3 ms·

Why use analogies at all? Tesla replaced a 60 with a 90, the owner now has a 90. They list it as a 90 when selling it. The new owner gets hit with the update

Why use analogies at all? Tesla replaced a 60 with a 90, the owner now has a 90. They list it as a 90 when selling it. The new owner gets hit with the update to turn it back into a 60. New owner is pissed at old owner, when they should be pissed at tesla.

ianai 4y ago
I think they could sue both, but any lawyer would go after the entity with the larger resources aka Tesla. (IANAL)
TillE 4y ago
It is endlessly baffling to me that people love making analogies (and arguing about analogies!) when the situation is fairly simple to explain. Like another comment suggested, this is a small error in the customer's favor, and companies who care about customer satisfaction should really just eat the minimal cost when stuff like this happens instead of getting bogged down in technicalities.
- skyyler 4y ago
  I understand it entirely (analogy is the core of cognition, after all) but I do find it very troublesome when simple concepts are mystified into religious debates because someone or a small group of people feel the need to flex how ULTIMATELY UNDERSTANDING they are. Like, no, if you can't use simple words to explain things and you have to rely on extended metaphors to explain things, you probably don't have the holistic understanding you believe you have.
  - balls187 4y ago
    If you take your previous comment, you wrote: > New owner is pissed at old owner, when they should be pissed at tesla. The analogies are trying to explain why or why not the owner should be pissed at Tesla, which if I understand your argument is because it was Tesla who made the change.
judge2020 4y ago
Tesla replaces a 60 with a 90, HQ says 'set this to be 60', service center doesn't do it. Years later another center looks at the config and fixes the mistake, probably because there's a big warning and the technicians before them ignored it out of goodwill. The OP is right in that Tesla should codify in the goodwill of free upgrades when logistics doesn't allow it, but they didn't, so the car being rebadged by the owner as a 90 is an issue. This is the same argument as the Tesla heated seats microtransaction: Tesla actually loses money on cars without rear heated seats if they have to separate "heated rear seats" and "non-heated rear seats" into a new configuration, as it increases manufacturing complexity and logistics (ie. the ability to reassign same-spec cars to new owners if the existing owner backs out of their reservation at the last minute). It makes everything simpler to not make a M3 SR+ customer pay for the heated rear sets and allow them to opt for it later.
- hgomersall 4y ago
  Except that 30kWh of batteries cost several thousand $ wholesale, whereas heated seats cost pennies.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    But the costs are abstract. What if it costs more than $4500 per unit to pay people to catalog, build, and inventory these huge 60kw packs compared to 90kw packs? This is especially likely with how they're probably only making a few dozen of these a year (given the % of the existing packs that fail under warranty) compared to the hundreds of 90s that need replacement every year.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > Tesla actually loses money... Tough shit? Why are we responsible for the success of Tesla's business model? The bottom line here is that Tesla screwed up. If you accidentally give a customer a feature, you don't take it back years later (especially if, as in this case, the product has changed hands to a new customer). You eat your mistake, and consider it a goodwill expense. I guarantee you this Twitter thread has cost Tesla more than the $4500 they charge for someone to click a couple times in a UI to turn a 60 into a 90.

ianai 4y ago

I think they could sue both, but any lawyer would go after the entity with the larger resources aka Tesla. (IANAL)

TillE 4y ago

It is endlessly baffling to me that people love making analogies (and arguing about analogies!) when the situation is fairly simple to explain. Like another comment suggested, this is a small error in the customer's favor, and companies who care about customer satisfaction should really just eat the minimal cost when stuff like this happens instead of getting bogged down in technicalities.

skyyler 4y ago
I understand it entirely (analogy is the core of cognition, after all) but I do find it very troublesome when simple concepts are mystified into religious debates because someone or a small group of people feel the need to flex how ULTIMATELY UNDERSTANDING they are. Like, no, if you can't use simple words to explain things and you have to rely on extended metaphors to explain things, you probably don't have the holistic understanding you believe you have.
- balls187 4y ago
  If you take your previous comment, you wrote: > New owner is pissed at old owner, when they should be pissed at tesla. The analogies are trying to explain why or why not the owner should be pissed at Tesla, which if I understand your argument is because it was Tesla who made the change.

judge2020 4y ago

Tesla replaces a 60 with a 90, HQ says 'set this to be 60', service center doesn't do it. Years later another center looks at the config and fixes the mistake, probably because there's a big warning and the technicians before them ignored it out of goodwill. The OP is right in that Tesla should codify in the goodwill of free upgrades when logistics doesn't allow it, but they didn't, so the car being rebadged by the owner as a 90 is an issue. This is the same argument as the Tesla heated seats microtransaction: Tesla actually loses money on cars without rear heated seats if they have to separate "heated rear seats" and "non-heated rear seats" into a new configuration, as it increases manufacturing complexity and logistics (ie. the ability to reassign same-spec cars to new owners if the existing owner backs out of their reservation at the last minute). It makes everything simpler to not make a M3 SR+ customer pay for the heated rear sets and allow them to opt for it later.

hgomersall 4y ago
Except that 30kWh of batteries cost several thousand $ wholesale, whereas heated seats cost pennies.
- judge2020 4y ago
  But the costs are abstract. What if it costs more than $4500 per unit to pay people to catalog, build, and inventory these huge 60kw packs compared to 90kw packs? This is especially likely with how they're probably only making a few dozen of these a year (given the % of the existing packs that fail under warranty) compared to the hundreds of 90s that need replacement every year.
kelnos 4y ago
> Tesla actually loses money... Tough shit? Why are we responsible for the success of Tesla's business model? The bottom line here is that Tesla screwed up. If you accidentally give a customer a feature, you don't take it back years later (especially if, as in this case, the product has changed hands to a new customer). You eat your mistake, and consider it a goodwill expense. I guarantee you this Twitter thread has cost Tesla more than the $4500 they charge for someone to click a couple times in a UI to turn a 60 into a 90.