6 ms·

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 a

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.
    - cynix 4y ago
      > the bank also tells you: “we are giving you a million dollars, it’s yours”. This doesn’t seem to be the case with the larger battery though? Nothing in the tweet thread indicates that Tesla explicitly stated the car is now a 90 and the original owner can keep it forever.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    Yes, because it's their account and their system - that does happen in fact, plenty of stories like that. If you take the money out, or move it elsewhere, they cannot just break into your house and take the cash however - they would need a court order to recover it, and the court would need to agree that it was a reasonable mistake(and that's not always the case! plenty of cases where people/companies send money to the wrong account by mistake and the courts rule that you can't force the other side to return the money) Also you haven't answered my question, which I think compares better to this situation than a random million dollars deposited into my account. No one randomly gave this guy an upgrade - it was a warranty replacement with a better item, that happens literally all the time in all kinds of industries. What doesn't happen is the manufacturer turning around few years later and taking the item back.
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.

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.
  - cynix 4y ago
    > the bank also tells you: “we are giving you a million dollars, it’s yours”. This doesn’t seem to be the case with the larger battery though? Nothing in the tweet thread indicates that Tesla explicitly stated the car is now a 90 and the original owner can keep it forever.
- gambiting 4y ago
  Yes, because it's their account and their system - that does happen in fact, plenty of stories like that. If you take the money out, or move it elsewhere, they cannot just break into your house and take the cash however - they would need a court order to recover it, and the court would need to agree that it was a reasonable mistake(and that's not always the case! plenty of cases where people/companies send money to the wrong account by mistake and the courts rule that you can't force the other side to return the money) Also you haven't answered my question, which I think compares better to this situation than a random million dollars deposited into my account. No one randomly gave this guy an upgrade - it was a warranty replacement with a better item, that happens literally all the time in all kinds of industries. What doesn't happen is the manufacturer turning around few years later and taking the item back.

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.