8 ms·

>> (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 don

>> (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.
gigatexal 4y ago
This is my understanding as well.
jdgoesmarching 4y ago
Exactly this. Warranty replacements aren’t a new concept, and I have a feeling if this were any other brand HN wouldn’t be so insistent on taking a step back and thinking about who else besides Tesla can be blamed when customers get the short end of the stick.
- x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
  Yep, if it were John Deere or god-forbid, Google, HN would be up in arms.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    With most brands, if I get screwed as a consumer I can generally expect other consumers to at least sympathize with my plight. With Tesla and Apple, I fully expect for other Tesla or Apple consumers to blame me for everything wrong and defend the company blindly against all common reason. Good brands to avoid for this reason, even if they do make enviable hardware sometimes.
balls187 4y ago
> 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. What if it's a 3080Ti PCB but inside a RTX3080 card? Is it ethical to sell it as a 3080Ti? What about an RTX3080 Card that Nvidia drivers mistakenly identify as a 3080Ti and enable additional 3080Ti cores (ignore how technically innaccurate that may be)? Reminds me of this video from LTT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZ32mqmsrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZ32mqmsrg
- HWR_14 4y ago
  The proper analogy is that your Alienware breaks, and Alienware replaces your RTX3080 with a 3080Ti. When you resell it, you can and should identify it as an Alienware with a 3080Ti.
  - balls187 4y ago
    Upon closer analysis, all analogies will break down. I'd argue the car in the sumtotal of all the parts in it. So rather your analogy about Alienware is: You own a dell gaming pc. Under warranty repair, Dell replaces some of the parts with parts from an Alienware build. Are you allowed to put on Alienware decals on your Dell desktop and re-sell it as an Alienware?
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      Well, I own a Dell gaming PC. It came with the "Alienware Command Center" installed. I suspect it may be an Alienware PC. If so, why wouldn't we call it that?
      - balls187 4y ago
        > I suspect it may be an Alienware PC. If so, why wouldn't we call it that? You could call it an Alienware PC. My question: Would it be ethical for you to represent it as an Alienware PC, and sell it as an Alienware PC by purposefully attempt pass it off by changing the appearance to make it look like an Alienware PC? To add to the gray area: Say DELL XPS 1000 and Alienware 90210 are essentially the same machine, save for custom tuning, drivers, and cosmetics. Alienware gets a 25% markup. You have the XPS 1000, apply the custom tuning and drivers to get the performance of the XPS to that of it's Alienware's counterpart. Could you sell it for more than the market rate for a use XPS1000? Yes. I'd argue you have added value by custom tuning the PC. But I believe responsible to disclose that it was an XPS that had been modified. Taking this back to cars. If an when I sell my Golf R, I will disclose it has received a Stage 1 Turbo upgrade (and hopefully use that to increase the resale value--though it typically does not except to other enthusiasts).
teawrecks 4y ago
The customers enforce this. IANAL, but afaik there's no law (in the US) that enforces this. The only place I know of that may have a relevant law to enforce this is Norway and their Norwegian Marketing Control Act that prohibits withdrawing a key feature after sale. Accidental upgrade after a repair under warranty may or may not be included in this.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  I agree with the parent poster that the seller carries some of the blame, here, but that sounds like a good law.
throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
A decade or so ago you used to be able to unlock cores on certain AMD CPU's; there was no guarantee that the core would be stable though. The core could be fine without heavy load and have errors when pushed closer to 100%. If there was a similar level of binning done for Tesla batteries they should be able to limit the battery especially if there are safety concerns; sounds like that's not the case here though.
- masklinn 4y ago
  > A decade or so ago you used to be able to unlock cores on certain AMD CPU's; there was no guarantee that the core would be stable though. The core could be fine without heavy load and have errors when pushed closer to 100%. That also used to happen a lot with Intel CPUs, especially late in a product cycle: after refining fab their yields would be so good there wasn't any "bad" part to bin down, so they'd just soft-disable cores on high-end parts (I think after a while manufacturers started fusing the cores).
- beebeepka 4y ago
  More than a decade ago. ATi 9800SE could also be modded to 9800pro which was probably the best card at the time.
- corrral 4y ago
  At least as early as the late 90s, servers were sometimes sold with parts—disks, controller cards, CPUs (in the days when multi-socket was more common), et c—disabled in software, unlockable if you paid for an upgrade.
  - bb88 4y ago
    This is true of test bench equipment today. They use this for vertical marketing. I'm fine with it since it's mostly just software anyway. Yes you can hack it, and people do, but if you're going to use it for proper validation and certification, you're going to pay for those features anyway.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
walrus01 4y ago
> 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 You underestimate the potential for straight up evil in $BIGCORP, nvidia treating video cards like HP treats consumer inkjet printers in the future is something I would be totally unsurprised by.
metacritic12 4y ago
What if the story above is the same but they locked it down as 3080 on return?
jabbany 4y ago
> no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update I think the problem is that there are 2 different types of "can't": can't as in technologically impossible, and can't as in legally disallowed. In the past, the former was usually the case. Vendors literally could not technologically take away features because things either were not controlled by software or software could not tell the hardware apart because there were no unique identifiers. Because of this nobody really pushed for the legal protections, and as such they do not exist today (at best you _might_ be able to claim misrepresentation by the previous owner and get a return or refund, like if someone sells a LHR card as if it were non-LHR. But with a large purchase like a car, that would be costly time and money wise). > Tesla should not have been able to do this, period. Yeah, morally, but we need to start working to make this guaranteed legally. As it is now, "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" is totally allowed. Heck, they could even cut down all legitimate 3080Tis to what would be 3080 or even 1060 performance via drivers after 3 years and you'd be able to do nothing besides complain on social media -- you still have exactly the amount of hardware sold, and they never promised any performance levels (just check their site, you only get things like compute units, clock speed, ram etc. not performance guarantees like FLOPs or FPS)
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > I think the problem is that there are 2 different types of "can't": can't as in technologically impossible, and can't as in legally disallowed. Exactly. Bait and switch is legally disallowed, even when technically possible.
  - jabbany 4y ago
    Actually, it isn't bait and switch at all. Unless Tesla advertised the upgraded capacity explicitly after the service, you are not entitled to anything. This is why things like consumer CPUs and GPUs do not advertise a guaranteed level of performance (they only state things like clock speeds, core counts, memory etc.) -- they are not liable if performance gets better or worse down the line. There is no distinction between, say, "games moved to a new API and now old cards are slow" and "we made our new drivers make old cards slow on purpose because we want to sell more new cards". Companies don't do this because it's bad press if found out (which is why there's this whole Twitter thread), not because they are legally required to (at least in the US).
winternett 4y ago
A TON of hardware related things are hobbled and even retired by manufacturers in driver updates and the lack thereof now. Entire pre built computers can easily be rendered obsolete by dropping support for network cards, peripherals, video drivers, almost anything when OS updates, software upgrades, or other dependencies are issued... Non-Technical people suffer the most from this game... The person who doesn't know how to look up and install drivers (Your Dad or Grandma) usually then needs to go out an buy a brand new computer every 2-3 years, simply because the device stops working.. A relatively easy fix to us generates billions of dollars for companies that know the system is broken, and they conveniently don't want to fix that system because it would cut their revenue. As software permeates the car making industry, they actually wouldn't mind making all cars leased and/or disposable like computer devices, they run online campaigns on reddit against car ownership, and brigade endlessly about the environmental benefits of EVs, which still to this day use tons of toxic materials in batteries and non-bio-degradable plastics as well. Even the madness over each new minorly adjusted variation of video card that comes out is driven by this drive to maximize company profit is quite harmful to the environment and our health, without any sense of responsibility held by the companies that drive this consumerism. We pay a lor for these products, we need to all be better at demanding proper product support and quality, and we need to stop continually and carelessly renewing everything tech that we buy, even if we have the extra money burning a hole in our pocket... Because ultimately it's destroying us all.
saynay 4y ago
We are going to be seeing this more frequently in cars, and probably hardware overall. Having a single hardware spec that is license-limited to various levels is just cheaper for the manufacturer in how it simplifies their logistics. It also provides additional revenue options from existing customers that might want to "upgrade" at a later date. On the plus side, if you can figure out how to sideload your car you get a free range extension on your battery.
mgdlbp 4y ago
The general concept of software and hardware impaired by the maker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crippleware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crippleware Relevantly, > ==Automobiles== > Tesla limits the range on lower-end versions of the Model S in software, as well as disabling Autopilot functions if those functions weren't purchased. > Some high-end BMW cars in [list of countries] have the option to pay a subscription fee for features such as heated seats, advanced cruise control, and automatic beam switching. The components and functionality already exist within the vehicle, but BMW has a software block that prevent them from being used without paying. (#2 was recently on HN)
Zenst 4y ago
Interesting comparision given didn't Nvidia sell people some 30xx series graphics cards and then limit their has rate with a driver update! Giving a situation were some people brought a card for X ability of the card for an update to artificially limit it?
- enragedcacti 4y ago
  They started selling LHR cards with a nerfed hash rate but it was clear up front that that is what you were buying.
vkk8 4y ago
> Maybe, but again, I don't see why that should be necessary. Tesla should not have been able to do this, period. Maybe you're right. However, much of the modern hardware business operates this way. At least Nvidia and Intel have been known to sell the same chips as different models, but just some part of the chip disabled via firmware.
tomohawk 4y ago
Except that with something like a Tesla, you are not buying the car. You are buying a piece of paper that grants you specific use of a car. This means that in the future, everyone will need to retain a lawyer conversant in contract law when making any sort of purchase, as what is being purchased may have little to do with the thing you think you have bought, and everything to do with the abstract contract that the lawyer can understand. The World Economic Forum thinks this is a great idea. I can't wait til those guys are run out of town.
- hef19898 4y ago
  So kind of a NFT for a car then?
7thaccount 4y ago
Again...I don't know why people willingly buy from companies like Tesla or BMW when they treat customers so poorly.
danudey 4y ago
Imagine Apple replacing your broken Macbook Pro M1 base model with the upgraded model because they didn't have any exact replacements in stock, and then years later deciding to disable two of the CPU cores, two of the GPU cores, and half the SSD space (1 TB to 512 GB). People, especially on HN, would lose their freaking minds. They would also lose their minds if Apple only sold the highest-end model but firmware-locked CPU cores and SSD space unless you paid extra for it, or, even better, paid a subscription for it. Refresh rates up to 120 Hz, available for $4.99 per month!
- rsynnott 4y ago
  Intel has occasionally done this: https://www.zdnet.com/article/facepalm-of-the-day-intel-charges-customers-50-to-unlock-cpu-features/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/facepalm-of-the-day-intel-char... It tends not to go down well.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
    And they are planning to do it again https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-software-defined-cpu-support-coming-to-linux-518 https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-software-defined-cpu... Now this time the idea is that because their differnt SKU's are basically the same chip under the hood anyway just locked at the Silicon level why not allow them to be unlocked if the extra features are found to be needed after purchase. This happen in other markets just fine. One market that jumps to mind is oscilloscopes, you will basically have a single piece of hardware spanning multiple skus where features are disabled via software/hardware (sometimes the CPU is just reading resistor values or jumpers to determine which model it is and therefore which features it has enabled), one notable vendor jumps to mind is Hantek. You can take a 70Mhz scope and opening it up to unlock it to 250mhz. (The same can be done in a number of Rigol scopes iirc)
- elzbardico 4y ago
  Please, don't give them ideas.
tj-teej 4y ago
"because....that's what it is" I think this is the key problem here. Tesla is asserting the right to decide for the owner what the car "is". Kinda brings into question who the "owner" "is"...
- hef19898 4y ago
  If something runs software that either isn't air gapped, eg. cars, or that can recwived forced updates, e.g. OTA updates, obviously the person buying the device is not the owner. Legally for sure you are the owner, in oractical terms less so. And in case of cars, even if the embedded software is air-gaped, if you cannot choose your garage (liscensed garages may perform software uodates wothout you knowing) you kind of loose some "ownership" as well.

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.

gigatexal 4y ago

This is my understanding as well.

jdgoesmarching 4y ago

Exactly this. Warranty replacements aren’t a new concept, and I have a feeling if this were any other brand HN wouldn’t be so insistent on taking a step back and thinking about who else besides Tesla can be blamed when customers get the short end of the stick.

x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
Yep, if it were John Deere or god-forbid, Google, HN would be up in arms.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  With most brands, if I get screwed as a consumer I can generally expect other consumers to at least sympathize with my plight. With Tesla and Apple, I fully expect for other Tesla or Apple consumers to blame me for everything wrong and defend the company blindly against all common reason. Good brands to avoid for this reason, even if they do make enviable hardware sometimes.

balls187 4y ago

> 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. What if it's a 3080Ti PCB but inside a RTX3080 card? Is it ethical to sell it as a 3080Ti? What about an RTX3080 Card that Nvidia drivers mistakenly identify as a 3080Ti and enable additional 3080Ti cores (ignore how technically innaccurate that may be)? Reminds me of this video from LTT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZ32mqmsrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZ32mqmsrg

HWR_14 4y ago
The proper analogy is that your Alienware breaks, and Alienware replaces your RTX3080 with a 3080Ti. When you resell it, you can and should identify it as an Alienware with a 3080Ti.
- balls187 4y ago
  Upon closer analysis, all analogies will break down. I'd argue the car in the sumtotal of all the parts in it. So rather your analogy about Alienware is: You own a dell gaming pc. Under warranty repair, Dell replaces some of the parts with parts from an Alienware build. Are you allowed to put on Alienware decals on your Dell desktop and re-sell it as an Alienware?
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    Well, I own a Dell gaming PC. It came with the "Alienware Command Center" installed. I suspect it may be an Alienware PC. If so, why wouldn't we call it that?
    - balls187 4y ago
      > I suspect it may be an Alienware PC. If so, why wouldn't we call it that? You could call it an Alienware PC. My question: Would it be ethical for you to represent it as an Alienware PC, and sell it as an Alienware PC by purposefully attempt pass it off by changing the appearance to make it look like an Alienware PC? To add to the gray area: Say DELL XPS 1000 and Alienware 90210 are essentially the same machine, save for custom tuning, drivers, and cosmetics. Alienware gets a 25% markup. You have the XPS 1000, apply the custom tuning and drivers to get the performance of the XPS to that of it's Alienware's counterpart. Could you sell it for more than the market rate for a use XPS1000? Yes. I'd argue you have added value by custom tuning the PC. But I believe responsible to disclose that it was an XPS that had been modified. Taking this back to cars. If an when I sell my Golf R, I will disclose it has received a Stage 1 Turbo upgrade (and hopefully use that to increase the resale value--though it typically does not except to other enthusiasts).

teawrecks 4y ago

The customers enforce this. IANAL, but afaik there's no law (in the US) that enforces this. The only place I know of that may have a relevant law to enforce this is Norway and their Norwegian Marketing Control Act that prohibits withdrawing a key feature after sale. Accidental upgrade after a repair under warranty may or may not be included in this.

Robotbeat 4y ago
I agree with the parent poster that the seller carries some of the blame, here, but that sounds like a good law.

throw_nbvc1234 4y ago

A decade or so ago you used to be able to unlock cores on certain AMD CPU's; there was no guarantee that the core would be stable though. The core could be fine without heavy load and have errors when pushed closer to 100%. If there was a similar level of binning done for Tesla batteries they should be able to limit the battery especially if there are safety concerns; sounds like that's not the case here though.

masklinn 4y ago
> A decade or so ago you used to be able to unlock cores on certain AMD CPU's; there was no guarantee that the core would be stable though. The core could be fine without heavy load and have errors when pushed closer to 100%. That also used to happen a lot with Intel CPUs, especially late in a product cycle: after refining fab their yields would be so good there wasn't any "bad" part to bin down, so they'd just soft-disable cores on high-end parts (I think after a while manufacturers started fusing the cores).
beebeepka 4y ago
More than a decade ago. ATi 9800SE could also be modded to 9800pro which was probably the best card at the time.
corrral 4y ago
At least as early as the late 90s, servers were sometimes sold with parts—disks, controller cards, CPUs (in the days when multi-socket was more common), et c—disabled in software, unlockable if you paid for an upgrade.
- bb88 4y ago
  This is true of test bench equipment today. They use this for vertical marketing. I'm fine with it since it's mostly just software anyway. Yes you can hack it, and people do, but if you're going to use it for proper validation and certification, you're going to pay for those features anyway.
Mountain_Skies 4y ago

walrus01 4y ago

> 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 You underestimate the potential for straight up evil in $BIGCORP, nvidia treating video cards like HP treats consumer inkjet printers in the future is something I would be totally unsurprised by.

metacritic12 4y ago

What if the story above is the same but they locked it down as 3080 on return?

jabbany 4y ago

> no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update I think the problem is that there are 2 different types of "can't": can't as in technologically impossible, and can't as in legally disallowed. In the past, the former was usually the case. Vendors literally could not technologically take away features because things either were not controlled by software or software could not tell the hardware apart because there were no unique identifiers. Because of this nobody really pushed for the legal protections, and as such they do not exist today (at best you _might_ be able to claim misrepresentation by the previous owner and get a return or refund, like if someone sells a LHR card as if it were non-LHR. But with a large purchase like a car, that would be costly time and money wise). > Tesla should not have been able to do this, period. Yeah, morally, but we need to start working to make this guaranteed legally. As it is now, "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" is totally allowed. Heck, they could even cut down all legitimate 3080Tis to what would be 3080 or even 1060 performance via drivers after 3 years and you'd be able to do nothing besides complain on social media -- you still have exactly the amount of hardware sold, and they never promised any performance levels (just check their site, you only get things like compute units, clock speed, ram etc. not performance guarantees like FLOPs or FPS)

zozbot234 4y ago
> I think the problem is that there are 2 different types of "can't": can't as in technologically impossible, and can't as in legally disallowed. Exactly. Bait and switch is legally disallowed, even when technically possible.
- jabbany 4y ago
  Actually, it isn't bait and switch at all. Unless Tesla advertised the upgraded capacity explicitly after the service, you are not entitled to anything. This is why things like consumer CPUs and GPUs do not advertise a guaranteed level of performance (they only state things like clock speeds, core counts, memory etc.) -- they are not liable if performance gets better or worse down the line. There is no distinction between, say, "games moved to a new API and now old cards are slow" and "we made our new drivers make old cards slow on purpose because we want to sell more new cards". Companies don't do this because it's bad press if found out (which is why there's this whole Twitter thread), not because they are legally required to (at least in the US).

winternett 4y ago

A TON of hardware related things are hobbled and even retired by manufacturers in driver updates and the lack thereof now. Entire pre built computers can easily be rendered obsolete by dropping support for network cards, peripherals, video drivers, almost anything when OS updates, software upgrades, or other dependencies are issued... Non-Technical people suffer the most from this game... The person who doesn't know how to look up and install drivers (Your Dad or Grandma) usually then needs to go out an buy a brand new computer every 2-3 years, simply because the device stops working.. A relatively easy fix to us generates billions of dollars for companies that know the system is broken, and they conveniently don't want to fix that system because it would cut their revenue. As software permeates the car making industry, they actually wouldn't mind making all cars leased and/or disposable like computer devices, they run online campaigns on reddit against car ownership, and brigade endlessly about the environmental benefits of EVs, which still to this day use tons of toxic materials in batteries and non-bio-degradable plastics as well. Even the madness over each new minorly adjusted variation of video card that comes out is driven by this drive to maximize company profit is quite harmful to the environment and our health, without any sense of responsibility held by the companies that drive this consumerism. We pay a lor for these products, we need to all be better at demanding proper product support and quality, and we need to stop continually and carelessly renewing everything tech that we buy, even if we have the extra money burning a hole in our pocket... Because ultimately it's destroying us all.

saynay 4y ago

We are going to be seeing this more frequently in cars, and probably hardware overall. Having a single hardware spec that is license-limited to various levels is just cheaper for the manufacturer in how it simplifies their logistics. It also provides additional revenue options from existing customers that might want to "upgrade" at a later date. On the plus side, if you can figure out how to sideload your car you get a free range extension on your battery.

mgdlbp 4y ago

The general concept of software and hardware impaired by the maker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crippleware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crippleware Relevantly, > ==Automobiles== > Tesla limits the range on lower-end versions of the Model S in software, as well as disabling Autopilot functions if those functions weren't purchased. > Some high-end BMW cars in [list of countries] have the option to pay a subscription fee for features such as heated seats, advanced cruise control, and automatic beam switching. The components and functionality already exist within the vehicle, but BMW has a software block that prevent them from being used without paying. (#2 was recently on HN)

Zenst 4y ago

Interesting comparision given didn't Nvidia sell people some 30xx series graphics cards and then limit their has rate with a driver update! Giving a situation were some people brought a card for X ability of the card for an update to artificially limit it?

enragedcacti 4y ago
They started selling LHR cards with a nerfed hash rate but it was clear up front that that is what you were buying.

vkk8 4y ago

> Maybe, but again, I don't see why that should be necessary. Tesla should not have been able to do this, period. Maybe you're right. However, much of the modern hardware business operates this way. At least Nvidia and Intel have been known to sell the same chips as different models, but just some part of the chip disabled via firmware.

tomohawk 4y ago

Except that with something like a Tesla, you are not buying the car. You are buying a piece of paper that grants you specific use of a car. This means that in the future, everyone will need to retain a lawyer conversant in contract law when making any sort of purchase, as what is being purchased may have little to do with the thing you think you have bought, and everything to do with the abstract contract that the lawyer can understand. The World Economic Forum thinks this is a great idea. I can't wait til those guys are run out of town.

hef19898 4y ago
So kind of a NFT for a car then?

7thaccount 4y ago

Again...I don't know why people willingly buy from companies like Tesla or BMW when they treat customers so poorly.

danudey 4y ago

Imagine Apple replacing your broken Macbook Pro M1 base model with the upgraded model because they didn't have any exact replacements in stock, and then years later deciding to disable two of the CPU cores, two of the GPU cores, and half the SSD space (1 TB to 512 GB). People, especially on HN, would lose their freaking minds. They would also lose their minds if Apple only sold the highest-end model but firmware-locked CPU cores and SSD space unless you paid extra for it, or, even better, paid a subscription for it. Refresh rates up to 120 Hz, available for $4.99 per month!

rsynnott 4y ago
Intel has occasionally done this: https://www.zdnet.com/article/facepalm-of-the-day-intel-charges-customers-50-to-unlock-cpu-features/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/facepalm-of-the-day-intel-char... It tends not to go down well.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
  And they are planning to do it again https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-software-defined-cpu-support-coming-to-linux-518 https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-software-defined-cpu... Now this time the idea is that because their differnt SKU's are basically the same chip under the hood anyway just locked at the Silicon level why not allow them to be unlocked if the extra features are found to be needed after purchase. This happen in other markets just fine. One market that jumps to mind is oscilloscopes, you will basically have a single piece of hardware spanning multiple skus where features are disabled via software/hardware (sometimes the CPU is just reading resistor values or jumpers to determine which model it is and therefore which features it has enabled), one notable vendor jumps to mind is Hantek. You can take a 70Mhz scope and opening it up to unlock it to 250mhz. (The same can be done in a number of Rigol scopes iirc)
elzbardico 4y ago
Please, don't give them ideas.

tj-teej 4y ago

"because....that's what it is" I think this is the key problem here. Tesla is asserting the right to decide for the owner what the car "is". Kinda brings into question who the "owner" "is"...

hef19898 4y ago
If something runs software that either isn't air gapped, eg. cars, or that can recwived forced updates, e.g. OTA updates, obviously the person buying the device is not the owner. Legally for sure you are the owner, in oractical terms less so. And in case of cars, even if the embedded software is air-gaped, if you cannot choose your garage (liscensed garages may perform software uodates wothout you knowing) you kind of loose some "ownership" as well.