7 ms·

Good. People who buy things should own the things they buy.

by HWR_14 3y ago

carstenhag 3y ago
But they don't own the license to use the software (Full Self Driving). I agree with you about the heated seats though.
- blacksmith_tb 3y ago
  Hmm, is the code already present? Would enabling it be putting unexpected load on Tesla's servers? If it's just a local feature (like the heated seats) that's shipped turned off, I'd say enabling it doesn't feel especially different to me (trusting it to drive you around of course is different).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tdiggity 3y ago
    There is some real-time data being downloaded while navigating. https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1641450299285209088 https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1641450299285209088
  - denlekke 3y ago
    i dont have a settled opinion on software unlockable stuff. in general i think users should be able to hack it without repercussions. however, thinking about the concepts you present i had some hypotheticals. if tesla does all the self driving processing outside the car, it feels a little reasonable to pay them for their processing. but what if they just moved the heat seating processing out of the car (comparing the actual temperature to the desired temperature and modulating the power) ? that would seem unreasonable to me because the car is fully capable of doing it. So then what if tesla ships an intentionally terrible processor so that most data processing happens outside the car ? maybe it's reasonable again . .. no point to this, just thinking out loud
    - rvnx 3y ago
      Software lockable stuff sounds like in-app purchases. Should unlocking this content become legal ?
  - judge2020 3y ago
    Self driving has an ongoing cost to Tesla for them to keep it updated and to improving upon its performance. It’s only a subscription because it doesn’t make financial sense to purchase it outright for $15k up-front (with a 6% interest rate, you’d need to own the car for 102 months to pay less than paying for the FSD subscription for those 102 months, and it costs more per month in your loan than the subscription https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSjfzhdfj0FUp8jhSdchyuj0KJVtUKJrELjyRJG9eCCYs916YwF0AWotV4hY4e-3Dn7RgmbnDnNLgV2/pubhtml?gid=699400202&single=true https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSjfzhdfj0FU... )
    - blacksmith_tb 3y ago
      Sure, though that highlights why someone would be interested in unlocking it (even without updates going forward). Personally I think I'd want mission-critical sw to be as current as possible, I can see someone arguing they should be able to run what's already sitting there on the computer in their car.
      - code_runner 3y ago
        the software stack is different as far as I know. if you buy FSD and sign up for the beta program, you get a fairly massive software package downloaded. it is not instant and already on the device. of all the things to hate about elon, tesla, and this whole concept of locking down features in a car, FSD really isn't one of them, as its just a software issue and its a totally separate package that isn't core to the operational capability of the car's components.
- babypuncher 3y ago
  Here's my attitude: The consumer should have complete control over any hardware and software in any product they buy. If a manufacturer wants to lock features behind a paywall, that is fine. However, they shouldn't be allowed to complain when consumers modify the thing they bought to get around that paywall. If Tesla really wants to make sure absolutely no one gets FSD or heated seats without paying, then they should make a point of only including the relevant hardware or software in the vehicle at the time of purchase.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Yep, there would be issue at all if they sold the car and you install FSD with a download and a license key but if it comes with the car that's on you if/when the owner breaks the lock they own to access it. If you sell me a house with a safe in it and want to charge me for the code that's fine, but if get a welder to just break the door open you have no right to tell me no.
  - denlekke 3y ago
    in general you would think this is just a DRM race then between tesla and unlockers. however, with so many of tesla's features existing outside the car, tesla has a lot of leverage. a music cd or blu ray is generally finished content. a tesla is constantly getting software patches and most owners use the app which i'm sure is going through teslas servers is it reasonable for tesla to lock you out of the app or software updates if the software hash doesn't match what they provide ? would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ?
    - tadfisher 3y ago
      > is it reasonable for tesla to lock you out of the app or software updates if the software hash doesn't match what they provide ? Of course, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that. > would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ? There are laws governing this exact thing (in the US it's the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act), and in general Tesla would have to prove your unauthorized modification caused the failure which you're claiming under warranty.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  I'm ok with charging subscription fees for services with ongoing costs (things like cell connectivity for remote monitoring or something), and I'm ok with charging one time fees for unlocking features that are already there, since it allows for price discrimination, cheaper and more efficient manufacturing, and better prices to the customer overall (potentially at least). But the flip side of that is that...if you put it on the car that the customer bought, and they figure out how to unlock it.....well good for them and sucks for you. This kind of thing _should_ 100% be legal (if it isn't already, and my understanding is that it is). If you want to _100% guarantee_ that they don't get a feature without paying for it, then I guess pony up for the more complicated manufacturing process where it isn't installed on some models. As for "they didn't pay for the license"....no....you gave it to them without asking them to sign a license agreement. They paid you money, and you gave them a product. How they use it is up to them.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    So contract law and copyright aren't a thing because people don't want it to be? You own the hardware (you can shuck the car, part it out, mod it), you don't own the code it runs. By all means, root the car and take the features you want, but don't be shocked when Tesla either a) nukes the features remotely or b) sues you. You are taking issue with an existing legal and contract law framework. No one is forcing you to buy a Tesla and be bound by agreements with them around their IP. Would you support a software company nuking someone's license to operate their software remotely if the customer defeated a license module they didn't pay for? (registered security researcher for my rooted Teslas)
    - MostlyStable 3y ago
      I'm not sure how contract law is relevant at all. As for copyright, they aren't copying or distributing it in any way. If you give me the code on it, I am allowed to execute it as I see fit. The only way I see copyright issues is if they weren't actually shipping the code and I had to pirate it and side load it. Which is a completely different issue than is being discussed. If you sell me a book, I'm not allowed to copy that book and sell those copies. I am allowed to chop it up and and repaste my own copy however I see fit. If I'm wrong and current copyright law does not permit this kind of thing, then current copyright law is bad and should be changed.
- wredue 3y ago
  Haven’t we already been through this type of shit with EA? Back in, I think it was bad company 2, EA delivered content on disk, but locked it behind a paywall. Then they got their wrists slapped for locking already available content behind a paywall. Softlocking hardware that exists in the car (heated seats) behind a paywall seems to be the exact same thing, and is not legal everywhere.
- px43 3y ago
  The entire concept of "intellectual property" is an attempted theft of our own physical property, and I for one don't appreciate it. I understand that my values on this don't align with much of the rest of the legal systems of the world, but the absurdity of intellectual property is never more clear than when some far away company attempts to assert ownership over something that you use every day.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- semiquaver 3y ago
  The article claims this is not patchable but it also says that the hackers have not yet unlocked FSD with this technique. I strongly suspect that the “unpatchable” part would not apply to any potential FSD unlock because of the large amount of server-side functionality involved for FSD. Server side components aren’t going to be easily fooled by a car-local exploit. Knowing Tesla, even if they can’t patch the vulnerability OTA I would be very concerned about their being able to detect the use of this bypass and remote-brick cars in response until the customer agrees to bring their car in for a hardware patch. Edit: a now-dead reply says there is no server side functionality whatsoever for FSD. I don’t own a Tesla but find it very unlikely that FSD has not even usage telemetry in what are otherwise highly connected cars.
  - esotericimpl 3y ago
    [dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Zetice 3y ago
Okay great, but now the lowest cost of the car is an extra $10k because the manufacturing just got a lot more complicated as a result of not being able to build every car the same way.
- martin8412 3y ago
  They can't even build two cars the same way everytime, I think we'll be okay.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    That's variance, not intentional.
- tadfisher 3y ago
  Then customers have the choice to purchase a vehicle from a manufacturer with more scruples who is willing to sell those features without charging to "unlock" them.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    ...can you name one? Because every manufacturer does this.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  That sounds like problem of a manufacturer not problem of a user.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    The price of the product being higher isn't a problem for the user?
    - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
      Correct. That's a problem of a manufacturer for not having a competing product.
shagie 3y ago
Does enabling FSD come with any liability / terms of service? If it is backdoor enabled and the vehicle crashes, what is Tesla's liability? If the OTA patches to the system are needed and the car is running the base, unupdated (buggy) build, what is Tesla's liability? Alternatively, if a vehicle is running software that hasn't gone through Tesla's subscription how much of the liability for any software problems will Tesla be able to transfer to the vehicle owner? Hypothetically, if Tesla were licensing 3rd party software and that license was based on installed uses and Tesla was reporting the subscriptions for FSD (rather than sales of the vehicle), what would enabling the software open up Tesla to? Would Tesla then be able to sue the person who unlocked it for the additional licensing costs they incurred?
- eldaisfish 3y ago
  If something is opened or modified without manufacturer consent, there is no question of liability because there is none.
  - joecool1029 3y ago
    Except history hasn't really played out that way. Less serious but Grand Theft Auto had a sex game added to one of their titles that wasn't supposed to be accessible by gamers. People figured out how to unlock it using a modified save file. This ended up in all sorts of legal liability to the company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(minigame) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(minigame)
    - something168581 3y ago
      Hot Coffee is and was an absurd case with absolutely no merit behind it. It only became a large issue because it was a social fad for politicians and mass-media to dogpile "evil gaming companies corrupting poor mindless children", and Rockstar in particular with the GTA series was one of the most popular targets of said social fad.
  - shagie 3y ago
    So if you're using unlocked a version of FSD that has been recalled and don't get an OTA update then any and all faults that may be traced back to FSD even if it was clear that this is a bug in the software (e.g. the reason for the recall) the vehicle owner has full liability? https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/16/tesla-recalls-362758-vehicles-says-full-self-driving-beta-software-may-cause-crashes.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/16/tesla-recalls-362758-vehicle...
grecy 3y ago
I've been thinking about this as a thought experiment lately. Let's say there's two versions of the car. Higher spec has heated seats, lower spec doesn't. Let's say it's a $1000 price difference. At what point below are you ticked off ? Level 1: The higher spec car has the physical seat heaters, all the wiring, all the plugs and all the software. The lower spec car has none of that. (I think this is how cars have always been sold, so it's "normal" and "acceptable" and nobody would complain - they paid $1000 less and got less features.) Level 2: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, but none of the wiring, plugs or software to make it function. (It was cheaper for them to just build the seats with the heater in there, so they did, but it will never "work") Level 3: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat and some wiring, but the main loom doesn't have provision for the high current draw, so it can't work. Level 4: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, all the wiring, but none of the plugs to actually connect it. Level 5: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, all the wiring, all the plugs (so all the physical hardware is there), but the software to turn it on is not present / not licensed. (Note: If you got ticked off at level 5, it's pretty much like buying a brand new MacBook and being ticked off that it can theoretically run Final Cut Pro, but you have to pay to make it work. Surely you gotta pay for software ? )
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Level 6: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater, all the wiring, all plugged in, all the software, and a setting added (for extra production cost) that makes it not work and can't be changed by the car owner. We are talking about this one. The entire thread is about this one, and none of your options even passed through the conversation.
  - code_runner 3y ago
    FSD is more like example 5
  - Kirby64 3y ago
    This is identical to 5, in my view. Its not licensed. Is anyone upset that if you download a version of software that has a "basic" and a "premium" version, but the premium costs more money, that you don't get the premium functionality? Just like you "can't change" whether you get premium functions if you don't pay for it, the same could be said for fsd or seat heaters.
prussian 3y ago
I want to add agreement to this, but to be more precise: people should own the things they buy and artificial (software ) means of locking people out of features shouldn't be allowed.
- shmatt 3y ago
  If you opt out of the heated seat package when you purchase the car, that doesn't mean the manufacturer can't add that hardware in a disabled state. That also doesn't mean you own the heating feature after you opted out That's like asking Intel to fix a processor you overclocked
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    The far better analogy for what Tesla is doing is "it's like Intel preventing you from overclocking your chip". Sure, you should not expect support for your hacked seat warmers.
    - pizzaknife 3y ago
      i came here to say this
  - nvr219 3y ago
    If I paid them money and they gave me hardware (in this case a heated seat) then I can do what I want with it, sucks for them if they don't want me to. They can give me the non-heated seat. And yeah if I brick my car trying to jailbreak it that's on me, fine.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hooverd 3y ago
    Nah, that's like asking Intel to enable two more cores on a two core processor made from a four core binned chip that they also sell four core processors based on. The only difference is software.
hooverd 3y ago
IP has gone too far. We're seeing more and more instances of computers forced into perfectly good physical products for the express purpose of degrading their functionality unless a ransom is paid. Now instead of toggling a relay, you have to go through an entire software stack and license check to heat your seats.
- LesZedCB 3y ago
  which toggles a relay.
samstave 3y ago
I won all my groceries, but once I consume them, they still turn to shit. - I think we need to hold all EV companies "responsible for their shit" So, if you buy a tesla - only tesla should be responsible for recovery from every crash and and turn in. Thus the environmental impact due to the heavy metals and all the plastics made are sole responsible from a closed, boring lopp to hyper the link to the fact that all these materials were made by stars. X.
- samstave 3y ago
  (my point was I PAy/taxxed/etc) for my X-crement... I think my logic is off WRT analogy, but I beleive you get the premise... Can we find a complete model of the impact of the matters which are being affected by the musks? (im not judging musk - I am judging actions... many of these actions suck. IIATAH?
sowbug 3y ago
I enthusiastically endorse this sentiment until I remember I'm a software engineer whose career depends pretty fundamentally on copyright law. As an industry, we sell things that make hardware more useful. That's what software is. But the software we sell* comes with legal restrictions on what the buyer* can and can't do with it. Which means that we're restricting what our customers can do with the hardware that they own. And we do all that for money. *Substitute whatever you think the right terms are for these words (licensor, licensee, borrower, tenant, serf...) If we sold an app on a mobile-phone store, and a h4ck0rz came out with a crack that unlocked the premium features on it, we'd take measures to stifle it (patching the code, increasing the obfuscation, sending a complaint upstream of whoever was distributing it, etc.), and I don't think any of us would think we're bad guys for doing so. We're just trying to feed our families. And I doubt any of us would feel compassion for someone who said they paid for that phone, own its hardware, and can do whatever they want with it including run your paid software for free. Tesla's sin, if any, is that they sold us hardware that's designed to work only with their software. And "their" software could include software they licensed from your company, if you work in their software supply chain. Where is the right line between "my hardware, my rules" and "my software, my rules"?
- snypher 3y ago
  This is probably not productive, but I think the response would be; I bought the software from you so it's mine now.
  - spoiler 3y ago
    Yeah these discussions always give me a bit of cognitive dissonance. On one hand, I like owning my software or content I purchased (talking about DRM) On the other, people expect most things to be a "live service" in terms of updates, which isn't sustainable if you only ever get paid a small onetime fee for your software. If you make the fee large, like Modo/Photoshop did, then it acts as a financial gatekeeper to your product. Even then, I feel like it creates wrong incentives for the product, so I'm not sure it's good either.
    - 3y ago
kevincox 3y ago
Arguably you didn't buy it. Sure you physically own the hardware but you didn't pay for it. Depending on how you look at it the hardware was paid for by: 1. Tesla as a "marketing" expense. They expect that the $50 of hardware will make a significant number of people pay $500 for the feature. If 1/5 people upgrade that is an expected return of $100 for that $50 marketing cost. 2. The people who purchase the heated seat upgrade. It was more cost effective to install the hardware in all cars than to set up a second production line. So if 1/5 people buy this package their effective cost is $250 ($50 * 5 cars) and $250 is Tesla's buffer + profit margin. So the people who pay for this package effectively pay for the hardware in all cars. If you enable this feature for all users both of these no longer exist. So the effective cost goes up which would likely raise the price. (Yes, I know that cost and price aren't directly related).

Good. People who buy things should own the things they buy.

by HWR_14 3y ago

Good. People who buy things should own the things they buy.

carstenhag 3y ago

But they don't own the license to use the software (Full Self Driving). I agree with you about the heated seats though.

blacksmith_tb 3y ago
Hmm, is the code already present? Would enabling it be putting unexpected load on Tesla's servers? If it's just a local feature (like the heated seats) that's shipped turned off, I'd say enabling it doesn't feel especially different to me (trusting it to drive you around of course is different).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tdiggity 3y ago
  There is some real-time data being downloaded while navigating. https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1641450299285209088 https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1641450299285209088
- denlekke 3y ago
  i dont have a settled opinion on software unlockable stuff. in general i think users should be able to hack it without repercussions. however, thinking about the concepts you present i had some hypotheticals. if tesla does all the self driving processing outside the car, it feels a little reasonable to pay them for their processing. but what if they just moved the heat seating processing out of the car (comparing the actual temperature to the desired temperature and modulating the power) ? that would seem unreasonable to me because the car is fully capable of doing it. So then what if tesla ships an intentionally terrible processor so that most data processing happens outside the car ? maybe it's reasonable again . .. no point to this, just thinking out loud
  - rvnx 3y ago
    Software lockable stuff sounds like in-app purchases. Should unlocking this content become legal ?
- judge2020 3y ago
  Self driving has an ongoing cost to Tesla for them to keep it updated and to improving upon its performance. It’s only a subscription because it doesn’t make financial sense to purchase it outright for $15k up-front (with a 6% interest rate, you’d need to own the car for 102 months to pay less than paying for the FSD subscription for those 102 months, and it costs more per month in your loan than the subscription https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSjfzhdfj0FUp8jhSdchyuj0KJVtUKJrELjyRJG9eCCYs916YwF0AWotV4hY4e-3Dn7RgmbnDnNLgV2/pubhtml?gid=699400202&single=true https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSjfzhdfj0FU... )
  - blacksmith_tb 3y ago
    Sure, though that highlights why someone would be interested in unlocking it (even without updates going forward). Personally I think I'd want mission-critical sw to be as current as possible, I can see someone arguing they should be able to run what's already sitting there on the computer in their car.
    - code_runner 3y ago
      the software stack is different as far as I know. if you buy FSD and sign up for the beta program, you get a fairly massive software package downloaded. it is not instant and already on the device. of all the things to hate about elon, tesla, and this whole concept of locking down features in a car, FSD really isn't one of them, as its just a software issue and its a totally separate package that isn't core to the operational capability of the car's components.
babypuncher 3y ago
Here's my attitude: The consumer should have complete control over any hardware and software in any product they buy. If a manufacturer wants to lock features behind a paywall, that is fine. However, they shouldn't be allowed to complain when consumers modify the thing they bought to get around that paywall. If Tesla really wants to make sure absolutely no one gets FSD or heated seats without paying, then they should make a point of only including the relevant hardware or software in the vehicle at the time of purchase.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Yep, there would be issue at all if they sold the car and you install FSD with a download and a license key but if it comes with the car that's on you if/when the owner breaks the lock they own to access it. If you sell me a house with a safe in it and want to charge me for the code that's fine, but if get a welder to just break the door open you have no right to tell me no.
- denlekke 3y ago
  in general you would think this is just a DRM race then between tesla and unlockers. however, with so many of tesla's features existing outside the car, tesla has a lot of leverage. a music cd or blu ray is generally finished content. a tesla is constantly getting software patches and most owners use the app which i'm sure is going through teslas servers is it reasonable for tesla to lock you out of the app or software updates if the software hash doesn't match what they provide ? would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ?
  - tadfisher 3y ago
    > is it reasonable for tesla to lock you out of the app or software updates if the software hash doesn't match what they provide ? Of course, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that. > would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ? There are laws governing this exact thing (in the US it's the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act), and in general Tesla would have to prove your unauthorized modification caused the failure which you're claiming under warranty.
MostlyStable 3y ago
I'm ok with charging subscription fees for services with ongoing costs (things like cell connectivity for remote monitoring or something), and I'm ok with charging one time fees for unlocking features that are already there, since it allows for price discrimination, cheaper and more efficient manufacturing, and better prices to the customer overall (potentially at least). But the flip side of that is that...if you put it on the car that the customer bought, and they figure out how to unlock it.....well good for them and sucks for you. This kind of thing _should_ 100% be legal (if it isn't already, and my understanding is that it is). If you want to _100% guarantee_ that they don't get a feature without paying for it, then I guess pony up for the more complicated manufacturing process where it isn't installed on some models. As for "they didn't pay for the license"....no....you gave it to them without asking them to sign a license agreement. They paid you money, and you gave them a product. How they use it is up to them.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  So contract law and copyright aren't a thing because people don't want it to be? You own the hardware (you can shuck the car, part it out, mod it), you don't own the code it runs. By all means, root the car and take the features you want, but don't be shocked when Tesla either a) nukes the features remotely or b) sues you. You are taking issue with an existing legal and contract law framework. No one is forcing you to buy a Tesla and be bound by agreements with them around their IP. Would you support a software company nuking someone's license to operate their software remotely if the customer defeated a license module they didn't pay for? (registered security researcher for my rooted Teslas)
  - MostlyStable 3y ago
    I'm not sure how contract law is relevant at all. As for copyright, they aren't copying or distributing it in any way. If you give me the code on it, I am allowed to execute it as I see fit. The only way I see copyright issues is if they weren't actually shipping the code and I had to pirate it and side load it. Which is a completely different issue than is being discussed. If you sell me a book, I'm not allowed to copy that book and sell those copies. I am allowed to chop it up and and repaste my own copy however I see fit. If I'm wrong and current copyright law does not permit this kind of thing, then current copyright law is bad and should be changed.
wredue 3y ago
Haven’t we already been through this type of shit with EA? Back in, I think it was bad company 2, EA delivered content on disk, but locked it behind a paywall. Then they got their wrists slapped for locking already available content behind a paywall. Softlocking hardware that exists in the car (heated seats) behind a paywall seems to be the exact same thing, and is not legal everywhere.
px43 3y ago
The entire concept of "intellectual property" is an attempted theft of our own physical property, and I for one don't appreciate it. I understand that my values on this don't align with much of the rest of the legal systems of the world, but the absurdity of intellectual property is never more clear than when some far away company attempts to assert ownership over something that you use every day.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
semiquaver 3y ago
The article claims this is not patchable but it also says that the hackers have not yet unlocked FSD with this technique. I strongly suspect that the “unpatchable” part would not apply to any potential FSD unlock because of the large amount of server-side functionality involved for FSD. Server side components aren’t going to be easily fooled by a car-local exploit. Knowing Tesla, even if they can’t patch the vulnerability OTA I would be very concerned about their being able to detect the use of this bypass and remote-brick cars in response until the customer agrees to bring their car in for a hardware patch. Edit: a now-dead reply says there is no server side functionality whatsoever for FSD. I don’t own a Tesla but find it very unlikely that FSD has not even usage telemetry in what are otherwise highly connected cars.
- esotericimpl 3y ago
  [dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Zetice 3y ago

Okay great, but now the lowest cost of the car is an extra $10k because the manufacturing just got a lot more complicated as a result of not being able to build every car the same way.

martin8412 3y ago
They can't even build two cars the same way everytime, I think we'll be okay.
- Zetice 3y ago
  That's variance, not intentional.
tadfisher 3y ago
Then customers have the choice to purchase a vehicle from a manufacturer with more scruples who is willing to sell those features without charging to "unlock" them.
- Zetice 3y ago
  ...can you name one? Because every manufacturer does this.
TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
That sounds like problem of a manufacturer not problem of a user.
- Zetice 3y ago
  The price of the product being higher isn't a problem for the user?
  - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
    Correct. That's a problem of a manufacturer for not having a competing product.

shagie 3y ago

Does enabling FSD come with any liability / terms of service? If it is backdoor enabled and the vehicle crashes, what is Tesla's liability? If the OTA patches to the system are needed and the car is running the base, unupdated (buggy) build, what is Tesla's liability? Alternatively, if a vehicle is running software that hasn't gone through Tesla's subscription how much of the liability for any software problems will Tesla be able to transfer to the vehicle owner? Hypothetically, if Tesla were licensing 3rd party software and that license was based on installed uses and Tesla was reporting the subscriptions for FSD (rather than sales of the vehicle), what would enabling the software open up Tesla to? Would Tesla then be able to sue the person who unlocked it for the additional licensing costs they incurred?

eldaisfish 3y ago
If something is opened or modified without manufacturer consent, there is no question of liability because there is none.
- joecool1029 3y ago
  Except history hasn't really played out that way. Less serious but Grand Theft Auto had a sex game added to one of their titles that wasn't supposed to be accessible by gamers. People figured out how to unlock it using a modified save file. This ended up in all sorts of legal liability to the company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(minigame) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(minigame)
  - something168581 3y ago
    Hot Coffee is and was an absurd case with absolutely no merit behind it. It only became a large issue because it was a social fad for politicians and mass-media to dogpile "evil gaming companies corrupting poor mindless children", and Rockstar in particular with the GTA series was one of the most popular targets of said social fad.
- shagie 3y ago
  So if you're using unlocked a version of FSD that has been recalled and don't get an OTA update then any and all faults that may be traced back to FSD even if it was clear that this is a bug in the software (e.g. the reason for the recall) the vehicle owner has full liability? https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/16/tesla-recalls-362758-vehicles-says-full-self-driving-beta-software-may-cause-crashes.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/16/tesla-recalls-362758-vehicle...

grecy 3y ago

I've been thinking about this as a thought experiment lately. Let's say there's two versions of the car. Higher spec has heated seats, lower spec doesn't. Let's say it's a $1000 price difference. At what point below are you ticked off ? Level 1: The higher spec car has the physical seat heaters, all the wiring, all the plugs and all the software. The lower spec car has none of that. (I think this is how cars have always been sold, so it's "normal" and "acceptable" and nobody would complain - they paid $1000 less and got less features.) Level 2: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, but none of the wiring, plugs or software to make it function. (It was cheaper for them to just build the seats with the heater in there, so they did, but it will never "work") Level 3: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat and some wiring, but the main loom doesn't have provision for the high current draw, so it can't work. Level 4: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, all the wiring, but none of the plugs to actually connect it. Level 5: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, all the wiring, all the plugs (so all the physical hardware is there), but the software to turn it on is not present / not licensed. (Note: If you got ticked off at level 5, it's pretty much like buying a brand new MacBook and being ticked off that it can theoretically run Final Cut Pro, but you have to pay to make it work. Surely you gotta pay for software ? )

marcosdumay 3y ago
Level 6: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater, all the wiring, all plugged in, all the software, and a setting added (for extra production cost) that makes it not work and can't be changed by the car owner. We are talking about this one. The entire thread is about this one, and none of your options even passed through the conversation.
- code_runner 3y ago
  FSD is more like example 5
- Kirby64 3y ago
  This is identical to 5, in my view. Its not licensed. Is anyone upset that if you download a version of software that has a "basic" and a "premium" version, but the premium costs more money, that you don't get the premium functionality? Just like you "can't change" whether you get premium functions if you don't pay for it, the same could be said for fsd or seat heaters.

prussian 3y ago

I want to add agreement to this, but to be more precise: people should own the things they buy and artificial (software ) means of locking people out of features shouldn't be allowed.

shmatt 3y ago
If you opt out of the heated seat package when you purchase the car, that doesn't mean the manufacturer can't add that hardware in a disabled state. That also doesn't mean you own the heating feature after you opted out That's like asking Intel to fix a processor you overclocked
- HWR_14 3y ago
  The far better analogy for what Tesla is doing is "it's like Intel preventing you from overclocking your chip". Sure, you should not expect support for your hacked seat warmers.
  - pizzaknife 3y ago
    i came here to say this
- nvr219 3y ago
  If I paid them money and they gave me hardware (in this case a heated seat) then I can do what I want with it, sucks for them if they don't want me to. They can give me the non-heated seat. And yeah if I brick my car trying to jailbreak it that's on me, fine.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hooverd 3y ago
  Nah, that's like asking Intel to enable two more cores on a two core processor made from a four core binned chip that they also sell four core processors based on. The only difference is software.

hooverd 3y ago

IP has gone too far. We're seeing more and more instances of computers forced into perfectly good physical products for the express purpose of degrading their functionality unless a ransom is paid. Now instead of toggling a relay, you have to go through an entire software stack and license check to heat your seats.

LesZedCB 3y ago
which toggles a relay.

samstave 3y ago

I won all my groceries, but once I consume them, they still turn to shit. - I think we need to hold all EV companies "responsible for their shit" So, if you buy a tesla - only tesla should be responsible for recovery from every crash and and turn in. Thus the environmental impact due to the heavy metals and all the plastics made are sole responsible from a closed, boring lopp to hyper the link to the fact that all these materials were made by stars. X.

samstave 3y ago
(my point was I PAy/taxxed/etc) for my X-crement... I think my logic is off WRT analogy, but I beleive you get the premise... Can we find a complete model of the impact of the matters which are being affected by the musks? (im not judging musk - I am judging actions... many of these actions suck. IIATAH?

sowbug 3y ago

I enthusiastically endorse this sentiment until I remember I'm a software engineer whose career depends pretty fundamentally on copyright law. As an industry, we sell things that make hardware more useful. That's what software is. But the software we sell* comes with legal restrictions on what the buyer* can and can't do with it. Which means that we're restricting what our customers can do with the hardware that they own. And we do all that for money. *Substitute whatever you think the right terms are for these words (licensor, licensee, borrower, tenant, serf...) If we sold an app on a mobile-phone store, and a h4ck0rz came out with a crack that unlocked the premium features on it, we'd take measures to stifle it (patching the code, increasing the obfuscation, sending a complaint upstream of whoever was distributing it, etc.), and I don't think any of us would think we're bad guys for doing so. We're just trying to feed our families. And I doubt any of us would feel compassion for someone who said they paid for that phone, own its hardware, and can do whatever they want with it including run your paid software for free. Tesla's sin, if any, is that they sold us hardware that's designed to work only with their software. And "their" software could include software they licensed from your company, if you work in their software supply chain. Where is the right line between "my hardware, my rules" and "my software, my rules"?

snypher 3y ago
This is probably not productive, but I think the response would be; I bought the software from you so it's mine now.
- spoiler 3y ago
  Yeah these discussions always give me a bit of cognitive dissonance. On one hand, I like owning my software or content I purchased (talking about DRM) On the other, people expect most things to be a "live service" in terms of updates, which isn't sustainable if you only ever get paid a small onetime fee for your software. If you make the fee large, like Modo/Photoshop did, then it acts as a financial gatekeeper to your product. Even then, I feel like it creates wrong incentives for the product, so I'm not sure it's good either.
  - 3y ago

kevincox 3y ago

Arguably you didn't buy it. Sure you physically own the hardware but you didn't pay for it. Depending on how you look at it the hardware was paid for by: 1. Tesla as a "marketing" expense. They expect that the $50 of hardware will make a significant number of people pay $500 for the feature. If 1/5 people upgrade that is an expected return of $100 for that $50 marketing cost. 2. The people who purchase the heated seat upgrade. It was more cost effective to install the hardware in all cars than to set up a second production line. So if 1/5 people buy this package their effective cost is $250 ($50 * 5 cars) and $250 is Tesla's buffer + profit margin. So the people who pay for this package effectively pay for the hardware in all cars. If you enable this feature for all users both of these no longer exist. So the effective cost goes up which would likely raise the price. (Yes, I know that cost and price aren't directly related).