5 ms·

it very well may be in industry wide problem, but Tesla seems to be front-and-center of this problem. Great you sent me a link about paying $8 to use your remo

it very well may be in industry wide problem, but Tesla seems to be front-and-center of this problem. Great you sent me a link about paying $8 to use your remote start. why are there so many stories like this one: "Right off of the top, it’s no secret that Tesla will disable features before reselling a used vehicle that’s traded into it. While that might sound shady it’s within their right to do so. What isn’t so common is the situation that led to one owner walking out of his house one day to find his Model S with 80 miles less range than just a few minutes previous." Is this not "john Deere" type activities? how about this: "Tesla’s $16,000 Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters" or this: Hundreds of Tesla drivers were locked out of their cars at the start of the weekend after the manufacturer’s mobile app suffered an outage – and dozens voiced their complaints on social media. If the software doesn't work, neither does your car, is this not things "John Deere" is known for? i dont drive an Ioniq so i wouldn't know the answer to your question.

josephcsible 4y ago
> it very well may be in industry wide problem, but Tesla seems to be front-and-center of this problem. I don't agree with this. > paying $8 to use your remote start An $8/month subscription, not an $8 one-time payment. > why are there so many stories like this one Again, when was the last time this happened? > Tesla will disable features before reselling a used vehicle that’s traded into it This isn't the same thing at all. There's nothing wrong with removing features from a vehicle while you're the owner of it. If someone traded in an ICE car with a turbocharger, would it be wrong for a dealer to remove that before selling it? > What isn’t so common is the situation that led to one owner walking out of his house one day to find his Model S with 80 miles less range than just a few minutes previous." Is this not "john Deere" type activities? Yes, that's definitely wrong of them and "John Deere" type activities. But you originally made a stronger statement, that Tesla is the John Deere of automobiles. For that to be true, they'd have to do significantly more of these "John Deere" type activities than other automakers do, which they don't. > how about this: "Tesla’s $16,000 Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters" They originally asked for $16,000 to replace a part that someone else later successfully repaired for $700. They didn't stop him from doing so, remotely brick the vehicle afterward, or anything like that. Isn't this how things are supposed to work? > or this: Hundreds of Tesla drivers were locked out of their cars at the start of the weekend after the manufacturer’s mobile app suffered an outage – and dozens voiced their complaints on social media. This wasn't wrongdoing either. First of all, the outage was an accident. Second of all, the cars could still be unlocked and driven through a local Bluetooth connection from the app, or with the key cards that are included free with every vehicle. > If the software doesn't work, neither does your car, is this not things "John Deere" is known for? But as I said above, the cars did work even when their software didn't. > i dont drive an Ioniq so i wouldn't know the answer to your question. My point was that on a Tesla, independent mechanics can do a lot of things but not everything, and I expect the same to be true about a Hyundai too.
- kennend3 4y ago
  > This isn't the same thing at all. There's nothing wrong with removing features from a vehicle while you're the owner of it. If someone traded in an ICE car with a turbocharger, would it be wrong for a dealer to remove that before selling it? If you say so.. personally, if I bought a used car, then found out features were removed i'd be pissed off.. then again, i am not a tesla apologist. The "owner" is not the one removing the features.. TESLA IS.. so they can charge the new owner to restore the features. FOr your turbocharger - Yes, if it was listed on the car's features, then removed after you bought it, it would be wrong to remove it. In fact this could be considered fraud. Apple consumers and Tesla consumers have one very odd feature in common - ruthlessly defending things. I dont get why they feel a "need" to do this. You seriously wrote "there is nothign wrong wiht removing features.." .. OMG. If you enjoy having tesla do this to you, by all means continue to buy their products. I dont think their behaviour is fair and so i wont buy one.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > The "owner" is not the one removing the features.. TESLA IS.. My point was that when they disabled FSD in those cases, Tesla was the owner. > FOr your turbocharger - Yes, if it was listed on the car's features, then removed after you bought it, it would be wrong to remove it. In fact this could be considered fraud. Let's use a simpler example then: imagine my spare tire wore out and I didn't bother replacing it. Is it fraud if I sell my car without doing so? > You seriously wrote "there is nothign wrong wiht removing features.." .. OMG. You elided a critical part of what I said. Here's what my whole sentence was: "There's nothing wrong with removing features from a vehicle while you're the owner of it."
- kennend3 4y ago
  opps. missed a point. > Again, when was the last time this happened? Tesla Remotely Disabled 80 Miles Of Range From Customer’s Car Demanding $4,500, Backtracks When The Web Finds Out BY STEPHEN RIVERS | POSTED ONJULY 27, 2022 Not sure the "when was the last time this happened" matters, it is a fairly regular thing with them. in this case it was July 27, 2022.. is that too old, too new for you?

josephcsible 4y ago

> it very well may be in industry wide problem, but Tesla seems to be front-and-center of this problem. I don't agree with this. > paying $8 to use your remote start An $8/month subscription, not an $8 one-time payment. > why are there so many stories like this one Again, when was the last time this happened? > Tesla will disable features before reselling a used vehicle that’s traded into it This isn't the same thing at all. There's nothing wrong with removing features from a vehicle while you're the owner of it. If someone traded in an ICE car with a turbocharger, would it be wrong for a dealer to remove that before selling it? > What isn’t so common is the situation that led to one owner walking out of his house one day to find his Model S with 80 miles less range than just a few minutes previous." Is this not "john Deere" type activities? Yes, that's definitely wrong of them and "John Deere" type activities. But you originally made a stronger statement, that Tesla is the John Deere of automobiles. For that to be true, they'd have to do significantly more of these "John Deere" type activities than other automakers do, which they don't. > how about this: "Tesla’s $16,000 Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters" They originally asked for $16,000 to replace a part that someone else later successfully repaired for $700. They didn't stop him from doing so, remotely brick the vehicle afterward, or anything like that. Isn't this how things are supposed to work? > or this: Hundreds of Tesla drivers were locked out of their cars at the start of the weekend after the manufacturer’s mobile app suffered an outage – and dozens voiced their complaints on social media. This wasn't wrongdoing either. First of all, the outage was an accident. Second of all, the cars could still be unlocked and driven through a local Bluetooth connection from the app, or with the key cards that are included free with every vehicle. > If the software doesn't work, neither does your car, is this not things "John Deere" is known for? But as I said above, the cars did work even when their software didn't. > i dont drive an Ioniq so i wouldn't know the answer to your question. My point was that on a Tesla, independent mechanics can do a lot of things but not everything, and I expect the same to be true about a Hyundai too.

kennend3 4y ago
> This isn't the same thing at all. There's nothing wrong with removing features from a vehicle while you're the owner of it. If someone traded in an ICE car with a turbocharger, would it be wrong for a dealer to remove that before selling it? If you say so.. personally, if I bought a used car, then found out features were removed i'd be pissed off.. then again, i am not a tesla apologist. The "owner" is not the one removing the features.. TESLA IS.. so they can charge the new owner to restore the features. FOr your turbocharger - Yes, if it was listed on the car's features, then removed after you bought it, it would be wrong to remove it. In fact this could be considered fraud. Apple consumers and Tesla consumers have one very odd feature in common - ruthlessly defending things. I dont get why they feel a "need" to do this. You seriously wrote "there is nothign wrong wiht removing features.." .. OMG. If you enjoy having tesla do this to you, by all means continue to buy their products. I dont think their behaviour is fair and so i wont buy one.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > The "owner" is not the one removing the features.. TESLA IS.. My point was that when they disabled FSD in those cases, Tesla was the owner. > FOr your turbocharger - Yes, if it was listed on the car's features, then removed after you bought it, it would be wrong to remove it. In fact this could be considered fraud. Let's use a simpler example then: imagine my spare tire wore out and I didn't bother replacing it. Is it fraud if I sell my car without doing so? > You seriously wrote "there is nothign wrong wiht removing features.." .. OMG. You elided a critical part of what I said. Here's what my whole sentence was: "There's nothing wrong with removing features from a vehicle while you're the owner of it."
kennend3 4y ago
opps. missed a point. > Again, when was the last time this happened? Tesla Remotely Disabled 80 Miles Of Range From Customer’s Car Demanding $4,500, Backtracks When The Web Finds Out BY STEPHEN RIVERS | POSTED ONJULY 27, 2022 Not sure the "when was the last time this happened" matters, it is a fairly regular thing with them. in this case it was July 27, 2022.. is that too old, too new for you?