5 ms·

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 i

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).

jtbayly 4y ago
Did you read the post? It said it was a 90.
- jabbany 4y ago
  Actually it didn't. The post said the battery had a 90 badge and the car reported capacity as if it were 90. Neither of these are direct claims by Tesla that an "upgrade" happened. Some 2060s also have dies marked for 2080s that are then fused (re: badging doesn't imply performance). Similarly, you could potentially overclock a GPU and end up having measured performance that matched a higher model (re: car reported capacity). In order for the upgrade to have legally applied, they'd actually need to have stated that it was indeed intended as an upgrade and came with new guarantees that matched the higher performing model. Based on reading the post, this never happened thus the whole problem. If this did happen, the new owned could just produce the documentation for the upgrade and it would be open-and-shut resolved.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    No I don't think I agree. To use a different example someone brought up - imagine your CPU breaks in your laptop. You send it to the manufacturer, and they replace it with a higher model CPU because <reasons> - cool, right? You sell it advertised with that better CPU, then the next owner has to send it in for another, completely unrelated repair, and the manufacturer then says "oh we noticed the last repair fitted more powerful CPU than intended, so we removed it and fitted the original spec CPU". That wouldn't be just immoral, that would be actual theft. The matter of fact is, after the warranty repair the guy was given a car with a bigger battery and the bigger capacity enabled in software. Whether Tesla intended to do this or not, is completely and utterly irrelevant - it was his to keep and sell. Now Tesla taking this away should be(but probably isn't) illegal. You have a product with a feature X, Tesla removed that feature and in fact holds it ransom for payment - the fact that they never intended to install it is irrelevant. To use a different example again - imagine you buy a new car and the factory made a mistake and fitted an extra option that you didn't order. Is the manufacturer in the right to remove that part during your next service?
    - jabbany 4y ago
      I think there is a difference with Tesla though, because they do segment based on software. So some of their actual 60 level cars are sold with 90 batteries limited in software. This is more akin motherboard manufacturers who would unofficially unlock overclocking on unsupported chipsets in first version firmware. If someone bought such a board, overclocked the CPU, sold it, and then the next owner sent the board back to the manufacturer for unrelated repairs, and as part of fixing the other problem the board manufacturer needed to do a BIOS update, resulting in the overclocking feature being lost.
      - chii 4y ago
        The segmentation being purely in software makes no difference in the principal. Software segmentation merely makes the effects technically achievable (whereas it'd be hard or impossible via physical means). But the principle that a consumer's product shouldn't be modified without asking for explicit permission from the owner still stands regardless of segmentation methods.
    - cynix 4y ago
      > the factory made a mistake and fitted an extra option that you didn't order. Is the manufacturer in the right to remove that part during your next service? Your bank makes a mistake and adds a million dollars to your account balance when you tried to deposit $100. Is the bank in the right to remove that when they discover the mistake?
      - p1esk 4y ago
        Your bank makes a mistake and adds a million dollars to your account balance when you tried to deposit $100. In this scenario, the bank also tells you: “we are giving you a million dollars, it’s yours”. Then, 3 years later, someone else at the same bank says: “oopsies, we actually made a mistake, so we withdrew that million from your account”. It’s even worse, imagine you actually received that million, as a payment for something, from someone else who originally received it from the bank.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    I’m sorry, in what world is having an actual 90 physically installed by Tesla, and enabled physically by Tesla, able to be used and reported as such in the Tesla UI less relevant than some row in the Tesla sales db? Tesla did put in the 90 and enable it! The fact that there isn’t a receipt proving that anybody paid for it is irrelevant. It could have been a gift, a reward, a thank you, a bribe, a reasonable business decision given the parts on hand, or an accident. Regardless, that’s on Tesla. Am I required to ask the manufacturer if they will take back the Chrome wheels when I buy a used car just to make sure they didn’t put them on accidentally?
    - jabbany 4y ago
      > in what world In our world? Based on the thread, Tesla did a battery service on a model of car with a 60 battery. Unless it was stated as upgraded, after the service it is still a 60 car to the manufacturer. A 60 car that just happened to be able to run at the performance level of a 90 version. They then state this is a bug and fixed it. It's immoral on Tesla's side, for sure, but the previous owner selling it as an "upgraded" car without documentation is the real problem. We all know that Tesla does this market segmentation using software, so this should mean that just because the hardware's badge states something does not mean the thing will be guaranteed available. > Am I required to ask the manufacturer if they will take back the Chrome wheels when I buy a used car just to make sure they didn’t put them on accidentally? No, but if it turns out you mistook plastic for Chrome, it's on you (or on the seller if they misrepresented it knowingly). Just because you can't see lack of software license, doesn't mean it's there. If you buy a laptop with a pirated copy of Windows, and later after a couple of updates the OS detects this asks for activation, do you go to Microsoft to ask them to enable your pirated software or do you go to the seller of the laptop?
      - lovecg 4y ago
        Who installed the pirated copy in this hypothetical? If it was Microsoft itself for whatever reason, then yeah - it’s on them to make the customer whole.
      - thfuran 4y ago
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    It amazing the hoops that people have been trained to jump through with respect to Tesla. This is a company that has sold vaporware “full self drive” systems for $10k. Tesla as the sole provider or parts and labor provided a product as a replacement and through their own incompetence failed to install it correctly.
hgomersall 4y ago
The problem is it's not just a software tweak, you're also lugging around 30kWh of batteries. They are useful when they add range; less so when they're just dead mass. The response to this would be, fine reduce my range, but also swap out the battery for the proper size.
- jabbany 4y ago
  IIRC some (?) of their lower capacity cars come out of the factory with higher capacity batteries + a software lock and you can pay to enable the extra capacity ($4500 according to this post apparently). So, the dead mass is there even in brand new cars. I'm guessing the 60 -> 90 swap is because they're not making 60 anymore and it's just all 90 with a software cap... The OP thread even mentions that essentially Tesla forgot to lock the capacity and just left it with the full 90. Basically it's the whole issue about takebacks of physical features via digital un-licensing. There is no direct parallel in the past. A dealership removing accidentally installed physical components after an unrelated service is unacceptable. A digital provider revoking accidentally provided licenses seems pretty common (I still remember Dropbox giving free storage in very early on promos and later going "oops, that actually expires!"). So this is kind of in the middle. A digital license that controls access to a physical good.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    I feel like digital licenses that control access to physical goods should just be banned. Putting a 90kwh battery in a car and not letting people use it is incredibly wasteful in a world where battery supply is a key limiting factor on EV production.
    - brokenmachine 4y ago
      Although I agree with you in some ways, there are things like SSDs that are overprovisioned so they have a bit of extra space that they can use as the flash degrades. Not having that extra space will dramatically lower the lifespan and reliability of the drive. Same with these batteries. They just need to be honest about what they're selling.

jtbayly 4y ago

Did you read the post? It said it was a 90.

jabbany 4y ago
Actually it didn't. The post said the battery had a 90 badge and the car reported capacity as if it were 90. Neither of these are direct claims by Tesla that an "upgrade" happened. Some 2060s also have dies marked for 2080s that are then fused (re: badging doesn't imply performance). Similarly, you could potentially overclock a GPU and end up having measured performance that matched a higher model (re: car reported capacity). In order for the upgrade to have legally applied, they'd actually need to have stated that it was indeed intended as an upgrade and came with new guarantees that matched the higher performing model. Based on reading the post, this never happened thus the whole problem. If this did happen, the new owned could just produce the documentation for the upgrade and it would be open-and-shut resolved.
- gambiting 4y ago
  No I don't think I agree. To use a different example someone brought up - imagine your CPU breaks in your laptop. You send it to the manufacturer, and they replace it with a higher model CPU because <reasons> - cool, right? You sell it advertised with that better CPU, then the next owner has to send it in for another, completely unrelated repair, and the manufacturer then says "oh we noticed the last repair fitted more powerful CPU than intended, so we removed it and fitted the original spec CPU". That wouldn't be just immoral, that would be actual theft. The matter of fact is, after the warranty repair the guy was given a car with a bigger battery and the bigger capacity enabled in software. Whether Tesla intended to do this or not, is completely and utterly irrelevant - it was his to keep and sell. Now Tesla taking this away should be(but probably isn't) illegal. You have a product with a feature X, Tesla removed that feature and in fact holds it ransom for payment - the fact that they never intended to install it is irrelevant. To use a different example again - imagine you buy a new car and the factory made a mistake and fitted an extra option that you didn't order. Is the manufacturer in the right to remove that part during your next service?
  - jabbany 4y ago
    I think there is a difference with Tesla though, because they do segment based on software. So some of their actual 60 level cars are sold with 90 batteries limited in software. This is more akin motherboard manufacturers who would unofficially unlock overclocking on unsupported chipsets in first version firmware. If someone bought such a board, overclocked the CPU, sold it, and then the next owner sent the board back to the manufacturer for unrelated repairs, and as part of fixing the other problem the board manufacturer needed to do a BIOS update, resulting in the overclocking feature being lost.
    - chii 4y ago
      The segmentation being purely in software makes no difference in the principal. Software segmentation merely makes the effects technically achievable (whereas it'd be hard or impossible via physical means). But the principle that a consumer's product shouldn't be modified without asking for explicit permission from the owner still stands regardless of segmentation methods.
  - cynix 4y ago
    > the factory made a mistake and fitted an extra option that you didn't order. Is the manufacturer in the right to remove that part during your next service? Your bank makes a mistake and adds a million dollars to your account balance when you tried to deposit $100. Is the bank in the right to remove that when they discover the mistake?
    - p1esk 4y ago
      Your bank makes a mistake and adds a million dollars to your account balance when you tried to deposit $100. In this scenario, the bank also tells you: “we are giving you a million dollars, it’s yours”. Then, 3 years later, someone else at the same bank says: “oopsies, we actually made a mistake, so we withdrew that million from your account”. It’s even worse, imagine you actually received that million, as a payment for something, from someone else who originally received it from the bank.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  I’m sorry, in what world is having an actual 90 physically installed by Tesla, and enabled physically by Tesla, able to be used and reported as such in the Tesla UI less relevant than some row in the Tesla sales db? Tesla did put in the 90 and enable it! The fact that there isn’t a receipt proving that anybody paid for it is irrelevant. It could have been a gift, a reward, a thank you, a bribe, a reasonable business decision given the parts on hand, or an accident. Regardless, that’s on Tesla. Am I required to ask the manufacturer if they will take back the Chrome wheels when I buy a used car just to make sure they didn’t put them on accidentally?
  - jabbany 4y ago
    > in what world In our world? Based on the thread, Tesla did a battery service on a model of car with a 60 battery. Unless it was stated as upgraded, after the service it is still a 60 car to the manufacturer. A 60 car that just happened to be able to run at the performance level of a 90 version. They then state this is a bug and fixed it. It's immoral on Tesla's side, for sure, but the previous owner selling it as an "upgraded" car without documentation is the real problem. We all know that Tesla does this market segmentation using software, so this should mean that just because the hardware's badge states something does not mean the thing will be guaranteed available. > Am I required to ask the manufacturer if they will take back the Chrome wheels when I buy a used car just to make sure they didn’t put them on accidentally? No, but if it turns out you mistook plastic for Chrome, it's on you (or on the seller if they misrepresented it knowingly). Just because you can't see lack of software license, doesn't mean it's there. If you buy a laptop with a pirated copy of Windows, and later after a couple of updates the OS detects this asks for activation, do you go to Microsoft to ask them to enable your pirated software or do you go to the seller of the laptop?
    - lovecg 4y ago
      Who installed the pirated copy in this hypothetical? If it was Microsoft itself for whatever reason, then yeah - it’s on them to make the customer whole.
    - thfuran 4y ago
- Spooky23 4y ago
  It amazing the hoops that people have been trained to jump through with respect to Tesla. This is a company that has sold vaporware “full self drive” systems for $10k. Tesla as the sole provider or parts and labor provided a product as a replacement and through their own incompetence failed to install it correctly.

hgomersall 4y ago

The problem is it's not just a software tweak, you're also lugging around 30kWh of batteries. They are useful when they add range; less so when they're just dead mass. The response to this would be, fine reduce my range, but also swap out the battery for the proper size.

jabbany 4y ago
IIRC some (?) of their lower capacity cars come out of the factory with higher capacity batteries + a software lock and you can pay to enable the extra capacity ($4500 according to this post apparently). So, the dead mass is there even in brand new cars. I'm guessing the 60 -> 90 swap is because they're not making 60 anymore and it's just all 90 with a software cap... The OP thread even mentions that essentially Tesla forgot to lock the capacity and just left it with the full 90. Basically it's the whole issue about takebacks of physical features via digital un-licensing. There is no direct parallel in the past. A dealership removing accidentally installed physical components after an unrelated service is unacceptable. A digital provider revoking accidentally provided licenses seems pretty common (I still remember Dropbox giving free storage in very early on promos and later going "oops, that actually expires!"). So this is kind of in the middle. A digital license that controls access to a physical good.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  I feel like digital licenses that control access to physical goods should just be banned. Putting a 90kwh battery in a car and not letting people use it is incredibly wasteful in a world where battery supply is a key limiting factor on EV production.
  - brokenmachine 4y ago
    Although I agree with you in some ways, there are things like SSDs that are overprovisioned so they have a bit of extra space that they can use as the flash degrades. Not having that extra space will dramatically lower the lifespan and reliability of the drive. Same with these batteries. They just need to be honest about what they're selling.