". If you don't fight back now, you won't be able to own anything in 5 years.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Oh jeez. This has nothing to do with EVs. Most EVs, in fact, are nowhere near as intrusively leashed to the mothership as Teslas are. My wife's Bolt is just a car that happens to use electric motors instead of gas. As are most EVs. Also, if you think EVs are worse for the environment, then you are exposing your ideologically-driven ignorance.
  - tonymet 4y ago
    when you factor manufacturing emissions and impact , along with grid impact and waste , EVs are a clear loser
thrownaway561 4y ago
it's so scary that at any point Tesla can do whatever they want to your car and you are basically powerless to do anything about it. this is why i will never own a Tesla no matter if it was given to me. the horror stories i have heard and this is just another drop in the bucket.
unixbane 4y ago
What the absolute hell is wrong with consumers that they put up with this kind of shit? 1. I would never want any kind of software in my car, because this is precisely the kind of bullshit I would expect to happen, given being a person who knows the state of the software industry. That and death due to uConnect etc. 2. I even less would want any kind of remote access 3. I also don't want UN*X crap in my car like sh scripts or C code, you have billions of dollars, make a real language or use assembly since the software should be small anyway 4. The fact that someone will bring up GNU+Car just proves even more how dipshit you consumers are; you can't even understand how simple things are to fix (just stop putting software in things) and just reason about the major players of the tech industry in an abstract, dilettante way. > I don't post this stuff because I hate Tesla or anything. In fact, it's just the opposite. I hate seeing Tesla derail themselves with this kind of nonsense. Uhh no, I hate Tesla after seeing this post and hope they actually get cancer and die (admittedly, the same probably applies to every tech company). What if you put a "90 pack" in yourself, do they also downgrade it for you?
goethes_kind 4y ago
The guy should sue Tesla for lugging around 1/3 extra battery weight at his own cost.
threeseed 4y ago
If there's one thing we should all agree on: stop using analogies. This thread is full of the most tortured, confusing and poorly used analogies I think I've ever seen.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kojeovo 4y ago
This kind of stuff is why I'm not really keen to get a Tesla. Might get a v8 next actually.
Seattle3503 4y ago
The message to customers is that they are on the hook for Tesla's mistakes.
marmada 4y ago
This seems good. Yes, good. No one complains when Tesla gives free software upgrades to car owners. So to be consistent, Tesla should have the ability to also enforce software limitations.
- treesknees 4y ago
  Who says that nobody complains about this? I for one hate when a software update comes along and completely changes the UI layout, even if may come with additional new features. I don't want anything I didn't ask for or confirm, regardless of whether it's in good faith.
notorandit 4y ago
SavageBeast 4y ago
A friend had one of these for a day recently and gave me a ride/let me drive it. https://www.caranddriver.com/audi/e-tron-gt https://www.caranddriver.com/audi/e-tron-gt The E-Tron GT RS or whatever gobbledygook name its got is simply not of this world. We're not going to be talking about Tesla too much longer I think.
vonwoodson 4y ago
Ah, the IoT in it’s full glory
idontpost 4y ago
Another reason I will never buy a Tesla. What a shitty company.
avidphantasm 4y ago
If more companies keep doing these sorts of things, like making you pay a monthly fee to access hardware that is already in the car, I will just have to buy an old VW Beetle or Bus and convert them to EV.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  There's a happy medium somewhere in between, I think. Like almost all non-Tesla EVs you could buy today. This whole idea of retroactive changes or subscription features is limited mostly to Tesla, with BMW dipping it's toes in the water. No need to go back to stone age car.
dan-robertson 4y ago
I wish the title of this submission was less sensational.
SeanLuke 4y ago
Can we have the title changed? "To ransom" means to free someone from captivity by paying their ransom. Tesla's not freeing anyone. I think the term the poster meant was "extorts".
ksec 4y ago
Slightly Off Topic. I have had this feeling or opinion for quite some time. I dont like the world being dominated by Software which could be remotely updated. Whether that is a Car or IoT.
rhplus 4y ago
The wasted resource usage is my biggest concern. The pack uses 50% more cells that are effectively unusable, meaning 50% more precious metals were mined for a software option.
Jill_the_Pill 4y ago
It's too bad consumer protection law has somewhat crumpled. This would be a great lawsuit.
porknubbins 4y ago
I wonder technically how they implement this. If the battery stops charging at 60 wouldn’t that potentially have a negative impact on the battery life depending on the battery chemistry? I guess the alternative would be tracking power used and cutting off at 30 left which would actually be better than running down to 0.
yellowapple 4y ago
Whoever invented the idea of software-paywalling already-installed-and-working hardware ought to be locked in a padded cell and forced to listen to the entire Alvin and the Chipmunks discography on repeat for the foreseeable future.

899 points by noasaservice 4y ago

JustLurking2022 4y ago

The tweets indicate it was "badged a 90". Seems odd/unlikely Tesla actually changed out the badging on a battery replacement, in which case someone else committed fraud.

rootusrootus 4y ago
Yes, someone may have committed fraud. That has no bearing whatsoever on the basic problem here, however, which is a car manufacturer retroactively changing the configuration profile on a car sold nearly a decade ago.
- JustLurking2022 4y ago
  Except that's not what happened... When the car was sold, it had the lower range. If it was resold with that same lower range expectation then, while slightly frustrating, the buyer would not have an expectation of the greater range, so it would be more like when the cable company takes away those extra channels your original technician enabled with a wink and a nod - you knew you weren't really paying for them. The fraud created a false expectation.

chad_strategic 4y ago

Would it kill the twitter author to write a simple post and not some 10 part twitter explanation. Please be kind to those that suffer from Attention Surplus Disorder. (ASD)

thinkingemote 4y ago
Basically, it would kill the author to write a blog post. Death as in the death of sympathy, attention, notice, psychological affirmation, pride, sharing, hype, superficial outrage and the death of this comment thread of hundreds of comments after only a handful of hours. There's a reason why people use Twitter, because it really would be their (superficial) death not to.

account-5 4y ago

Ignoring the arguments about morality, and who is(n't) in the right, this is a prime example of why I don't trust electric cars! If the manufacturer can do this then you don't own the car, even if you paid for it in full.

rootusrootus 4y ago
What does this have to do with electric cars? Do you think this kind of thing can't happen to ICE vehicles?

noasaservice 4y ago

--------Transcript of tweets, for those that don't want to go to birdsite-------- Tesla really fires me up sometimes. I have a customer who's the ~3rd owner of a 2013 Model S 60. At some point years ago the battery pack was swapped under warranty with a 90 pack. It wasn't software limited. It was effectively made into a 90 by Tesla. Years went by. Car is sold twice since, and now has a new owner (my customer). It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range. He has the car for a few months, goes in and does a paid MCU2 upgrade at Tesla after the 3G shutdown. All goes well. The upgrade is done, car is working fine. Later on, while the car is parked in his driveway, Tesla calls him to tell him that they found and fixed a configuration mistake with his car. They remotely software locked the car to be a 60 again, despite having been a 90 for years. He now has ~80 miles less range. Furious, he demands they restore it back to the way it was, and they refuse. "We can unlock it for $4,500." This guy bought a car, & years later Tesla reaches in remotely with no warning and literally cuts his usable range by a third! (I confirmed story w/logs) Imagine walking out to your car to find it's now 1/3rd as good as it was 15 minutes ago, and Tesla making it out like this is a good thing! They fixed the problem! What do you do? He tried for a while with them with no progress. I try to help, but without completely disconnecting the car from Tesla, when I change it back to a 90 their "teleforce" bot reaches in remotely and flips it back to a 60 within moments. There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal. Tesla won't help him at all. Honestly, this is pretty f*cked up. Guy had no way to know that this was going to be done by Tesla. They basically robbed him & are demanding a ransom to get back what he had before. That's just wrong. @Tesla @elonmusk - Do better on this and make it right. DM for VIN.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
Luckily I don't have to imagine because I will never, ever buy a vehicle that allows for this sort of behavior. The person should hire a lawyer and sue Tesla.
- heavenlyblue 4y ago
  Even for actual crimes there’s statute of limitations…

superchroma 4y ago

"I feel like this is more mundane on Tesla's part than many are making it out to be. A mistake was made years ago. An employee recently discovered and "fixed" it. Terrible communication and customer service, but nefarious? Nah." At this point I feel like terrible communication and service is an intentional business strategy for some companies who found that by making support so baroque as to be inaccessible or just eliminating it entirely that they can slash costs accordingly. I do consider it to be nefarious in such cases.

AinderS 4y ago
Software locks themselves are nefarious. Is it the owner's car, or Tesla's?
- Ekaros 4y ago
  I wonder if there is some nice fine print somewhere that they only sold a "licence" to use the car. Not the car itself... Kinda like software has...
  - noasaservice 4y ago
    If they want to *lease* the vehicles, that's fine. They need to make it explicitly known it is a lease for X term, and at Y cost per month of the lease. Modifying their property would be completely in the clear, or at least a hell of a lot less ethically ambiguous. But they're selling these vehicles. As in, transfer of title to the person they're selling to. Taxes are paid. Transfer is registered with the state(s). Insurance is purchased on vehicles in your possession. And full coverage is required for vehicle loans (another set of showing proper legal transfer). And, just because some click-wrap software has "We are allowed to murder your family and eat your children" does not make illegal clauses legal. And given in this instance, it was tesla->first owner->second owner->third owner , any click-wrap garbage would have been done by the first owner. Basically, this is the end-run around physical ownership for all the IoT companies and companies that pay for/demand 100% connectivity. All of these companies that have these always-on remote tie ins are the Darth Vader here - "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further." All the EV companies are doing this. I so want to buy an EV. I'm not willing to subvert my ownership rights for that.

bgirard 4y ago

> Car is sold twice since, and now has a new owner (my customer). It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range. When they bought the car from the 3rd party, did they buy it as a P60 or a P90? Did someone mis-represent the car when sold? Was it Tesla or the previous owner? Was the badge on the back changed to P90? That doesn't sound like a 'mistake' Tesla would make when making a warranty repair. Curial information here is missing. If the car was clearly a P60 that was accidentally unlocked P90 then I would consider that when buying the car that Tesla would lock it again when they noticed. If the previous owner misrepresented the car as a P90 and modified the badge then it's on them.

_ea1k 4y ago
I wondered that too. It'd be extremely unusual for Tesla to go as far as changing the badge. OTOH, a car dealer along the way might do that if they noticed the discrepancy between the badge and what the software reported. It'd be hard to blame them too, since people do sometimes downgrade the badging on cars (eg, this "218i", lol: https://carsandbids.com/auctions/Kmm4AgbK/2016-bmw-m2 https://carsandbids.com/auctions/Kmm4AgbK/2016-bmw-m2 ). It still leaves Tesla as the bad guy. The current owner bears no relation to the ones who did it, and there's really no reasonable process that could have allowed him to know that this might happen.
- bgirard 4y ago
  > It still leaves Tesla as the bad guy. I mostly agree. I think good customer service norms do dictate a reasonable statute of limitation here. I think where it becomes interesting is if someone acted negligently in the chain when they bought a P60 and sold it off as a P90. If someone wasn't paying too much attention, they might not have noticed at all. I for instance had no idea which engine variant my car had (1.5L vs 2.0L) until I realized my mpg was poor. So maybe it's a legit mistake. The changing of the physical badge is very suspicious however. But if Tesla changed the software badge then yes, I think they deserve the blame.
  - _ea1k 4y ago
    Yeah, I think we are thinking similarly here. I've seen some cases where FSD was lost where it was absolutely dealer negligence. The bad thing is that Tesla sometimes takes a really long time with these "audits". Its hard when the customer only finds out what the dealer did after months of ownership.

Enginerrrd 4y ago

I'll spare the moral judgements against Tesla for this: The real moral of the story here is that if your business plan and practices is creating occasional weird issues and huge cognitive dissonance in your customers, it's the wrong business plan. Also... the number of people this applies to is likely so low that Tesla really screwed up by not erring on the side of the customer. (They didn't buy from Tesla, but they're still a customer buying servicing from them.) If the bad publicity alone causes even a tiny fraction of the population to choose another manufacturer, the've lost their $4,500 and then some. Harmony is a really underrated concept. When things are harmonious, you don't have problems like this, and you can still make money.

nr2x 4y ago
Well said, I’m potentially in the market for a car and this is like reason #5 I’m ruling out Tesla.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  Care to share the others? I'm weighing my options as well. Anything you are leaning towards buying?
  - nr2x 4y ago
    Battery issues being a cost of early adoption aside, I love my Bolt. It’s a hatchback and with the 0-60 of an EV it handles like Mario Kart. Super fun.
- duncan_idaho 4y ago
  I'd say this is a great reason to not a used one. Which Tesla doesn't care about at all and probably want to discourage.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    That seems short-sighted. Having a healthy secondary market makes purchasing a new one more appealing since you can recover some of the purchase price later. It also allows the superfans to buy the latest and greatest model more often.

nr2x 4y ago

I’d this isn’t already illegal there really needs to be legislation to ban this shit. Or at least more right to repair action.

andrewallbright 4y ago

This situation certainly feels like it should be in a Dilbert comic.

gnicholas 4y ago

How can a potential buyer verify that a used Tesla they are considering purchasing is not subject to some sort of pullback like this? I feel like there's an information asymmetry between the used car buyer (who has likely never owned a Tesla before, and certainly doesn't know the history of the vehicle he's considering purchasing), the seller (who may specifically be aware that the car appears to have functionality that could be revoked at a later date), and Tesla (who have records of what has been paid for). What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position?

thrown_22 4y ago
>Should I be buying a car from a company that thinks I'm leasing a car? Seems like the most obvious first question.
dylan604 4y ago
>What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position? Just a few spit balls for you: Do you have another used car for sale that is not a Tesla? Does this Tesla have any features currently enabled that might be disabled when someone realizes I'm no longer the original owner or the current owner realizes their credit card is still paying for services they no longer use, etc? In what ways will Tesla fuck me after purchasing this car?
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  You could just as easily get screwed by GM, Ford, or any other legacy automaker. Your remedies are always legal or regulatory in nature, and you can’t rely on brand alone to ensure a satisfactory ownership experience.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    I've never had a legacy car that could over-the-air disable things. Maybe OnStar or similar could do something, but not like the level that Tesla took things. You're "remedies are always legal" is a bit flat. Tell to the parent that is in a rush to take their 2.34 kids to school before heading to work that they need to contact a lawyer before starting their day. And when is the last time a call to a lawyer fixed anything within any kind of quick turn time? So now you're without a car until lawyers "fix" things.

bena 4y ago

The only reason to software lock the capacity of the battery in this manner is to extort customers. There is apparently absolutely no additional labor, no additional material, nothing to distinguish a P90 from a P60 except for a software lock. That's labor that was not necessary. All the work needed to software lock the charge capacity of the battery could have been avoided. The only way it makes sense is if you get to charge more for the exact same thing. Which is what Tesla is apparently doing. Essentially, every P90 should be $4500 cheaper and every P60 should have the range of a P90.

mlyle 4y ago
> The only reason to software lock the capacity of the battery in this manner is to extort customers. I have mixed feelings about schemes like this, but I don't think they're inherently bad. You start off making 60kWh and 90kWh cars. Customers are happy buying both. You notice you can save costs overall by just selling the 90kWh cars at the 60kWh price-- but revenue will fall if you don't lock the pack down to 60kWh. Would it be better to force Tesla to maintain two different physical pack SKUs and incur more costs if they want different pricing for the different capacities? And you do save some money, even, with the locking-- after all, the 90kWh pack used as a 60kWh one is far less likely to need warranty service-- it has spent less time at the extremes of charge and it can fall all the way from 90 to 54kWh instead of 90 to 81kWh. This is just like binning with CPUs-- at first, the yields control whether something is an 8 core or 6 core part. Later, you lock some 8 core parts down to be 6 cores so you can sell them at a lower price.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  There's a huge difference here compared to binning: binning generally involves chips that are physically incapable of performing to the higher spec because of defects.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    As I stated in my comment: this is true at the beginning of a process node with a new design. But yields improve, and eventually you end up with too many parts in the high bins and nowhere near enough in the value bins-- so you end up blowing fuses on parts that test fully OK to make them be 4 cores or 6 cores. (And now, Intel is about to let Xeon customers pay to unlock additional cores...)

barefeg 4y ago

Devils advocate here. Does the action of the customer service person (and maybe their manager) reflect the real mission of the company? Could it be employees (for whatever reason) not realizing that leaving the full range unlocked is in the best interest of the company?

suprfsat 4y ago
Why would the company hire employees, particularly those whose literal job description is to represent the company, who act against the real mission of the company? Occam's Razor applies.

recursivedoubts 4y ago

"You'll own nothing and you'll like it."

api 4y ago
We'd get pretty far by just putting that guy's face and that quote on billboards everywhere. It's an idea so odious that no commentary is needed.
Spivak 4y ago
The irony is that I would love to not actually own a car, please let me pay a flat monthly/yearly fee for “having a car of a specific model or better in good working order” available to me at all times and let the manufacturer figure out how best to do that. Car breaks down, who cares, call the seller, they swap you out, repair it and keep it ready for the next person. It’s the only business model that aligns the incentives right. Car manufacturers and I benefit from better reliability and lower maintenance costs. This shitty world we live in is the worst of both worlds.

galdosdi 4y ago

I don't think this kind of behavior is going to impact their sales, because frankly, they long ago passed the point where you have to be willing to completely drink the koolaid and not care about your privacy/independence and treat your car as just another SaaS software product you essentially rent, even if you did pay upfront. Much like how Lay's will not lose any customers if it's revealed they actually are slightly fattier and unhealthier than everyone already knows they are -- anyone who really would care already stopped eating them, the customers left don't care.

teawrecks 4y ago
I think it hurts the resale value of their vehicles IMO. How much that hurts the retail value is dependent on the customer base. Like you said, if the base is like the classic apple user who just wants the newest shiniest tech, then they already expect the cost of the vehicle to be sunk. But Apple's goal isn't market penetration, exclusivity is part of their brand. Tesla on the other hand seems to have a goal of replacing as many gas cars with EVs as possible. I think marketing exclusivity conflicts with the goal of market penetration, and the only reason it hasn't become a problem yet is because everyone assumes their car is losing value already. But if Tesla wants to sell a car to the other more frugal 90% of the population, they're going to have to cut this shit out.
rootusrootus 4y ago
I agree, I don't think in the near term this affects their sales. They've cultivated a myth of technological superiority that works with less sophisticated consumers, while at the same time offering fewer features than all of the competition. I mean, heck, even a Nissan Rogue has a 360* camera that Tesla doesn't offer. Auto wipers that actually work. CarPlay, etc.

TheLoafOfBread 4y ago

Reason 547 why you should not connect your car to the internet. Today it is limiting range because mistake several years ago, tomorrow it will be mandatory ads every time when you start a car.

Verdex 4y ago
Verdex presents: A Plausible Future Driver: Okay Car are you ready to go? Car: Sure thing driver, let's just hook up to the T-Network. Okay, we're in! Where's our destination? D: Well, first thing is that I'm going to want a Mocha Frappe from the local Starbucks. C: Sounds great! Off we go. D: Wait, Car what are we doing at McDonalds? C: McDonald's offers a wide variety of cafe style drinks at competitive prices. This includes your Mocha Frappe. 9 out of 10 baristas actually prefer the smooth taste of McDonald's Mocha Frappe to that of Starbucks. Have you had your break today? D: No, I wanted Starbucks. Oh well, I guess we're already in line. Menu: Welcome to McDonalds! What can we make for you today? D: I would like a Mocha Frappe. M: Oh, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid out frappe machine is broken. What else can we make for you? D: Really? I just wanted the Mocha. Okay Car, can you take me to Starbucks now? C: Sounds great! Off we go. D: No, Car, you just left the McDonald's parking lot and then came right back. They don't have any Mocha Frappe's here. They said their machine is broken. C: McDonald's offers a wide variety of cafe style drinks at competitive prices. This includes your Mocha Frappe. 9 out of 10 baristas actually prefer the smooth taste of McDonald's Mocha Frappe to that of Starbucks. Have you had your break today? D: I guess their frappe machine isn't the only broken machine here.
- bambax 4y ago
  Very good. Not only will your car try to control you, it will also fail to do it properly.
- function_seven 4y ago
  My favorite part of this story is where the machine that forced you to go to the Preferred Provider⁰ was stymied by another machine that they couldn't repair because their preferred provider¹ was sued by their overlord's Preferred Provider² 0: McD, 1: Kytch, 2: Taylor

hristov 4y ago

This has got to be one of the worst clickbait headlines in HN history, and this is an achievement. This is what happened. Person A has his tesla serviced, tesla increases his range by mistake. Person A puts a wrong decal on the tesla and illegally and fraudulently sells it as a car with an increased range to person B. The car eventually gets to person C, who takes the tesla to service where they correct the mistake. So sorry, there is no ransoming. Just a bit of old fashioned fraud, and not on the part of Tesla.

crooked-v 4y ago
> illegally and fraudulently How so? The car clearly had increased range at the time of sale. Tesla clearly approved of it at the time or they wouldn't have let it happen, and companies sure as hell don't get to take back stuff after years of condoning it because it was "by mistake".
nocman 4y ago
> So sorry, there is no ransoming. Just a bit of old fashioned fraud, and not on the part of Tesla. Actually, it's just a bit of old fashioned stupidity on the part of Tesla (or, at least, on the part of one of Tesla's employees). They made the mistake when the car was owned by someone else (in fact, two someone elses ago). It would cost them basically nothing to just leave it alone, and instead they've gained a huge pile of ill will -- not only for the current owner of the car, but an internet's worth of customers and potential customers. And saying they will "fix" what they "fixed" for $4500 just makes them look even more like jerks. Really bad move on Tesla's part.

theandrewbailey 4y ago

https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551713024171548672 https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551713024171548672 EDIT: Meant to paste unrolled link: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1551713024171548672.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1551713024171548672.html

psi75 4y ago

humanwhosits 4y ago

Sounds like this should be a lawsuit instead

1970-01-01 4y ago
Very yes. Litigate in small claims, win, and move on with life.

zcw100 4y ago

So the way I'm reading the post is Tesla swapped out a battery pack for a 60 with a 90 and enabled the 90. Tesla, years later, discovers that even though the hardware for a 90 was installed it should have been software limited to be a 60. (I'm assuming that Tesla only made the owner pay the cost of the 60 battery swap even though they replaced it with a 90). They go and "fix the glitch" and set it back to the 60. Since the new owner bought it thinking it was a 90, because it was enabled to be a 90, presumably paid for it assuming this was the case and is now upset because they don't have what they thought they bought. Sounds like all around bad decisions. The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90". Tesla, being notified, should have just enabled the 90 and made the customer happy. How exactly are people supposed to abuse this? Tesla put the 90 in there and they're the only ones who are going to be doing that. Presumably this cost them a fortune to do it in the first place. Why not get some good will out of it? "Hey sorry about your battery. We only had a 90 so we threw that in there. Enjoy. Tell everyone you know about how awesome Tesla was about fixing the problem and remember that next time you go to buy your next car"

gambiting 4y ago
>> (I'm assuming that Tesla only made the owner pay the cost of the 60 battery swap even though they replaced it with a 90) It says right there that it was done under warranty. If my RTX3080 breaks, and Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement(because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update. And yes, I'm allowed to sell it on as a 3080Ti, because....that's what it is. >>The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90". Maybe, but again, I don't see why that should be necessary. Tesla should not have been able to do this, period.
- wang_li 4y ago
  Intel literally did this last month. Seems that some motherboard manufacturers were selling systems that allowed the Alder Lake CPUs to user AVX512, which is not a feature advertised on those CPUs. Intel released a new microcode that disables it.

kderbyma 4y ago

Why Tesla again? at least with an older car I own it and it's problems....Tesla seems to passed the problems off to me and keep the rest...

panick21_ 4y ago
Tesla sells a 1M car a year and this problem effected 1 person, maybe a group of a few 1000 max.

seeekr 4y ago

Last update on Twitter: "While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way." Tesla is a big company by now. Probably a lot more people working there in Service Centers than in the core manufacturing & engineering. Hard to get everything right. Lots of room for improvement for sure. Rooting for Tesla to work these things out over time! (Disclaimer: Owner + shareholder, both out of conviction.)

Nextgrid 4y ago
This just makes it worse - it basically means that the only way to get adequate service for your car is to get lucky on social media. > Tesla is a big company by now. Probably a lot more people working there in Service Centers than in the core manufacturing & engineering. Hard to get everything right Sorry but if you don't have the capacity to attend to every single customer request, maybe don't fuck with their cars remotely, and especially not a couple years after the original mistake?
- kreetx 4y ago
  The customers probably want the software updates.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    It doesn't seem like much to ask, though, to have a rule that says "No software updates will alter the configuration profile of the car. The end."

balls187 4y ago

It's not clear of the 3rd owner purchased an S90 or knowingly purchased an S60 that had been "faked" to be an S90. Tesla made a mistake, which benefited 1,2 or even all 3 owners. They then fixed the mistake. I wonder if there are some regulations that prohibit the type of upgrade Tesla did on accident, and the $4,500 fee goes to cover the regulatory requirements necessary to upgrade a vehicle. Otherwise, yes it's kind of bad move from a customer service point of view. As another commenter wrote, the first blame lies with who ever rebadged the S60 as an S90 and then sold it as an S90. At somepoint one owner realized they had benefited from something without paying for it, and it's unclear if they ever tried to rectify it with Tesla. Edit to Add Ethical Questions: If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for? What if you order DoorDash, and you get extra food you didn't pay for? Do you message Doordash to charge you? What if it's the opposite, you don't get food you did pay for? Ask DoorDash for a refund? Finally, what if you accidentally receive a high ticket item in from an online order. 3 months later, the online retailer figures out what happened, and asks you for the item back. If you refuse to send it back, should they charge you for it?

crooked-v 4y ago
> I wonder if there are some regulations that prohibit the type of upgrade Tesla did on accident, and the $4,500 fee goes to cover the regulatory requirements necessary to upgrade a vehicle. There aren't. > If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for? If a server at a restaurant says "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" I have no reason to think it's a mistake to be charged the price of a strip steak. That restaurant doesn't get to put another charge on my credit card literally years later because a manager decided that in retrospect I should be charged the difference.
- balls187 4y ago
  > If a server at a restaurant says "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" In this case, the restaurant offered, which is not a mistake, and IANAL, but arguably "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" sounds close to a verbal contract.

bambax 4y ago

> To be extra clear, I don't post this stuff because I hate Tesla or anything. In fact, it's just the opposite. I hate seeing Tesla derail themselves with this kind of nonsense. I respect the OP for saying this. But I have a hard time respecting people buying Teslas, or anything from Musk. Is it not obvious that the guy is a charlatan? (and that the fish rots from the head?) How likely is it that you won't be robbed blind if you try to do business with him or any of his ventures?

kranke155 4y ago
Tim Dillon said it best. “I met him and guy is a genius. But he’s also a carnival barker.”
- kytazo 4y ago
  I don't know Tim Dillon but you have to be equally 'smart' to call this pothead puppet a genius
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Genius may be overselling it. Elon's primary skill seems to be marketing, and recognizing talented senior management to actually run the company.
colechristensen 4y ago
He oversells it a bit much (what startup doesn't? it's also a method for success) but I wouldn't call him a charlatan. The companies he's run have accomplished quite a lot.
hinkley 4y ago
Someone called him out on twitter for his flirtation with toxic conservatism. They asked if he remembers what demographic buys 99% of his vehicles. I didn’t see if he replied.
- astrange 4y ago
  He needs electric vehicles to be associated with conservatism, otherwise they're going to ban them and make rolling coal mandatory. It's probably the greatest thing he could do for climate change.

psyc 4y ago

Payed-For Physical Objects As A Service strikes again.

rvz 4y ago

> Ransoms car owner remotely... Well, as expected and unsurprising. [0] It isn't your car. You don't own it and it has a backdoor straight to Tesla inc. Especially this magnificent and well (badly) aged comment in [0] "TESla OwNErs likE THiS BAcKdoOR abIlITY." I don't think the comments here now would like a backdoor talking straight to Tesla so that they can disable features and hold your car to ransoms like this. No thanks and no deal. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29624703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29624703

hinkley 4y ago

There was a twitter message that made it to Reddit front page yesterday about being a black man driving an electric car in the rural south and trying to find a recharging station being the plot for Jordan Peele’s next movie. Interesting synchronicity. Also would watch that movie.

throwaway1777 4y ago

Time to jailbreak your tesla.

jeffwask 4y ago

This is why I'll stick to dumb cars.

markus_zhang 4y ago
Any recommendation for a solid SUV? Would Toyota cut it? I remember the coronas are extremely solid but not sure about their SUV such as Highlander.
- grubbs 4y ago
  Honda Pilot!
  - markus_zhang 4y ago
    Thanks! Will look into it.

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

Internet of Extortion. What a time to be alive.

meltyness 4y ago

My perspective is that this simply begs the question, "How does one buy and sell a used Tesla vehicle?" And by doing a bit of research, we arrive at the throat of the issue. Tesla is a competing Used Tesla Dealer, this is listed in their 10K as a part of their automotive segment: - https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla This page provides no clear guidance on how licenses transfer for "upgrades." Presumably that's in the licensing details for each "upgrade." In other instances, such as Full-Self Driving it's called a "subscription" which has a clearer implication. I seek the EULA for the vehicle itself, which should detail that part of the ownership lifecycle, but it doesn't seem to be public. The consumer may be able to work a state-permitted return: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/ownersrightsnotification.pdf https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/o... Under the "New Vehicle Limited Warranty" https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Model_3_New_Vehicle_Limited_Warranty_NA_en.pdf https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Model_3_... Tesla has performed an unneeded repair and broken their own obligation... "but when replacing a Battery, Tesla will ensure that the energy capacity of the replacement Battery is at least equal to that of the original Battery before the failure occurred"

noasaservice 4y ago
> My perspective is that this simply begs the question, "How does one buy and sell a used Tesla vehicle?" > And by doing a bit of research, we arrive at the throat of the issue. Tesla is a competing Used Tesla Dealer, this is listed in their 10K as a part of their automotive segment: - https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla Well, that seems to be the original reason why the older vehicle companies weren't allowed to directly sell, and had to go through dealerships. But because it is a software company, they break the older rules and the reasons why we had those older rules. And naturally, society memory is measured in days. This article covers the whole situation... and why we probably should stick with dealerships? https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15352113/why-do-we-keep-buying-vehicles-at-dealerships/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15352113/why-do-we-keep-b...
dfbsdfbwe2ef2e 4y ago
Maybe this is Tesla's strategy. Create fear around the sale of their used cars so that they're the only company that people will buy used teslas from. It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.

kreetx 4y ago

There is another story somewhere where a car dealer blames Tesla for software-downgrading the car. It might be Tesla to blame, but on the other article a careful read put it in a grey area. Perhaps here too, the dealer wants to wash themselves clean?

hericium 4y ago

Surprise, surprise: the insane may not be a best judge of what's right and wrong.

sandworm101 4y ago

Tesla is acting like Ferrari. They have not earned that right yet. They should aim to act like BMW: milk your wealthy customers, but never hand over a product that isn't your best work.

lizardactivist 4y ago

I had no idea they could even do something like this remotely. What else can they do? Shut the engine off? Lock the steering? What intelligence agencies have access? What if a side-channel can be created and (other) malicious actors obtain access? This kind of remote access to a car is genuinely terrifying.

EricE 4y ago
They aren't the only ones - Toyota was toying with retroactively charging for *keyfob* remote start access until the outcry caused them to double back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfDoc6wegss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfDoc6wegss But other manufacturers have to be looking at what Tesla and BMW are pulling and thinking about ways they could follow suit. A pox on all their houses; if I never buy another new car I'll be more than happy.

thumbsup-_- 4y ago

This is the problem with over the air updates. It gives car companies the ability to disable features at their own will. Another aspect is that software has bugs and an update can potentially also introduce problems in your car, especially when your 10yr model is receiving updates that the software engineer didn't care to test for such old model. I always liked software that runs stable software and keeps running that way forever.

rootusrootus 4y ago
Exactly. Everyone loves those OTA updates right now because they bring new features. Let's revisit in ten years and see how happy everyone is.
buffington 4y ago
I bought my Tesla used, and when I went to pull up the digital user manual (a PDF) the entire screen went black and the car rebooted. After rebooting, I tried it again, and it did it again. I've since learned to avoid software updates as long as possible unless the description of changes explicitly describes fixing a bug. Even then, I weigh the benefits of fixing the bug, or leaving it as is, knowing an update could make other things worse.

agluszak 4y ago

There should be a law forbidding software locking. Otherwise I'm afraid it will keep getting more and more popular (like the "seat heating subscription"[1]). If I buy a piece of hardware, I own it. 1 - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/14/business/bmw-subscription/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/14/business/bmw-subscription...

ls15 4y ago

Who pays for the energy that is needed to move the added weight?

Ekaros 4y ago

Good customer relations would have been to leave car as it was... Then again, if there is some ratio of fanatics that are ready to pay 4500 extra on second hand car this might make financial sense... You never know with Tesla and some people...

chris_wot 4y ago

And this is why I won’t buy a Tesla.

wnevets 4y ago

Stories like this and BMW selling microtransactions makes me hate technology. I remember being disgusted when the horse armor DLC was released and now that type of monetization is everywhere in gaming. These stories of car manufacturers locking you out of hardware you paid for with software is the horse armor DLC of the future for cars.

Spivak 4y ago
Horse armor at least provided value through at least a decade of memes.

xyproto 4y ago

So, 2 owners got extra range for a couple of years. This was to their benefit. It should be considered a gift from Tesla, since Tesla made the mistake. If Tesla withdraws the gift then they should also pay for the mistake, somehow.

paulcole 4y ago

> Just to be clear, IMO if Tesla swaps a battery under warranty with a larger one because they don't have the right one, and they don't software lock it before it leaves the service center... well, that's on them. They can't play takebacksies years later, remotely, with no warning. This is a really funny thing to say because they can and did. Should be clear that Tesla will do whatever they want.

jordanmorgan10 4y ago

Things like this make me indifferent. I bought a Model 3 last year, and it's by far the best car I've ever owned. I love it. And then I think, I hope none of this BS ever befalls me.

vitalus 4y ago

Is it possible to modify the car to disconnect from the remote Tesla service and keep the 90 firmware on there? What critical functionality of the car would you be looking at losing, other than updates?

015a 4y ago

I'm increasingly short on TSLA. Not directly due to the ethical concerns surrounding this, but more importantly: as they fix their supply chain & excellent competition enters the market, the price of their used cars won't be so driven by lack of supply+competition, and confusion about what exactly you're getting when you buy a used Tesla will depress their values. Depressed aftermarket values means more buyers who want a Tesla will buy used, which will hurt new sales. Its a really scary kind of resonance at their scale. Most companies who sell goods like these recognize that the aftermarket value of their product is a feature of new products; its a factor in the buying matrix. Apple is a great example; tons of people know and factor into the decision to buy their products that they hold value better than the competition; so a higher upfront cost can be worth it. But if Tesla is scraping by and looking to move more and more of their functionality into cloud-connected-feature-flags & subscriptions, they're going to get eaten alive by competition who can just say "our car is the same price but that's built in".

panick21_ 4y ago
Tesla has consistently outperformed in terms of used car value and have done so for 10 years now. Based on what do you based your analysis do you think they don't care. Because of this 1/1000 snafu? Is that really it? > "our car is the same price but that's built in". Maybe you should do some research. If anything other car companies have far, far, far more options and things in them that you might not be able to use. Or they just don't put it it in. So the reality is, if you do fair price comparison with the competition and you add the features, the competition is actually not doing so well. I hope you are not actually putting really money on your insights.

xwdv 4y ago

I’m wondering what the “ransom” aspect was? At first I thought the car owner had driven somewhere suitably far, and then when Tesla detected it, cut their range so they would never make it back to any kind of charging location in time and basically be left stranded?

qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago

drcongo 4y ago

Tesla is just a cult at this point. Boggles the mind how gaslit their fans are.

eschneider 4y ago

It's shit like this which is going to destroy resale values for Teslas over time.

EricE 4y ago
lol - once the true costs of battery replacements start to become more widely known/understood by "normals", there won't be any significant resale of electrics in general. Enjoy it while it lasts....

LightG 4y ago

Imagine the poor bastards out there who can't get this social media push ... Sounds like Tesla have the same support issues as Google... Reason 243 I wouldn't go near buying a Tesla.

EricE 4y ago

I hope I can be buried with my current "dumb" cars. I have ZERO desire to have any vehicle with a built in modem or one that won't run without it being active.

annoyingnoob 4y ago
My car came with a modem and was calling home. Now whatever wireless service it uses is no longer available. My car has been telling me it couldn't connect and that it would stop trying but it never stopped trying. Apparently, I have to take the car to the dealer and pay them to disable the feature in software. I'm not finding any value in this.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

oittaa 4y ago

Seems like this had a happy ending after all. It just sucks that nowadays you have to make a fuss on social media when a company fucks up and doesn't own their mistake. https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602 https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602 "While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way. Thanks to those who've reached out!"

pid_0 4y ago

The big brands like ford who actually know how to make a car are going to swallow Tesla. Tesla had a jump on them for sure, and sold a cool brand, but their cars have major qc issues, the company is a mess, and I do not trust them long term. Bet on the real auto makers.

rhacker 4y ago

How is this different from all of the companies that we all work at where there's a UI or a backend process, that which turned on would cost an additional $0.12 per month, per customer, but allows our companies to charge an additional $5000 per month, per customer. I get that some processes are much more intense, but we're all still upcharging 1000x or more.

GiorgioG 4y ago

I don’t want a car that’s this connected. Fuck Tesla.

lettergram 4y ago

People ask why I insist on having a car without over air updates - this is why.

dreamcompiler 4y ago

Yet another example of why we need open-source information about how to find the LTE modem in cars and disable it. Longer term, we need firewalls and deep packet inspection devices we can install inline with the LTE modem, so people can still get maps and traffic info, but reject all software "upgrades." We need ublock origin for cars.

rootusrootus 4y ago
We need regulation from the government that flat out prevents this kind of behavior to begin with. Customers shouldn't need to keep up on the latest technological countermeasures just to maintain ownership of a car they purchased.

tdiggity 4y ago

Tesla after-care is amazingly bad. Falling through the cracks will leave you up a river without a paddle. You have to be an astute Tesla purchaser to avoid all the “easy” pitfalls. Which simply summarizes to: Don't buy anything that has a weird option. Don't expect to be retro-fitted for anything, and get whatever it is in writing. With my Model 3, I bought one used from Tesla and it originally came with premium connectivity forever. However, when I purchased mine, it was supposed to only be active for a year (this was the standard deal for used car purchases from Tesla at the time). I still have it 2 years later. They probably have a filter/cutoff by vin # that says who gets premium forever and doesn't filter for sold/resold by Tesla..until they fix that glitch. It’ll happen one day, I’m sure. The latest pitfall is service. If you have a problem, the only way to talk to someone is to go to the service center. If you have a problem afterwards, you’ll end up as a ticket in the system and no one will get back to you in a timely manner. Service story time; I had my car serviced for a bad LTE board. It took them several days to diagnose this. When I picked up the car, they had taken apart the panels in the trunk. My mobile connector was in the trunk, and they forgot to put it back in when re-assembling the car. I didn't realize this till the day after I picked up the car. I called as soon as I found this out and could not get a live person at the service center. The call center could only put a ticket in and they'd get back to me in 72 hours. In cases like this, time is of the essence, the more time that's passed, the more likely that my mobile connector would go missing. Anyway, after a lot of calling, no one could get me in touch with someone at the service center. no one. I couldn't drive back down there myself for 5 days. When I finally got there, the service advisor didn't even go ask the tech who worked on my car where the connector was. He just gave me a new one. Very frustrating.

hammyhavoc 4y ago

Fuck Tesla and Elon Musk then. This puts me off ever buying a product.

turns0ut 4y ago

The only issue here is the amount of control Tesla has over “private property”. It is not their car. They should have no say over the operating parameters.

protomyth 4y ago

So, if you buy a Tesla, know your resale value is artificially low because of the actions of the company. I would expect you will also be a target of a lawsuit if Tesla reduces features to the next owner by update unless your sale contract is ironclad. Even then, if you claim features in your ad or sale agreement that might come back to haunt you. In this case, if it was branded a 90 then you are in deep.

rootusrootus 4y ago

What a terrible PR stunt. Leaving the extra capacity in place costs them nothing. The money for the bigger pack spent long ago. Now they have bad PR and an unhappy customer. How many people are going to read this and say to themselves "Yikes, I won't ever be buying a Tesla, look how they treat their customers!" They should have used it for a little warm fuzzy "Hey we see this was in the system wrong, your car is in fact a 60, but you may now consider it officially a 90. If you haven't already, we'd be happy to send you a complimentary 90 badge to put on the back." Cost practically nothing, instant goodwill. I enjoyed my Tesla, won't be buying another however.

dislikedtom 4y ago

It sounds like a broader problem: you buy something digital and manufacturer changes it (most of the people may even like the update but you hate it). Maybe subscription payment model would make more sense (but tbh the whole economy needs some rethinking).

MobileVet 4y ago

My first thought was back to the Celeron 300A CPU [1]. I had heard at the time that Intel had packaged Pentium 2 - 450s as Celeron 300As because they had too many but were not meeting the demand for the Celeron. It was cheaper to repackage already fabricated 450s than increase the 300A line throughput for an unknown demand curve. The Wikipedia article says it was more of an efficiency improvement with the new Mendocino core with on board L2-cache. They really did mean for it to be a 300Mhz processor but it would easily run at 450. Ah the days when if you got a fun product upgrade it couldn't be retracted years later... Further, amazing that whomever made the decision to lock it down didn't consider the blow back versus the good will that was already established. ROI & Risk vs Reward... never forget them. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron

smsm42 4y ago

"You'll Own Nothing and Be Happy" Or maybe you won't be happy but your only option would be to complain about it on social media and hope there's enough people that matter in your follows to raise a stink and get your particular case looked on.

kytazo 4y ago
Whine on social media as long as your social score permits it of course..

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dqpb 4y ago

Perhaps Elon Musk is trolling Vilfredo Pareto post-mortem.

eadmund 4y ago

‘To ransom’ means to pay a ransom. ‘To hold ransom’ (or hold for ransom) is the intended usage here.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

kytazo 4y ago

So futuristic

misiti3780 4y ago

Couple question for everyone dogging tesla in this thread: 1. Does your car support over the air updates? 2. If (1) is yes, do you really want to give them up because of this edge case?

jimt1234 4y ago

Are there any new EVs that aren't 4-wheel iPhones? Heck, it feels like all new cars are like this (vehicle is "managed" by the car company). I'd love to buy an EV that was basically like the original Tesla Roadster: four wheels, a bunch of batteries, and that's it. The only way I know to get this is to do your own EV conversion. Not 100% sure, though. ???

rootusrootus 4y ago
I'd wager that most EVs are pretty similar to the ICE equivalent from the same manufacturer. Teslas are relatively unique with the smartphone-on-wheels concept. My wife drives a Bolt, and it's just a car which happens to use electric motors. Infotainment and everything else is normal.
panick21_ 4y ago
Yes all new vehicles have computers and can be upgraded. Mercedes even has a car where you are not allowed to open the hood. Welcome to the modern world. > four wheels, a bunch of batteries, and that's it. Go watch tear-down the car, there is a lot more. However I don't think cheap EV like the Bold are nearly as managed and basically work like an old school car.

afrcnc 4y ago

Since America really loves deregulation, that's what you get for allowing corporate lobbies to dictate laws and prevent the creation of an EU-like consumer protection agency. And please spare me with the "FTC exists" remarks. It's been neutered for decades.

mesozoic 4y ago

Sounds like someone found an easy revenue opportunity in the data to upcharge current owners and implemented it. Probably up for promotion for it.

malwarebytess 4y ago

I have a Tesla (M3.) But it's stories like these that will make my next electric not a Tesla. From the failure to deliver FSD, to the inability to quickly fix their out-of-factory fitment problems, to anti-customer policies like these they're quickly souring in my mind. At least the car is a blast to drive. edit: FWIW looks like Tesla decided to do the right thing, > While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way. https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602 https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602

rootusrootus 4y ago
I'm with you. I had a P3D. What a blast it was to drive. But one of the reasons I sold it was uneasiness about the level of control Tesla maintained over the car and their apparent willingness to use that control later -- and not in my best interest. I'm going to stick to cars from manufactures that don't seem inclined to do this to me. So definitely not Tesla. And maybe not BMW, they're giving off strong vibes of wanting to play this same game with their cars. It helps that Tesla has fallen way behind in actual features, so I don't really want what they're offering. I can get lane following and adaptive cruise from anyone else, CarPlay is more valuable to me than Tesla's tiny little garden, and all the other standard car features Tesla doesn't want to offer. Wipers that work, door handles that don't suck, 360* camera for parking in tight places, stuff like that. Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on fast EVs any more, and before much longer they won't have the best charging network either. That was what drew me to the P3D.

exabrial 4y ago

In my current gas truck (GMC), I disconnected the OnStar module harness. I'm not buying an electric vehicle until I have the same option. "Green" and "Environmental" hardware companies like Tesla, Apple, etc are a joke.

zekica 4y ago

I saw first hand a situation where a local municipality did a public procurement for printer ink, and since there are no software patents in law, the best offer that won was for a compatible (non-oem) ink. This ink worked fine at the time of purchase, but after a software update to the printers (a few weeks later) stopped working.

unbalancedevh 4y ago

I bought a used car that had satellite radio. I never paid for the subscription, but it worked for 10 years! Then, suddenly one day it was cancelled. I didn't really feel like I could call them and complain.... I wonder if a previous owner was getting billed the whole time, and just didn't notice it. Of course, this is different as a subscription service. But what if I'd sold it to someone before it got cancelled, and told them that it had free satellite radio? I don't think Sirius/XM should then have to just give the service for free. Yet somehow I don't think Tesla should have limited the battery either. I'm not really sure what the difference is.

personjerry 4y ago

A few examples come to mind, are they similar? 1. BMW accidentally enabled the heated seats in your car, then later deactivates it? So you enjoyed a bonus for a while, seems like they're entitled to remove it. 2. Bank accidentally gives you $1,000,000. A while later they realize their mistake and ask for the money back / transfer it out of your account. My understanding is that this is exactly what would happen. What are the differences from this situation? Is it really a problem?

kelnos 4y ago

I kinda don't care about the aftermath of this. I think this entire thing is bad: 1. Tesla offers a warranty. 2. Tesla is unable to properly make good on the warranty because they don't continue to stock the correct parts. 3. Tesla uses a better part, but then tells the software to pretend the part is much less capable than it really is. No, no, no. Stop right there. This should be illegal. We should not get to any successive steps where Tesla can gouge you $4,500 for someone to spend two seconds clicking in some admin UI somewhere. That is just bullshit. If you replace a part with something that is more capable (because you no longer have the less capable version), then the customer should get the benefit of the new capabilities. Full stop.

ngvrnd 4y ago

Would not buy a tesla. There are other electric cars on the market.

madrox 4y ago

I'm pretty short on Tesla. I'm hearing too many real customer frustrations and no customer success stories. That company has serious problems. If I had to guess, Musk is too distracted. Take your pick of distractions, but the guy has been riding a rocket ship for so long he hasn't yet noticed that it's run out of fuel.

panick21_ 4y ago
> no customer success stories Have you considered selection bias, because seem like that's what's going on here. > That company has serious problems. You concluded this from anecdotal evidence? > the guy has been riding a rocket ship for so long he hasn't yet noticed that it's run out of fuel. Based on what exactly? Look at every single number both looking forward and looking backward and those numbers would disagree with you. And Tesla had customer frustration stories literally since the Model S.

rascul 4y ago

I've seen very few articles that make me want to get a Tesla. Most of them make me want to stay far away from that company.

tonymet 4y ago

Consumers have the power here and are giving up more and more rights every day. In the EU they can now remotely speed limit your car. If you think the push for EVs is for the environment think again, they are a dubious tradeoff with a bigger environmental impact. The EV push is meant to take away your control over the assets that you "own". If you don't fight back now, you won't be able to own anything in 5 years.

rootusrootus 4y ago
Oh jeez. This has nothing to do with EVs. Most EVs, in fact, are nowhere near as intrusively leashed to the mothership as Teslas are. My wife's Bolt is just a car that happens to use electric motors instead of gas. As are most EVs. Also, if you think EVs are worse for the environment, then you are exposing your ideologically-driven ignorance.
- tonymet 4y ago
  when you factor manufacturing emissions and impact , along with grid impact and waste , EVs are a clear loser

thrownaway561 4y ago

it's so scary that at any point Tesla can do whatever they want to your car and you are basically powerless to do anything about it. this is why i will never own a Tesla no matter if it was given to me. the horror stories i have heard and this is just another drop in the bucket.

unixbane 4y ago

What the absolute hell is wrong with consumers that they put up with this kind of shit? 1. I would never want any kind of software in my car, because this is precisely the kind of bullshit I would expect to happen, given being a person who knows the state of the software industry. That and death due to uConnect etc. 2. I even less would want any kind of remote access 3. I also don't want UN*X crap in my car like sh scripts or C code, you have billions of dollars, make a real language or use assembly since the software should be small anyway 4. The fact that someone will bring up GNU+Car just proves even more how dipshit you consumers are; you can't even understand how simple things are to fix (just stop putting software in things) and just reason about the major players of the tech industry in an abstract, dilettante way. > I don't post this stuff because I hate Tesla or anything. In fact, it's just the opposite. I hate seeing Tesla derail themselves with this kind of nonsense. Uhh no, I hate Tesla after seeing this post and hope they actually get cancer and die (admittedly, the same probably applies to every tech company). What if you put a "90 pack" in yourself, do they also downgrade it for you?

goethes_kind 4y ago

The guy should sue Tesla for lugging around 1/3 extra battery weight at his own cost.

threeseed 4y ago

If there's one thing we should all agree on: stop using analogies. This thread is full of the most tortured, confusing and poorly used analogies I think I've ever seen.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kojeovo 4y ago

This kind of stuff is why I'm not really keen to get a Tesla. Might get a v8 next actually.

Seattle3503 4y ago

The message to customers is that they are on the hook for Tesla's mistakes.

marmada 4y ago

This seems good. Yes, good. No one complains when Tesla gives free software upgrades to car owners. So to be consistent, Tesla should have the ability to also enforce software limitations.

treesknees 4y ago
Who says that nobody complains about this? I for one hate when a software update comes along and completely changes the UI layout, even if may come with additional new features. I don't want anything I didn't ask for or confirm, regardless of whether it's in good faith.

notorandit 4y ago

SavageBeast 4y ago

A friend had one of these for a day recently and gave me a ride/let me drive it. https://www.caranddriver.com/audi/e-tron-gt https://www.caranddriver.com/audi/e-tron-gt The E-Tron GT RS or whatever gobbledygook name its got is simply not of this world. We're not going to be talking about Tesla too much longer I think.

vonwoodson 4y ago

Ah, the IoT in it’s full glory

idontpost 4y ago

Another reason I will never buy a Tesla. What a shitty company.

avidphantasm 4y ago

If more companies keep doing these sorts of things, like making you pay a monthly fee to access hardware that is already in the car, I will just have to buy an old VW Beetle or Bus and convert them to EV.

rootusrootus 4y ago
There's a happy medium somewhere in between, I think. Like almost all non-Tesla EVs you could buy today. This whole idea of retroactive changes or subscription features is limited mostly to Tesla, with BMW dipping it's toes in the water. No need to go back to stone age car.

dan-robertson 4y ago

I wish the title of this submission was less sensational.

SeanLuke 4y ago

Can we have the title changed? "To ransom" means to free someone from captivity by paying their ransom. Tesla's not freeing anyone. I think the term the poster meant was "extorts".

ksec 4y ago

Slightly Off Topic. I have had this feeling or opinion for quite some time. I dont like the world being dominated by Software which could be remotely updated. Whether that is a Car or IoT.

rhplus 4y ago

The wasted resource usage is my biggest concern. The pack uses 50% more cells that are effectively unusable, meaning 50% more precious metals were mined for a software option.

Jill_the_Pill 4y ago

It's too bad consumer protection law has somewhat crumpled. This would be a great lawsuit.

porknubbins 4y ago

I wonder technically how they implement this. If the battery stops charging at 60 wouldn’t that potentially have a negative impact on the battery life depending on the battery chemistry? I guess the alternative would be tracking power used and cutting off at 30 left which would actually be better than running down to 0.

yellowapple 4y ago

Whoever invented the idea of software-paywalling already-installed-and-working hardware ought to be locked in a padded cell and forced to listen to the entire Alvin and the Chipmunks discography on repeat for the foreseeable future.