7 ms·

This is absolutely awful for the industry. I hope the FTC steps in and either forces Tesla to truly open its connector (no requiring licensing fees / handing ov

This is absolutely awful for the industry. I hope the FTC steps in and either forces Tesla to truly open its connector (no requiring licensing fees / handing over development to an industry consortium) or kills these deals. I genuinely don't know why people are excited to replace an open standard with a proprietary one. Imagine if all USB development were hamstrung and required to go through an Apple approval process, and every device you bought had to pay the Apple tax for a lightning port? In addition, it seems that in the way the way the language is worded, Tesla's connector now qualifies for infrastructure subsidies because it can charge multiple makes of vehicles, even though it's limited to only those makes that have paid them the tax*. That's appalling. * this is made clear by their discussion of the Tesla to CCS adapters, which are vendor locked to only charge GM and Ford vehicles. Everyone with a different brand of car is left out. "Open standard"? I don't think so.

guardiangod 3y ago
What's awful about the deal? 1. Tesla already opened up the NACS connector for others to use. We don't know the detail yet but the license fee is probably minimal if Ford and GM agree to join. 2. the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS, with design deficiencies that are more or less not fixable. 3. Your USB example would be more like manufacturers sticking with Serial port (with manual configuration and payment done by the user) vs plug-and-play USB 1.0 (still a pain but it's a huge improvement.) 4. Tesla has a larger and better charging infrastructure than EA etc. What's wrong with giving infrastructure subsidies to companies who proved they have a superior product? Or do you think that everyone deserves a piece of the pie, regardless of their technical competency?
- fnimick 3y ago
  > Tesla already opened up the NACS connector for others to use. We don't know the detail yet but the license fee is probably minimal if Ford and GM agree to join. Any licensing fee paid to a single company is unacceptable for what is described as an "open standard." > the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS Sure, it's bigger, but how is that a problem? It's not like you carry it with you. Nobody I know has ever had an issue physically working with it, including people 70+ years old. > Tesla has a larger and better charging infrastructure than EA etc. What's wrong with giving infrastructure subsidies to companies who proved they have a superior product? Or do you think that everyone deserves a piece of the pie, regardless of their technical competency? I have a big problem with companies getting infrastructure subsidies that they then use to rent-seek in the market and force other companies to pay them fees for access to publicly-funded infrastructure, yes. I'm not saying subsidies have to be given equally, but subsidies should absolutely not be given to companies that limit the product of that subsidy (charging) based on licensing for profit.
  - guardiangod 3y ago
    Well good news then since Tesla is "The design and specification files are available for download, and we are actively working with relevant standards bodies to codify Tesla’s charging connector as a public standard. Enjoy." https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s... I do agree that the connector needs to be a public standard and the licensing fee needs to be kept to a minimal. (I am against free solely to cover the cost of standard validation similar to WiFi. As we see from USB-C, having 1000 companies of various quality developing charging cable is a disaster, but now it's 400V 500Amp connector.)
    - throw0101b 3y ago
      > […] with relevant standards bodies to codify Tesla’s charging connector as a public standard. Enjoy." And who is/are the "relevant standards bodies"? SAE? IEC? Other?
      - Moto7451 3y ago
        I’d assume both since SAE is important for North America and IEC for Europe. The Type 2 connector references the Type 1 standard for communication, so cross referencing is also likely here.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Just a cautionary note: Steve Jobs made the same "we're working on a standard" promise for FaceTime when he announced the iPhone 4. We're up to the iPhone 14 and it hasn't happened.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        To be fair he died. Jobs was known for personally seeing things through sometimes but it required ultimately him to make sure it got done
      - remir 3y ago
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > 1. Tesla already opened up the NACS connector for others to use. We don't know the detail yet but the license fee is probably minimal if Ford and GM agree to join. So if I want to purchase a NACS charger for my house, besides Tesla, what are my options? > 2. the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS, with design deficiencies that are more or less not fixable. Besides size apparently, what are these "design deficiencies" that you speak of?
  - pnpnp 3y ago
    Tesla is in the process of ratifying it as an open standard. Other manufacturers will be forthcoming, but Tesla is it at the moment. It’s kind of the chicken and egg problem, but should work itself out since they seem adamant about making it a free, open standard.
    - fnimick 3y ago
      > Tesla is in the process of ratifying it as an open standard. You'll forgive me if I don't believe them, considering their last PR release pre-2021 about it being an "open standard" included the fine print of Tesla gaining permanent access to all of your IP if you used it.
      - pnpnp 3y ago
        The announcement is more recent than that: https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s...
    - throw0101b 3y ago
      > Tesla is in the process of ratifying it as an open standard. What does this mean? Who is doing the ratification? SAE? IEC? Other?
  - Rebelgecko 3y ago
    Lectron has one, although I don't know if it's as good as Tesla's
- CameronNemo 3y ago
  Tesla has a larger and better charging infrastructure than EA etc. What's wrong with giving infrastructure subsidies to companies who proved they have a superior product? Or do you think that everyone deserves a piece of the pie, regardless of their technical competency? Tesla's larger network is just classic first mover advantage and output setting. Not an indication their (charging) product is "technically superior".
  - redwood 3y ago
    They've had first mover advantage for years paving the way for the industry... for everyone else.. it's not preordained that something like this will happen and sometimes credit is due
    - CameronNemo 3y ago
      Who said anything about credit. You were implying the Tesla connector is technically superior using flawed logic.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  The EU and the US having different charging plugs, as one major issue.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    Even with CCS, the EU and US have different plugs. The EU plug is much better.
  - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
    why does it matter? very few cars drive from us to eu
    - ranguna 3y ago
      It matters for car manufatctors, it's one more thing that forces them to have separate assembly lines for both regions.
      - chrisbolt 3y ago
        “separate assembly lines” is a bit of an exaggeration.
      - frumper 3y ago
        Many countries have slight differences per vehicle. The charging connector seems pretty minor compared to driving on the left side of the road.
  - Tagbert 3y ago
    Japan, Korea, and China also have different charging standards within their countries. It is probably a minor annoyance for the manufacturers but other than that, what is the problem? Vehicles can rarely be moved from one regulation zone to another and there are often remediations that need to be made.
jvanderbot 3y ago
Wait until you hear about Bluetooth. Or HDMI. Open standards with nominal fees are pretty standard.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > Wait until you hear about Bluetooth. Or HDMI. You mean the organizations/standards that are run by non-profits where multiple competitors get together and hash things out so that no one company has a leg up on another?
  - amstan 3y ago
    And where if you have a non-computer device, having a HDMI port forces you to not have any other ports due to licensing. Ever wonder why most TVs and Home Theater Receivers do not come with DP ports?
    - redox99 3y ago
      Source?
    - vel0city 3y ago
      I have many devices which have HDMI, Displayport, DVI, component, and more. Some with SDI as well. Home theater receivers use HDMI because the vast majority of things a home user is going to use with it also uses HDMI.
    - manicdee 3y ago
      That's related to HDCP rather than HDMI. Though it does mean that any video you move to a non-HDCP monitor ends up being just a grey rectangle.
    - throw0101b 3y ago
      > Ever wonder why most TVs and Home Theater Receivers do not come with DP ports? Legacy and network effects: home A/V has HDMI because HDMI is on all home A/V equipment. At this point you can probably have either/both and things would work fine. One technical distinction for HDMI is perhaps having CEC.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Good for consumers and awful for the industry. Having an EV with no charging network sucks.
- wnissen 3y ago
  Exactly. I just took a rented Kia Niro EV on a road trip to the eastern Sierra. I was so, so jealous of the Tesla charger network. I had to download apps for Electrify America, EV-Go, and ChargePoint, and had to use them all.
- 7e 3y ago
  It will be bad for consumers too. Tesla is going to overcharge non-Tesla EVs to subsidize Tesla owners’ charging. And when there is an hour long queue at the Supercharger, you will need to buy a clunky adapter in advance, and hope you didn’t lose it, to use other nearby networks.
  - rossjudson 3y ago
    You seem to be ignoring the fact that charger network operators can use the connector as well. I'm not sure why you're ignoring that.
bequanna 3y ago
Tesla took enormous risk building out a charging network and designing hardware. They aren’t entitled to gouge but please explain why they shouldn’t be allowed to profit from being a huge first mover?
- Drblessing 3y ago
  shhh you're making a rational free market argument in HN
leesec 3y ago
It's incredible for the industry, most of these non-Tesla EV's were effectively unusable outside daily use due to poor charging infrastructure. Now they're not, it's great.
- Arainach 3y ago
  Incredible for the industry would be requiring a standard connector for all brands so that Tesla would switch its charging stations to the standard connector. This has worked just fine in Europe.
  - leesec 3y ago
    They would still have to build out a charging infrastructure tho wouldn't they? This skips that step for now, they can still build out there own standard if they'd like
    - vel0city 3y ago
      I shouldn't be beholden to a car manufacturer for charging my car. Imagine if all gas stations were Ford stations.
      - _ea1k 3y ago
        It is a legitimate concern, tbh. But there's nothing stopping third parties from adding this plug to their stations. Most support two cables, so doing both isn't a big lift.
        vel0city 3y ago
        > But there's nothing stopping third parties from adding this plug to their stations. Sure seems like there are seeing as how finding a dispenser with both CCS and Tesla is like finding a unicorn. You'd think someone would have been rolling them out years ago alongside Tesla.
wilg 3y ago
> Tesla to CCS adapters, which are vendor locked to only charge GM and Ford vehicles What adapters are you talking about here? I can't figure out if this is real. Edit: Oh, you're talking about the proposed adapter as part of this deal.
- judge2020 3y ago
  Technically these already exist with the Magic Dock on some superchargers, and for these it's available to all CCS1 cars. Here's a video of it: https://youtu.be/pUYqDNCIFD8?t=299 https://youtu.be/pUYqDNCIFD8?t=299
  - manicdee 3y ago
    But these are physically locked to the supercharger. The original comment was claiming a vendor lock-in for the Combo 1 to NACS adaptor that Ford and GM would be providing.
wilg 3y ago
What's your definition of proprietary here? Tesla is publicly committing opening this up. > As a purely electrical and mechanical interface agnostic to use case and communication protocol, NACS is straightforward to adopt. The design and specification files are available for download, and we are actively working with relevant standards bodies to codify Tesla’s charging connector as a public standard. Enjoy. https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s... Is there any evidence of the license fee you mention?
- pedalpete 3y ago
  Proprietary and public are not mutually exclusive. CSIRO (Australia's science and technology research agency) developed WiFi and made the design "public". However, they also held a patent for that technology. After other companies adopted WiFi as the standard, CSIRO went to the biggest users (BroadCom, AT&T, Lenovo, etc) and sued them for patent infringement. [1] There are a few things that Tesla could do here. If they are building all of the charging infrastructure, and other manufacturers use the Tesla proprietary plug, does that mean other chargers can automatically use it as well? If not, that removes those players from the market - but as I understand it, Tesla chargers are way better anyway. I'm sure Ford and GM lawyers are all over the potential implications of this in the future, but I think it's best not to consider public and proprietary as completely orthogonal. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/how-the-aussie-government-invented-wifi-and-sued-its-way-to-430-million/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/how-the-aussie-g...
  - wilg 3y ago
    Sure, they could squeak out of it. But I doubt they’d be after licensing fees for it. Hopefully there’s clear progress on it soon.
    - pedalpete 3y ago
      Yes, I'm sure there are many other ways they will benefit as well. Earlier today, I was hearing about the marketing benefit Tesla will get from everyone going to their chargers. It has 2 benefits. How would Apple have benefitted if everyone who owned a PC had to go to an Apple store to buy a USB cable? Also, Tesla will now build more of their charging network, putting their brand in more places. So, just in the marketing alone, it's a huge win for Tesla.
amstan 3y ago
> Imagine if all USB development were hamstrung and required to go through an Apple approval process, and every device you bought had to pay the Apple tax for a lightning port? Which one? Thunderbolt/USB4 (which pretty much still requires intel only solutions/chips) How about HDMI? ;)
rasz 3y ago
>replace an open standard doesnt it require licensing patents from Qualcomm to implement?
cavisne 3y ago
Maybe because they have actually used an electric car? CCS is not fit for purpose, even more so the CCS chargers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0RAjJ1PKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0RAjJ1PKQ They are absolute garbage hardware with a clunky, fragile connector. And the only company deploying them at scale is doing so because they (VW) were forced to when settling Dieselgate.
rossjudson 3y ago
In the spirit of assuming good intent...what the heck are you talking about? The NACS standard is public, and any auto or charger manufacturer is free to equip them, or make as many as they'd like. Then there's the separate issue of whether or not a given car will communicate with a charger -- that is using the CCS standard, which is managed by a standards group. So you have a free connector design, the ability to anybody and their dog to make adapters (although you probably shouldn't use a dog-designed adaptor), and the important part (the charging protocol) being controlled by the consortium you seem enamored by. Tesla has already said their charging network will become EV-agnostic, making that an open standard. You have to be strangely self-centered to proclaim that you can't understand why people are excited, and somewhat unwilling to read.
m463 3y ago
De facto standards can still win because of early entrance into the market, tesla in this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_war I also think about other standards that went the proprietary way, like DirectX over OpenGL. that said, tesla has done a really GOOD job. Their superchargers are everywhere, they have a many stalls at each location and they charge quickly.
jillesvangurp 3y ago
What open standard? CCS is neither open nor a very well defined standard. Think patents, licensing, and lot's of car and charger specific behavior and weirdness, endless software glitches, etc. Design by committee stuff that the likes of VW, Mercedes, etc. came up with years ago. Let's just say it's not very good. It's why non Tesla chargers are such a compatibility mess. There are a few emerging standards like plug & charge and a mess of ISO and other specifications. So, things are slowly improving but there are still lots of issues with cars and chargers not being compatible with each other, weird payment processes and complexity, enormous testing overhead to deal with all the silly hacks, workarounds, bugs, etc. CCS is a bit of a train wreck as a standard and it's a bit user hostile. And very much a work in progress. The Tesla ecosystem predates all of that and is un-apologetically a Tesla ecosystem that has been running smoothly for many years that has none of those issues. While other vendors insisted EVs were a fad, Tesla actually invested in lots of chargers which is why they dominate the market. The Tesla charging experience is best in class in this industry. It is a standard in its own right as well. Tesla positions NACS as an alternative to CCS. And like CCS, you can license it in order to use it and it is well specified. Ford and GM just chose to license NACS in addition to CCS to enable a better charging experience for their users. Nothing wrong with that. I'd say, more vendors will probably do this and that would effectively make it an industry standard just like CCS is. All an industry standard is is different companies agreeing on some specifications and signing licensing agreements with each other. I think instead of governments dictating half broken specifications as standards or endorsing this or that consortium, it's better to just let the industry sort things out by itself.
olliecornelia 3y ago
People are excited because like Lightning vs. Micro USB the proprietary connector doesn’t suck shit.
Drblessing 3y ago
Free market

guardiangod 3y ago

What's awful about the deal? 1. Tesla already opened up the NACS connector for others to use. We don't know the detail yet but the license fee is probably minimal if Ford and GM agree to join. 2. the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS, with design deficiencies that are more or less not fixable. 3. Your USB example would be more like manufacturers sticking with Serial port (with manual configuration and payment done by the user) vs plug-and-play USB 1.0 (still a pain but it's a huge improvement.) 4. Tesla has a larger and better charging infrastructure than EA etc. What's wrong with giving infrastructure subsidies to companies who proved they have a superior product? Or do you think that everyone deserves a piece of the pie, regardless of their technical competency?

fnimick 3y ago
> Tesla already opened up the NACS connector for others to use. We don't know the detail yet but the license fee is probably minimal if Ford and GM agree to join. Any licensing fee paid to a single company is unacceptable for what is described as an "open standard." > the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS Sure, it's bigger, but how is that a problem? It's not like you carry it with you. Nobody I know has ever had an issue physically working with it, including people 70+ years old. > Tesla has a larger and better charging infrastructure than EA etc. What's wrong with giving infrastructure subsidies to companies who proved they have a superior product? Or do you think that everyone deserves a piece of the pie, regardless of their technical competency? I have a big problem with companies getting infrastructure subsidies that they then use to rent-seek in the market and force other companies to pay them fees for access to publicly-funded infrastructure, yes. I'm not saying subsidies have to be given equally, but subsidies should absolutely not be given to companies that limit the product of that subsidy (charging) based on licensing for profit.
- guardiangod 3y ago
  Well good news then since Tesla is "The design and specification files are available for download, and we are actively working with relevant standards bodies to codify Tesla’s charging connector as a public standard. Enjoy." https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s... I do agree that the connector needs to be a public standard and the licensing fee needs to be kept to a minimal. (I am against free solely to cover the cost of standard validation similar to WiFi. As we see from USB-C, having 1000 companies of various quality developing charging cable is a disaster, but now it's 400V 500Amp connector.)
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > […] with relevant standards bodies to codify Tesla’s charging connector as a public standard. Enjoy." And who is/are the "relevant standards bodies"? SAE? IEC? Other?
    - Moto7451 3y ago
      I’d assume both since SAE is important for North America and IEC for Europe. The Type 2 connector references the Type 1 standard for communication, so cross referencing is also likely here.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Just a cautionary note: Steve Jobs made the same "we're working on a standard" promise for FaceTime when he announced the iPhone 4. We're up to the iPhone 14 and it hasn't happened.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      To be fair he died. Jobs was known for personally seeing things through sometimes but it required ultimately him to make sure it got done
    - remir 3y ago
throw0101b 3y ago
> 1. Tesla already opened up the NACS connector for others to use. We don't know the detail yet but the license fee is probably minimal if Ford and GM agree to join. So if I want to purchase a NACS charger for my house, besides Tesla, what are my options? > 2. the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS, with design deficiencies that are more or less not fixable. Besides size apparently, what are these "design deficiencies" that you speak of?
- pnpnp 3y ago
  Tesla is in the process of ratifying it as an open standard. Other manufacturers will be forthcoming, but Tesla is it at the moment. It’s kind of the chicken and egg problem, but should work itself out since they seem adamant about making it a free, open standard.
  - fnimick 3y ago
    > Tesla is in the process of ratifying it as an open standard. You'll forgive me if I don't believe them, considering their last PR release pre-2021 about it being an "open standard" included the fine print of Tesla gaining permanent access to all of your IP if you used it.
    - pnpnp 3y ago
      The announcement is more recent than that: https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s...
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > Tesla is in the process of ratifying it as an open standard. What does this mean? Who is doing the ratification? SAE? IEC? Other?
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  Lectron has one, although I don't know if it's as good as Tesla's
CameronNemo 3y ago
Tesla has a larger and better charging infrastructure than EA etc. What's wrong with giving infrastructure subsidies to companies who proved they have a superior product? Or do you think that everyone deserves a piece of the pie, regardless of their technical competency? Tesla's larger network is just classic first mover advantage and output setting. Not an indication their (charging) product is "technically superior".
- redwood 3y ago
  They've had first mover advantage for years paving the way for the industry... for everyone else.. it's not preordained that something like this will happen and sometimes credit is due
  - CameronNemo 3y ago
    Who said anything about credit. You were implying the Tesla connector is technically superior using flawed logic.
HWR_14 3y ago
The EU and the US having different charging plugs, as one major issue.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  Even with CCS, the EU and US have different plugs. The EU plug is much better.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
  why does it matter? very few cars drive from us to eu
  - ranguna 3y ago
    It matters for car manufatctors, it's one more thing that forces them to have separate assembly lines for both regions.
    - chrisbolt 3y ago
      “separate assembly lines” is a bit of an exaggeration.
    - frumper 3y ago
      Many countries have slight differences per vehicle. The charging connector seems pretty minor compared to driving on the left side of the road.
- Tagbert 3y ago
  Japan, Korea, and China also have different charging standards within their countries. It is probably a minor annoyance for the manufacturers but other than that, what is the problem? Vehicles can rarely be moved from one regulation zone to another and there are often remediations that need to be made.

jvanderbot 3y ago

Wait until you hear about Bluetooth. Or HDMI. Open standards with nominal fees are pretty standard.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throw0101b 3y ago
> Wait until you hear about Bluetooth. Or HDMI. You mean the organizations/standards that are run by non-profits where multiple competitors get together and hash things out so that no one company has a leg up on another?
- amstan 3y ago
  And where if you have a non-computer device, having a HDMI port forces you to not have any other ports due to licensing. Ever wonder why most TVs and Home Theater Receivers do not come with DP ports?
  - redox99 3y ago
    Source?
  - vel0city 3y ago
    I have many devices which have HDMI, Displayport, DVI, component, and more. Some with SDI as well. Home theater receivers use HDMI because the vast majority of things a home user is going to use with it also uses HDMI.
  - manicdee 3y ago
    That's related to HDCP rather than HDMI. Though it does mean that any video you move to a non-HDCP monitor ends up being just a grey rectangle.
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > Ever wonder why most TVs and Home Theater Receivers do not come with DP ports? Legacy and network effects: home A/V has HDMI because HDMI is on all home A/V equipment. At this point you can probably have either/both and things would work fine. One technical distinction for HDMI is perhaps having CEC.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Good for consumers and awful for the industry. Having an EV with no charging network sucks.

wnissen 3y ago
Exactly. I just took a rented Kia Niro EV on a road trip to the eastern Sierra. I was so, so jealous of the Tesla charger network. I had to download apps for Electrify America, EV-Go, and ChargePoint, and had to use them all.
7e 3y ago
It will be bad for consumers too. Tesla is going to overcharge non-Tesla EVs to subsidize Tesla owners’ charging. And when there is an hour long queue at the Supercharger, you will need to buy a clunky adapter in advance, and hope you didn’t lose it, to use other nearby networks.
- rossjudson 3y ago
  You seem to be ignoring the fact that charger network operators can use the connector as well. I'm not sure why you're ignoring that.

bequanna 3y ago

Tesla took enormous risk building out a charging network and designing hardware. They aren’t entitled to gouge but please explain why they shouldn’t be allowed to profit from being a huge first mover?

Drblessing 3y ago
shhh you're making a rational free market argument in HN

leesec 3y ago

It's incredible for the industry, most of these non-Tesla EV's were effectively unusable outside daily use due to poor charging infrastructure. Now they're not, it's great.

Arainach 3y ago
Incredible for the industry would be requiring a standard connector for all brands so that Tesla would switch its charging stations to the standard connector. This has worked just fine in Europe.
- leesec 3y ago
  They would still have to build out a charging infrastructure tho wouldn't they? This skips that step for now, they can still build out there own standard if they'd like
  - vel0city 3y ago
    I shouldn't be beholden to a car manufacturer for charging my car. Imagine if all gas stations were Ford stations.
    - _ea1k 3y ago
      It is a legitimate concern, tbh. But there's nothing stopping third parties from adding this plug to their stations. Most support two cables, so doing both isn't a big lift.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        > But there's nothing stopping third parties from adding this plug to their stations. Sure seems like there are seeing as how finding a dispenser with both CCS and Tesla is like finding a unicorn. You'd think someone would have been rolling them out years ago alongside Tesla.

wilg 3y ago

> Tesla to CCS adapters, which are vendor locked to only charge GM and Ford vehicles What adapters are you talking about here? I can't figure out if this is real. Edit: Oh, you're talking about the proposed adapter as part of this deal.

judge2020 3y ago
Technically these already exist with the Magic Dock on some superchargers, and for these it's available to all CCS1 cars. Here's a video of it: https://youtu.be/pUYqDNCIFD8?t=299 https://youtu.be/pUYqDNCIFD8?t=299
- manicdee 3y ago
  But these are physically locked to the supercharger. The original comment was claiming a vendor lock-in for the Combo 1 to NACS adaptor that Ford and GM would be providing.

wilg 3y ago

What's your definition of proprietary here? Tesla is publicly committing opening this up. > As a purely electrical and mechanical interface agnostic to use case and communication protocol, NACS is straightforward to adopt. The design and specification files are available for download, and we are actively working with relevant standards bodies to codify Tesla’s charging connector as a public standard. Enjoy. https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s... Is there any evidence of the license fee you mention?

pedalpete 3y ago
Proprietary and public are not mutually exclusive. CSIRO (Australia's science and technology research agency) developed WiFi and made the design "public". However, they also held a patent for that technology. After other companies adopted WiFi as the standard, CSIRO went to the biggest users (BroadCom, AT&T, Lenovo, etc) and sued them for patent infringement. [1] There are a few things that Tesla could do here. If they are building all of the charging infrastructure, and other manufacturers use the Tesla proprietary plug, does that mean other chargers can automatically use it as well? If not, that removes those players from the market - but as I understand it, Tesla chargers are way better anyway. I'm sure Ford and GM lawyers are all over the potential implications of this in the future, but I think it's best not to consider public and proprietary as completely orthogonal. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/how-the-aussie-government-invented-wifi-and-sued-its-way-to-430-million/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/how-the-aussie-g...
- wilg 3y ago
  Sure, they could squeak out of it. But I doubt they’d be after licensing fees for it. Hopefully there’s clear progress on it soon.
  - pedalpete 3y ago
    Yes, I'm sure there are many other ways they will benefit as well. Earlier today, I was hearing about the marketing benefit Tesla will get from everyone going to their chargers. It has 2 benefits. How would Apple have benefitted if everyone who owned a PC had to go to an Apple store to buy a USB cable? Also, Tesla will now build more of their charging network, putting their brand in more places. So, just in the marketing alone, it's a huge win for Tesla.

amstan 3y ago

> Imagine if all USB development were hamstrung and required to go through an Apple approval process, and every device you bought had to pay the Apple tax for a lightning port? Which one? Thunderbolt/USB4 (which pretty much still requires intel only solutions/chips) How about HDMI? ;)

rasz 3y ago

>replace an open standard doesnt it require licensing patents from Qualcomm to implement?

cavisne 3y ago

Maybe because they have actually used an electric car? CCS is not fit for purpose, even more so the CCS chargers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0RAjJ1PKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0RAjJ1PKQ They are absolute garbage hardware with a clunky, fragile connector. And the only company deploying them at scale is doing so because they (VW) were forced to when settling Dieselgate.

rossjudson 3y ago

In the spirit of assuming good intent...what the heck are you talking about? The NACS standard is public, and any auto or charger manufacturer is free to equip them, or make as many as they'd like. Then there's the separate issue of whether or not a given car will communicate with a charger -- that is using the CCS standard, which is managed by a standards group. So you have a free connector design, the ability to anybody and their dog to make adapters (although you probably shouldn't use a dog-designed adaptor), and the important part (the charging protocol) being controlled by the consortium you seem enamored by. Tesla has already said their charging network will become EV-agnostic, making that an open standard. You have to be strangely self-centered to proclaim that you can't understand why people are excited, and somewhat unwilling to read.

m463 3y ago

De facto standards can still win because of early entrance into the market, tesla in this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_war I also think about other standards that went the proprietary way, like DirectX over OpenGL. that said, tesla has done a really GOOD job. Their superchargers are everywhere, they have a many stalls at each location and they charge quickly.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

What open standard? CCS is neither open nor a very well defined standard. Think patents, licensing, and lot's of car and charger specific behavior and weirdness, endless software glitches, etc. Design by committee stuff that the likes of VW, Mercedes, etc. came up with years ago. Let's just say it's not very good. It's why non Tesla chargers are such a compatibility mess. There are a few emerging standards like plug & charge and a mess of ISO and other specifications. So, things are slowly improving but there are still lots of issues with cars and chargers not being compatible with each other, weird payment processes and complexity, enormous testing overhead to deal with all the silly hacks, workarounds, bugs, etc. CCS is a bit of a train wreck as a standard and it's a bit user hostile. And very much a work in progress. The Tesla ecosystem predates all of that and is un-apologetically a Tesla ecosystem that has been running smoothly for many years that has none of those issues. While other vendors insisted EVs were a fad, Tesla actually invested in lots of chargers which is why they dominate the market. The Tesla charging experience is best in class in this industry. It is a standard in its own right as well. Tesla positions NACS as an alternative to CCS. And like CCS, you can license it in order to use it and it is well specified. Ford and GM just chose to license NACS in addition to CCS to enable a better charging experience for their users. Nothing wrong with that. I'd say, more vendors will probably do this and that would effectively make it an industry standard just like CCS is. All an industry standard is is different companies agreeing on some specifications and signing licensing agreements with each other. I think instead of governments dictating half broken specifications as standards or endorsing this or that consortium, it's better to just let the industry sort things out by itself.

olliecornelia 3y ago

People are excited because like Lightning vs. Micro USB the proprietary connector doesn’t suck shit.

Drblessing 3y ago

Free market